“It affects how cases get litigated in a big way,” said Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian public interest law firm. "I saw someone say 'We're all class action attorneys now, right?' because that's all we've got."

Boden joins “Cases and Controversies,” along with Georgia State University College of Law professor Eric Segall to discuss the recent term, its rulings, and the justices that stood out the most.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also talk about the court’s recent emergency order that allows President Donald Trump to move forward with plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The court split 6-3 along ideological lines in opinions June 27 that limited the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions and gave parents the right to opt their children out of classroom instruction that violates their religious beliefs.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler dig into the term end blockbusters and discuss the powerful dissents that accompanied them. In one, Justice Sonia Sotomayor fired back at a majority ruling from Samuel Alito by reprinting a children's book in what it appeared to be its entirety.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler get into the details of this opinion on the latest episode of their podcast. They also talk about the other opinions we got from the court this week, including one in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an impassioned dissent on the issue of standing.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The court has 21 cases left after releasing its latest batch of opinions. Those included a unanimous decision that revived a lawsuit brought by a family against the government after the FBI mistakenly raided their Atlanta home.

Disputes over a Tennessee ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors and nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's effort to restrict automatic birthright citizenship are pending potential blockbusters.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler talk about the court’s recent rulings, a software malfunction at the court that could have been problematic, and the emergency requests from the Trump administration that could keep the justices busy well into the summer months.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Lower courts have temporarily ruled against the tariffs using doctrines recently revived by the Supreme Court's conservative majority to frustrate policies of Democratic administrations. The Trump administration has signaled it will bring the case to the high court.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss those cases as well as other actions by the court.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Gupta Wessler founder Deepak Gupta joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr to discuss what the divided court did and did not do in allowing the administration to move forward with the firings.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

President Donald Trump has asked the justices to narrow lower court rulings that blocked his executive order limiting automatic citizenship to babies born with at least one parent who’s a citizen or permanent resident.

Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler discuss Thursday's arguments and highlight the exchanges that seemed to show the justices are wary of letting Trump start enforcing his restrictions.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The merits, however, are not before justices at this time. Instead, the court will consider the scope of relief temporarily available to the parties, and in particular whether federal district courts can enjoin a policy nationwide as to all persons affected.

Joining Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr is University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost, a leading expert on both birthright citizenship and so-called nationwide injunctions.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

During arguments April 30 in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the justices considered a virtual school's bid to become the nation's first religious charter school.

Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson say the case seems to turn on Chief Justice John Roberts.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

One book, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” was a focal point of the April 22 arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The justices questioned whether mere exposure to things a parent disagrees with burdens their religious rights.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners through the proceedings and why they signal the parents are likely to win this case against books Montgomery County Public Schools say are meant to foster mutual respect for others in a pluralistic educational community.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices will weigh the constitutionality of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends the tests and treatments insurers should cover, when they return to the bench on Monday for the April sitting.

If the lower court's decision is upheld, "it is possible, given the posture of the case, that over 150 million Americans lose free coverage of hundreds of benefits," said Sara Rosenbaum, an emerita professor of health law and policy at George Washington University.

Rosenbaum joins Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to talk about why the case is more about power than it is public health and what's at stake if the court does away with the insurance coverage that’s caught in its crosshairs.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Vladeck spoke with Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr about the flurry of recent rulings from the justices in emergency requests involving the administration's policies.

The majority of the justices have been careful not to be overly critical of the president and have at times granted him "modest procedural wins," Vladeck said. But those efforts have real world costs, he added.

Vladeck pointed to the court's recent action, lifting a temporary pause on the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

"The question is, how long can the justices get away with walking this tightrope before they're actually sacrificing too much in the name of not unduly provoking the confrontation with Trump," Vladeck said.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

"I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions," Justice Elena Kagan said. "And we certainly don't do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach."

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus., and take a look of some of the court's recent opinions.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Several justices during arguments March 26 in FCC v. Consumers' Research, appeared hesitant to reinvigorate the so-called nondelegation doctrine to strike down the Universal Service Fund. The fund is intended to increase broadband access to rural and low income areas.

Hosts Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson also discuss the court's 7-2 'ghost gun' ruling where liberal justices were joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

The hosts also highlight the upcoming argument in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, a case about South Carolina's decision to remove Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program.

-

Produced by David Schultz

Depending on what the court decides, any statute that grants discretion to an agency could be open for re-review, said Jessica Ellsworth, a partner at Hogan Lovells.

"There's probably hundreds of thousands of places in the US code that there are terms used like 'in the public interest,' whether something is 'necessary' and 'appropriate,' whether something is 'reasonable,' whether something is 'fair' or 'unfair,' whether it's 'essential,'" she said.

Ellsworth joins Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the nondelegation doctrine and how this legal principle, which the court has been asked to revive, could impact the federal telecom subsidy program at issue and other regulations more broadly.

The hosts also chat about a social media post from President Donald Trump that garnered a rare response from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

"This might be the eye in the storm that this was kind of a bit of a slower term," said Goodwin partner Brian Burgess. "There's some big, big cases ahead."

Burgess highlights cases involving religious rights, Obamacare, and forum shopping with Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler unpack Wednesday’s arguments in the dispute over a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license that would have moved as much as 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel to a privately owned facility.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency didn’t have the authority to grant the license after Texas and neighboring landowners challenged it in court. It's unclear if the court will affirm that ruling. A decision is due by the end of June or early July.

The hosts also chat about the most significant ruling to come from the Supreme Court so far in litigation against actions President Donald Trump has taken since returning to office. A divided court rejected his request to toss out a district court order that forced him to pay $2 billion in federal foreign aid.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The dispute involving Mexico and Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. centers on whether exceptions to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act open manufacturers to court challenges.

Mexico alleges gunmakers intentionally trade with suppliers for drug cartels and the law allows suits when industry knowingly violates firearms laws in a way that causes injury. Industry says it's shielded, but the Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has said not so fast.

Cases and Controversies discusses the case with Georgia State law professor Timothy Lytton. He's filed a brief on behalf of neither party advocating for one of the law's exceptions opening gunmakers to potential liability.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices in an emergency request to toss out a temporary restraining order that stopped President Donald Trump from firing the head of the US Office of Special Counsel.

Lower courts have issued TROs in response to Trump’s executive actions now testing presidential authority to reshape the federal workforce, government spending, and citizenship rights.

Thomas Berry, the director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the first case before the high court.

Guest: Thomas Berry, Cato Institute

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

That age-old quandary is becoming newly relevant as Donald Trump tries to bulldoze his way through longstanding legal constraints in the opening weeks of his second term as president. As lawsuits over birthright citizenship, spending cuts, and workforce purges make their way to the high court, the cases carry the potential for a genuine constitutional crisis. What happens, Chief Justice John Roberts must ask himself, if Trump loses and then defies the court?

A lawsuit filed in 1801 when the Supreme Court was an untested institution posed a similar dilemma for Chief Justice John Marshall — and more recently, danger signs have been growing.

Article by Greg Stohr read by Catherine Vassilopolos

Do you have feedback on Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

A heterosexual woman is asking the court to revive her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services where she's worked since 2004 after the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said she hadn't shown the "background circumstances" necessary to take her case to trial.

The court didn't just ask for a little bit more evidence, it asked for a lot more, said Xiao Wang, director of the University of Virginia's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who's representing Marlean Ames in her case.

Wang and co-counsel Edward Gilbert join Cases and Controversies to discuss the case and what's at stake.

Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about Trump's impending trade war and look at the legal doctrine that could stand in the way of his planned tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. 

Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr

Produce: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Daniel Cotter, a partner at Dickinson Wright who writes a column on the Supreme Court for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, joins Cases and Controversies to talk about which disputes could get Supreme Court review.

Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about new cases the justices tacked on to the term, including one over a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma, and discuss why those challenges may not actually increase the court’s workload.

Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler

Guest: Daniel Cotter, of Dickinson Wright PLLC

Produce: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

During arguments Wednesday, the US Supreme Court appeared ready to rule the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had used the wrong test when it considered the claims of a mother who argues a Texas police officer unjustly shot and killed her son during a traffic stop in 2016.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler discuss the arguments in that dispute over the officer’s use of deadly force and the likelihood of a future Supreme Court case over President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

The order, which deems denies automatic citizenship to children born of immigrants in the US, was temporarily blocked by a federal judge on Thursday.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

But the court was only asked in the case argued Wednesday to answer whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the correct standard when assessing whether the law violated the free speech rights of adults.

“I don't know if there is going to be sufficient alignment on how to get to the answers here,” said Mark Brennan, who works with a variety of companies in the online space as a partner at Hogan Lovells.

Brennan joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss Wednesday’s argument. They also break down the court’s decisions earlier this week in disputes over fancy dog food and federal overtime rules.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler preview the case with Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney Xiangnong (George) Wang.

The Biden administration says the law, which effectively bans the social media site in the US unless sold by its Chinese owner, is necessary for national security. But the social media site and its users say its censorship.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

"Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr review all the biggest news stories from the justices in 2024, from Justice Samuel Alito's flag controversy to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dream-come-true Broadway debut.

They also look ahead to the cases to be heard in 2025, which include an expedited appeal over the social media platform TikTok to another case that could cut back the power of administrative agencies.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr breakdown the Dec. 10 arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, an environmental case about how deep agencies must go in looking at the potential effects of new projects.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Whether an appeals court erred in how it scrutinized the constitutionality of state laws that purport to discriminate against people based on their sex was a central part of Dec. 4 arguments in United States v. Skrmetti.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners through the arguments in the Biden administration’s fight against Tennessee’s ban on hormone treatments and puberty blockers for transgender minors and what the justices’ questions, or lack thereof, signal for the outcome of the case.

Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Biden Administration is fighting to keep off the market new liquids for e-cigarettes sold under flavors like "Blackberry Lemonade" and "Killer Kustard Blueberry" that can attract kids in its appeal of a US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision to set aside the Food and Drug Administration's orders denying their approval.

Typically, the court doesn't agree to hear a case "to pat the lower court on the head and say, 'Really good job,'" said Carter Phillips, a partner at Sidley Austin who's argued 90 cases before the justices.

But, he said, "this is a court that is much more skeptical of agency decision-making than the court has ever been, at least in the time that I've been practicing before it."

Phillips joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to talk about the case and why his client, the nonprofit Global Action to End Smoking Inc., is supporting neither side in this dispute,.

Guest: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin LLP

Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In the securities case, the court looked for what Chief Justice John Roberts called a "sweet spot" in the Nvidia investor suit alleging the chipmaker at the heart of the AI boom misled the public about its dependence on crypto-mining revenue.

In the criminal case, the justices described the argument that an attempted murder-for-hire scheme isn't a crime of violence as "absurd." But they found similar irrationality in the government's argument on the other side.

And finally, the justices similarly struggled over whether to give immigrants who voluntarily agree to leave the country more flexibility to appeal their deportation.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr breakdown the justices' concerns in the latest episode.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler.

Producer: Mo Barrow.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The case centers on the fallout from Cambridge Analytica's unauthorized misuse of users data. Investors claim the tech giant mislead investors when warning that data misuse was a hypothetical risk at a time when Meta already knew that that political consulting firm had accessed information on 30 million users.

"Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the Nov. 6 arguments. They explain how the justices searched for the proper line to draw and ultimately questioned whether they should be the ones to do so.

Why "does the judiciary have to walk the plank on this?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler.

Producer: Mo Barrow.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

“These changes in position are not frequent, but we do see them every four years,” said Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Wolf joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to talk about when the government has flipped positions in the past and what could happen to current cases that could be targeted this term by a Trump administration.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler.

Guest: Thomas Wolf, Brennan Center for Justice.

Producer: Mo Barrow.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to explain what states and courts are doing to try to avoid such a situation ahead of Nov. 5, and get his take on what would make high court intervention unlikely and what scenario might trigger a review.

That was the question before the Supreme Court in a case that tests the scope of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law otherwise known as RICO that was designed to fight organized crime.

RICO is a criminal law, but it allows people to bring a civil suit to get three times their damages and attorneys’ fees if their "business or property" is hurt by a criminal enterprise.

The manufacturers of the CBD product say the truck driver in this case suffered a personal injury not an injury to his business or property and can't sue them under the law.

Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler look at the arguments and try to figure out where the justices might come down on this dispute.

Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: David Schultz and Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

One factor setting Glossip’s case apart from others is that the state’s Republican attorney general sided with him in his bid for a new trial.

But the fact that it’s still a question whether Glossip will prevail after arguments Oct. 9 shows the steep climb capital defendants have a the Supreme Court.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr run through the arguments and the hurdles that Glossip must clear.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Pooja Chaudhuri, of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss why groups supporting gun rights, religious freedom, and racial justice have teamed up in Lackey v. Stinnie.

The justices will consider whether a preliminary injunction is enough of a victory to support an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute intended to encourage lawyers to take civil rights cases and deter “bad actors.” The case to be argued Oct. 8 pits civil rights groups against government officials and entities who are the targets of these suits.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With about 27 cases granted for argument so far, the term is light on potential blockbusters.

“There are a lot of cases that I would describe as kind of the meat and potatoes type cases that you typically see on the Supreme Court’s docket,” said Kannon Shanmugam, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Paul Weiss.

Shanmugam joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss the court’s term and the more notable issues the justices will consider, including a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans health-care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to transgender minors.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Get up to speed with Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr before the court kicks off its new term on Oct. 7.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In decisions that split 6-3 along the court's ideological line, the justices for the first time in history said former presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts and gave businesses the ability to challenge regulations long after they've been finalized. 

Cases and Controversies hosts unpack those decisions and discuss how the justices declined to rule on the constitutionality of state laws out of Florida and Texas that tried to regulate some of the largest social media platforms. They also look at how the justices voted this term and whether they issue unanimous rulings more often not, as many have claimed in public appearances. 

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Matthew Schwartz

The court is expected to wrap up the release of opinions in argued cases for the term on Monday, when decisions on social media laws and former President Donald Trump's bid for immunity from criminal prosecution are expected.

The latest episode of Cases and Controversies unwraps all the latest action from the court and looks ahead to the final round of decisions.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

There are 14 decisions in argued cases still to hand down following the release of nine opinions last week. Those included an 8-1 decision upholding a federal law that bans people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a gun.

Cases and Controversies will cover separate writings that came from seven of the nine justices in the Rahimi gun rights case and how the justices show deep disagreement over the court’s use of history and tradition to decide constitutional questions.

The episode also digs into other decisions, including a 6-3 ruling that involved marital rights in immigration, and will cover new cases coming up next term.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the six cases the justices decided last week, including an under-the-radar trademark dispute involving former President Donald Trump.

Last week’s rulings brought the total number of cases decided for the term to 38, meaning there are 23 left to do before the justices wrap up for the summer.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

Out of the 61 cases argued between October and April, the justices still have 29 to decide and they include some potential blockbusters.

The court is expected to rule by the end of June on two abortion-related disputes and Donald Trump’s appeal for absolute immunity from prosecution over election interference allegations.

“Cases and Controversies” hosts run through what’s ahead in the court’s final weeks, discuss Justice Samuel Alito's flag flap, and recap big decisions released so far, including one that saved the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz  

Several key justices seemed inclined during arguments on Thursday to send Trump’s case back to the trial court to determine whether he was acting in his official capacity when he tried to overturn the 2020 election and during the run-up to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by his supporters.

Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lively and, at times, surprising arguments in Trump’s appeal, and discuss how the court’s decision could delay any future trial until after the November election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Biden administration argued that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to provide an abortion when there is a serious risk of harm to the mother.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s John Bursch joins Cases and Controversies to explain why Idaho says its state law requires an abortion only when necessary to save the mother’s life.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Former Boston Police officer Joseph Fischer, who participated in the Capitol breach, hopes to tap into concerns by some justices that prosecutors have too much discretion. It's something the court's pulled back on in recent terms.

Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the implications for Jan. 6 defendants, federal courts, and Trump, whose bid for immunity from criminal prosecution over alleged election interference will be heard April 25. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has charged Trump under the same provision, which prohibits interference with an official proceeding.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices are being asked if the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits Grants Pass from enforcing an ordinance that makes it unlawful to sleep on public property.

“This is the first case the Supreme Court has taken up on homelessness in 40 years,” said Antonia Fasanelli, the executive director of the National Homelessness Law Center.

Fasanelli joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what’s at stake in a case that raises an issue of national importance as cities try to find solutions to a rise in homelessness.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices from across the ideological spectrum suggested the anti-abortion doctors at the center of the case were asking too much.

Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lopsided arguments that focused little on the merits and almost exclusively on whether the doctors could prevent access to the drug nationwide.

They also discuss how the Supreme Court’s action—or inaction—means South Carolina can use an unconstitutional voting map in the upcoming election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the March 18 arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo, a second First Amendment fight about alleged government censorship.

They also discuss the legal whiplash over a Texas law that makes it a crime to illegally enter the US through the state.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The ACLU’s Li Nowlin-Sohl joins Cases and Controversies to discuss bans out of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Idaho pending before the court, and the chances that the justices will finally weigh in.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

UC Davis School of Law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat joins Cases and Controversies to explain what the justices did and didn’t agree on March 4 regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that means for the November election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler detail arguments in Garland v. Cargill, the challenge to the federal government’s ban on so-called bump stocks, and Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, challenging state laws that target social media companies.

They also explain the court’s decision to weigh into the criminal prosecution of Trump in Washington in the 2020 election case.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

At issue are provisions that require platforms to keep up certain kinds of content and inform users when posts are removed.

The justices are being asked to decide if those requirements are constitutional under the First Amendment’s right to editorial judgment.

Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices are likely to approach a case that could impact public discourse online for decades to come.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Should the justices give Trump another crack at the DC Circuit on his immunity claim? And how should they decide special counsel Jack Smith’s request to treat Trump’s appeal as a petition for a full review?

Georgetown University Law Center professor Erica Hashimoto joins “Cases and Controversies” to unwrap the history, timing, and consequential decisions to come.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices dove into the potential impact on their deliberations of a case from the 1860s as well as whether state governments have powers to effectively decide a presidential election.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down all the technical arguments from the Feb. 8 special session and where individual justices may be heading before voting takes place on March 5.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Notre Dame Law School professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to explain the legal issues at play and the potential impacts of a court ruling that fails to give a definitive answer before the presidential election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Trump has done so in other court hearings of late around the country, creating unprecedented security challenges. While the Supreme Court is used to heightened security for the justices, hosting Trump for such a blockbuster case would heighten the stakes.

The court won’t say what security measures are planned for Feb. 8 whether Trump shows or not. Bloomberg Law’s judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss those possibilities and how Trump’s other appearances have played out.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the 3 1/2-hour argument on Jan. 17 in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

From the justices different understandings of the Chevron doctrine to uncertainties over a potential replacement for deference, the latest episode gets into all the details.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson discuss how the court set up a historic sitting in agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s fight to stay on the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado and a second abortion case.

It was already a significant term with two challenges to the so-called administrative state, which many thought would garner the most attention.

Those cases will be argued next week and Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how a ruling against the government could give judges the ability to strike down regulations they disagree with and shift power from agencies.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute joins Cases and Controversies to break down upcoming arguments.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

As the year comes to a close, Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr look back at the most memorable moments from Supreme Court arguments so far this term since the court follows its own calendar.

There were some uncomfortable, even awkward, exchanges during the free speech fight over a “Trump too small” trademark, the challenge to the $6 billion bankruptcy settlement involving opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, and the spat over the SEC’s use of in-house judges in fraud cases.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr discuss the new cases on access to the abortion drug mifepristone, a challenge to Jan. 6 prosecutions, and immunity for former President Donald Trump on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

One of her former clerks, Tamarra Matthews Johnson, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss her former boss as a justice and as a role model for women.

She touches on O’Connor’s career hurdles and how her political experience came through in her time on the high court bench.

Johnson recalls O’Connor as an active member who tried to think of things from multiple points of view—that she saw herself as someone who understood that the law meant something to people in their daily lives.

Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The only question appeared to be whether the justices' ruling will ensnare other federal agencies. 

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss how the court might limit its ruling.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Brennan Center’s Jennifer Ahearn joins Cases and Controversies to talk about how the lack of an enforcement method, special recusal rules, and general tone are unlikely to result in many changes—both in how the court operates and how it’s perceived.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The real issue for the justices is how to apply their new test, established in the court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, that requires courts to look for historical support for gun restrictions.

Duke Center for Firearms Law Executive Director Andrew Willinger joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the old test, the new one, and possibilities for the future.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's David Greene joins Cases and Controveries to explain the competing First Amendment issues at play in Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and how the cases fit in with other upcoming social media disputes.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr catch up on all the justices' latest activities. They also highlight the biggest cases being argued during the court's November sitting, from guns, to social media, to the "Trump Too Small" trademark dispute.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.

Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Brennan Center for Justice President and CEO Michael Waldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss a challenge to the Obama-era agency that was set up in the aftermath of the financial crisis to regulate mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.

He says it’s unclear how the court ultimately will rule following argument Oct. 3 over the agency’s funding structure, but notes that Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Barrett, especially, merit watching.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Advocates and lower courts are emboldened by the high court’s recent rulings in key areas and are bringing aggressive claims that the justices might not have anticipated, University of Chicago law professor David Strauss said.

The “chickens are coming home to roost,” Strauss said in noting the court has unsettled law in some areas with its rulings.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Death penalty cases at the Supreme Court often come through the court's emergency, or "shadow" docket. In recent years, the court's conservatives have handed down rulings that closed off several avenues for capital defendants to get a rehearing of their case, or to even to challenge their method of execution.

On this special episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take a look at what the court's rulings mean for how the death penalty works in America, and what happens at the court when an 11th hour request comes in.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Bloomberg Law podcast started in very lo-fi way in a virtual closet has grown over the years as a staple of Supreme Court coverage with studio space with really good microphones, its own producer in David Schultz, and up to three hosts offering behind-the-scene takes, and insight and analysis of court happenings and all of the turbulence that’s gone along with it.

Created by Tom Taylor, Bloomberg Law’s former high court correspondent and now its newsroom’s chief of staff, Cases and Controversies marks 10 years this term with a special edition. Taylor and current co-hosts Kimberly Robinson, Greg Stohr, and Lydia Wheeler offer their observations on heightened public interest in the court, what’s changed for the justices and how the court operates, and what may be in store in coming years.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what he's calling the "supersized" Major Questions Doctrine, the high court-made principle that's risen in recent terms and was the reasoning behind the 6-3 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska.

Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners beyond the headlines of the biggest opinions of the term. They also look ahead to the one starting in October which Winkler says is shaping up as another with blockbuster potential on guns and the SEC to start with.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The six Republican-appointed justices joined together in striking down affirmative action, rejecting Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, and supporting religious liberty in a setback for LGBTQ rights.

While the end of this term for argued cases wasn’t as explosive as a year ago when the court handed conservatives landmark victories on abortion and guns, the final flurry of decisions still packed plenty of drama, especially tension in written opinions and readings from the bench.

In the newest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners behind the scenes to break down the biggest decisions, notable moments, and update listeners on some newly granted cases for next term.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Ten 10 cases remain with work expected to be wrapped up by June 30.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr take listeners down the homestretch and behind the scenes of what court watchers might expect and whether surprises are in store.

They also break down the opinions most recently handed down. That includes Friday’s decision clearing the way for the Biden administration to shift immigration enforcement priorities to focus on people who recently crossed the border or are a threat to public safety.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The conservative argument that race should almost never be a factor in setting and interpreting federal law hasn’t fared well this term. But that could change with decisions pending in challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

In a 7-2 ruling on Thursday in Haaland v. Brackeen that kept in place the decades-old Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices dismissed race-related claims on technical grounds.

And the color-blind arguments were explicitly rejected in the justices’ surprise ruling June 8 in Allen v. Milligan. The 7-2 court there said claims under the Voting Rights Act didn’t have to be “race-neutral.”

But Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler explain why the outcome could be different the affirmative action cases, which the court is expected to hand down before the end of June.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Goodwin's William Jay joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the reasons why Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh refused to go along with their conservative colleagues, and what, if anything, it might signal about the upcoming affirmative action cases. Along with co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler, Jay also discusses two IP cases in front of the justices—one a trademark dispute decided by the justices Thursday and the other a case to be heard next term involving a phrase that alludes to the size of former President Trump's hands.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss Jackson’s dissent in the labor case, and how she’s handled herself since joining the court in October.

They’ll also analyze some of the 27 cases still outstanding with the term nearing an end, and how a few of the big ones might play out.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

· Chides local government on home seizure

Although Supreme Court justices were unanimous in backing landowners in a Big EPA case, their reasoning in the latest check on administrative authority shows there is still deep division.

Styled as a concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Sackett v. EPA on how to determine whether the agency can regulate certain bodies of water read more like a dissent. Joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh accused the five other conservatives of creating a test that is “overly narrow and inconsistent with the Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands.”

The progressive-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center’s Miriam Becker-Cohen joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss that case and the other May 25 rulings.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr

Guest: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Constitutional Accountability Center

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

Ketanji Brown Jackson made her mark on US Supreme Court arguments like no other new justice in memory.

Her historic confirmation as the first Black woman justice was followed by seven months of oral arguments in which she spoke almost twice as much as any other of her colleagues, according to Empirical SCOTUS’ Adam Feldman. Jackson so far has defied the norm of junior justices taking a back seat during their first few terms.

Latham & Watkins’ Roman Martinez joins the podcast to look at Jackson’s first term as well as what the future might hold.

Co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also breakdown the court’s most recent opinions, including a highly anticipated copyright case and a sigh of relief for social media companies.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Guest: Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr break down decisions covering immigration, public corruption, and state morality laws. 

Supreme Court veteran Daniel Geyser, of Haynes and Boone, also joins the podcast to look back on changes to high court arguments post-pandemic, including some sessions that now go way beyond the scheduled time.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A dispute that started over a federal rule for companies fishing for herring off the Atlantic coast could wipe out a legal doctrine that tells courts they should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation when the law they’re administering is ambiguous.

Jonathan Adler, who teaches administrative and constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the court next term could narrow the Chevron doctrine without overruling it.

Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr also update listeners on the latest report on Justice Clarence Thomas and ethics.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The court has worked at a historically slow pace with just 15 opinions out and 75% of their cases remaining. Those include potential blockbusters on affirmative action, voting rules, and LGBT rights.

Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells bookended the argument schedule, appearing on the first and last days of the term. Now with his 50th argument in the books, Katyal joins Cases and Controversies to talk about his experiences before the court, and to offer his view on what’s ahead this spring.

Katyal said there are a number of potential reasons for the slow pace of opinion production, but that it’s likely not due to internal friction.

“I haven’t detected any greater animosity among the justices,” he said.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr update listeners on activities off the bench, including Justice Samuel Alito’s view of who’s behind last year’s draft abortion opinion leak, and the flurry of letters between Congress and the chief justice over high court ethics.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Pacific Legal Foundation’s David Deerson joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss his 94-year-old client’s challenge to a practice in a handful of states that has previously led to local governments taking homes to satisfy tax debt equivalents to a fast food burrito.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also update listeners on the abortion pill litigation, congressional pressure over Supreme Court ethics, and a high-profile death penalty case.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson explains the fast-moving district and appellate rulings over the abortion drug mifepristone, a case that’s now on the high court’s doorstep. She also explains the latest controversy over Supreme Court ethics controversy drawing scrutiny in the Senate.

And finally, Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic joins the podcast to discuss her latest book, “Nine Black Robes,” and how the “Trump effect” has put the spotlight on One First Street.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies explores the issues around faith in Groff v. DeJoy, which is set for argument April 18.

The justices are being asked to overturn a ruling that said employers aren’t required to bear more than a “de minimus” cost in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on someone’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It’s a decision some of the court’s conservatives have been eager to revisit.

Joshua Matz filed a brief on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Lambda Legal in support of the US Postal Service. He joins the podcast to discuss why the court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison should be revised.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices are being asked in Counterman v. Colorado if the government has to show at trial that the speaker knew or intended the statement to be threatening in nature to secure a conviction, or if it’s enough to show an objective “reasonable person” would view that statement as a threat of violence.

At the center of the dispute scheduled to be argued on April 19 is Billy Counterman, who was charged with stalking a Colorado musician after he sent her Facebook messages over the course of two years that frightened her. Counterman claims his messages were protected speech because they weren’t true threats.

Elena Cordonean of Southwestern Law School joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss why the court should adopt a dual standard that considers the context of the speech and the speaker’s intent.

Special thanks to Southwestern professor Norman Garland

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson & Greg Stohr will break down the questions posed in Samia v. United States which is set for argument March 29.

The murder-for-hire case focuses on the Sixth Amendment requirement that criminal defendants be allowed to “confront” witnesses against them at trial.

The justices will consider what steps the government must take to protect the identity of co-defendants identified in another’s confession to avoid colliding with the Confrontation Clause.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

While the Supreme Court says it follows ethics rules written for lower court judges, its reluctance over the years to embrace a standard for themselves isn’t sitting well with some in the legal community, transparency advocates, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Bloomberg Law reporter Lydia Wheeler joins Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson to discuss their story on a “new era” of scrutiny over high court ethics, and pressure for the justices to formalize their own code of conduct.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Debevoise & Plimpton’s Megan K. Bannigan joins “Cases and Controversies” in search of a middle ground for the justices ahead of arguments March 22.

The Tennessee whiskey company says pet toy maker VIP Products is tarnishing its brand with potty-themed dog toys called “Bad Spaniels.”

“Jack Daniel’s loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone,” the company said in its brief. “But Jack Daniel’s likes its customers even more, and doesn’t want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop.”

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr

Guest: Megan K. Bannigan, Debevoise & Plimpton

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency’s funding mechanism violates separation of powers principles because it’s paid for by the Federal Reserve, not through legislative appropriations.

The Biden administration warns the ruling calls into question “every action” the CFPB has taken since its creation by Congress in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and could “inflict immense” legal and practical harm on consumers.

Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute joins Cases and Controversies to explain the case and discuss the court’s recent attempts to bolster presidential power over administrative agencies.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The loan relief plan, which is on hold due to litigation, “will eliminate or markedly reduce” payments for millions of lower-income borrowers, many of whom experienced economic hardship during the pandemic, her brief said.

Without intervention, the potential consequences of default could prevent people from paying for basic needs or even threaten their employment. Those risks are “particularly heightened for borrowers of color,” Torres said.

The court challenges focus on a rule known as the major questions doctrine, which directs courts to be skeptical of attempts to use narrow, often ambiguous laws to authorize sweeping, or major programs. The doctrine has recently been bolstered by the court’s new conservative 6-3 majority.

But Torres’ seeks to refocus attention of the court on impacts of the Biden plan on minority borrowers.

Those implications, and the questions they might prompt from the court’s liberal justices, could “play a role in the background” by pushing the Supreme Court’s middle to take a sort of off-ramp to deciding the legality of the program, she said.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Families of victims in the violence abroad say in separate cases that tech giants are partly liable for abetting extremists for content posted on their platforms.

The claim in Gonzalez v. Google to be heard Feb. 21 contends the company’s YouTube site provided support for the Islamic State by allowing the posting of its videos and recommending those posts to users via algorithms.

In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh to be argued the next day, the question is whether the social media site violated anti-terrorism laws by failing to enforce policies against pro-terrorist content.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss the broad liability protections for internet companies, particularly under Seciton 230 of the Communications Decency Act at play in the Google case.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices heard arguments in Moore v. Harper in December, and are likely on their way to hammering out a decision.

But on Feb. 2 the newly constituted North Carolina Supreme Court issued a rare rehearing order in the case, potentially depriving the justices of the opportunity to clarify the law nationwide.

UCLA election expert Rick Hasen explains why it seems likely that the Republican majority will flex its muscle and reverse course, and what it could mean if the justices must wait to decide the issue in the context of a highly contested presidential election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A report on the probe released Thursday highlights technology gaps and weak security procedures. The system in this case is built “fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information,” investigators said.

Cases and Controversies discusses steps that the court plans to take to try to prevent future leaks as well as their potential implications for this term and beyond.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

University of Chicago law professor Curtis Bradley joins Bloomberg Law’s “Cases and Controversies” podcast to discuss outcomes available to the court, including one that could entangle courts for years in efforts to keep the US out of what Bradley called foreign relations hot water.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr also discuss a recent case granted by the justices that could further strengthen religious rights—this time in the workplace context. The case is one of eight that the justices added to their docket for the remainder of the term.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Empirical SCOTUS founder Adam Feldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the possible reasons behind why the court hasn’t issued a single opinion since arguments kicked off in October, and how lower caseloads have set a new ceiling on the high court’s docket.

“While the Roberts Court will be remembered for its ideological splits and key decisions in the areas of individual rights and liberties, it will also be remembered for its slow decision making process and curtailed number of decisions each term,” Feldman wrote on his website. “This term follows the same trajectory.”

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The February argument calendar features a fast-tracked GOP-led challenge to Biden administration attempts to end pandemic-era immigration restrictions.

Supreme Court correspondents Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr break down the roster of cases and other happenings at the court in 2023’s first episode of Cases and Controversies.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Kimberly Robinson and Madison Alder break down possible reasons for the drought, including hearing cases early in the term that might not lend themselves to quick decisions.

Meanwhile, the justices released a blockbuster February calendar that includes arguments in challenges to Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and liability protections for social media platforms.

The hosts also cover the evolution of ethics issues at the court, and why they’re increasing as well as Bloomberg Law’s story about a district court in rural Louisiana that’s become popular for Republican-led states challenging Biden policies.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller says there was little appetite on the court during arguments Dec. 7 to cut state courts wholly out of the process.

Muller joins Cases and Controversies hosts to discuss Moore v. Harper, the independent state legislature theory it implicates, and the concerns voiced by the justices.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr explain the most pressing issues facing the justices in 303 Creative v. Elenis and Moore v. Harper.

In the first, the justices will consider whether a Colorado web designer can refuse to make custom wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her religious beliefs.

In the other, the court will consider the validity of a legal theory meant to cement the power of state legislatures over federal elections.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr talk with University at Austin law professor Stephen Vladeck, who’s filed a friend-of-the court brief ahead of Nov. 29 arguments in United States v. Texas.

Vladeck says Texas has filed more than two dozen challenges to Biden administration policies, which he says is abusing the court system to “facilitate partisan political agendas.”

This episode looks at the state’s strategic forum shopping, which Vladeck says Blue states did as well during the Trump administration.

Texas told the justices that “it should come as no surprise” that states are increasingly suing to curb executive policies “as the scope of the federal government has expanded to reach nearly every aspect of daily life.”

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down Tuesday’s high-court back and forth in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies podcast.

The court in recent terms has limited where companies can be hauled into court to cut down on forum shopping and to increase predictability for corporations.

The justices at the Mallory argument seemed likely to go further with regard to laws mandating that companies not based in a particular state consent to being sued, or submit to general jurisdiction, as a condition of doing business there. Norfolk Southern Railway, the defendant in Mallory, says the Pennsylvania law it’s fighting amounts to coercion.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies.

The hosts give an update on those shadow-docket disputes plus a sneak peek of the cases being argued the week of Nov. 7, involving federal agency structure, rules for suing businesses and bringing civil-rights claims, and the contentious appeal over the fate of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies.

The two affirmative action challenges out of Harvard and the University of North Carolina are set for argument on Monday. The justices will follow up with argument in coming days on cases dealing with the Bank Secrecy Act and technical habeas issues.

The episode will also breakdown what’s been happening outside of the courtroom. This includes two emergency requests stemming from the 2020 presidential election, new comments from Justice Samuel Alito on last term’s draft opinion leak, and the next Supreme Court postage stamp.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

While most attention may be on the affirmative action cases set for argument Oct. 31, the Nov. 9 hearing over the Indian Child Welfare Act is also consequential.

Cherokee Nation deputy attorney general Chrissi Ross Nimmo joins the latest Cases and Controversies to preview the case and explain its importance to American Indian tribes and families.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Legal Defense Fund’s Samuel Spital joins the latest Cases and Controversies to help hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down some of those cases.

Spital, LDF’s director of litigation, discusses two appeals that the civil-rights group worked on, involving voting rights and DNA testing, as well as an LDF death-penalty petition that the justices recently declined to hear over dissent.

Race issues are present in all three cases, even if it’s not squarely before the court in the DNA-testing appeal of Rodney Reed, a Black man convicted by a white jury of killing a white woman with whom he said he had an affair. Texas says Reed, who maintains his innocence, waited too long to bring a federal civil-rights suit challenging his state-court denial of testing.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The case to be argued on Oct. 11, National Pork Producers v. Ross, centers on Proposition 12, a voter-approved measure requiring a certain amount of movement space for pigs bred for pork production. Because California produces little of its own commercial pork, trade groups say compliance costs will disproportionately hurt out-of-state farmers and violate a constitutional provision aimed at protecting against discrimination in commerce.

Beyond pork production and sales, the outcome of the Supreme Court case could impact laws aimed at a number of hot-button issues from abortion to LGBTQ rights to religion.

Over two days of arguments, the justices will also hear three other disputes, including a showdown between the Andy Warhol Foundation and a photographer whose Prince photos are at the heart of what counts as “fair use.”

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action on the latest Cases and Controversies.

Hearing cases Monday and Tuesday with a holiday on Wednesday, the court will also consider a clash between Delaware and a host of states over unclaimed Money Gram financial instruments, as well as an appeal from a disabled military veteran seeking benefits.

The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, will hear her first cases as the court struggles with its public standing following a blockbuster term topped by the conservative majority’s decision to end the constitutional right to abortion.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Orrick partner Mel Bostwick joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to discuss Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which is set to be argued Oct. 12.

The dispute centers on whether Warhol prints of a Prince photo changed original work’s meaning. Bostwick, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, says this is an opportunity for the justices to “put some more meat on the bones” of the test courts should use when determining whether permission is needed to reproduce copyrighted material.

For more on the case, check out Bloomberg Law’s video: Andy Warhol, Prince, and Fair Use at the Supreme Court.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Since the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “I don’t think we’ve seen any term that comes close to the one we just saw,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia and a former clerk to Justice Hugo Black.

During the term that wrapped up June 30, the court overturned the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and broadened the reach of the Second Amendment for the first time in over a decade. The justices also continued to establish a robust right to religious freedom at the expense of other priorities, and set up severe limits on the so-called administrative state.

Howard Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to put in prospective how the term fits with the court’s more than 230-year history.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Jackson comes aboard following a tumultuous nine months that included her confirmation to replace the now-retired Stephen Breyer. Controversies flared over the court's independence with the conservative majority making transformative changes to abortion, guns, religion.

Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr joins Cases and Controversies to recap the momentous developments and preview what's ahead starting in October.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and guest-host Lydia Wheeler explain the reasoning behind Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion.

They also look at Chief Justice John Roberts’ failed bid to find middle ground and the dissent by the court’s three liberals decrying the effect on women’s rights and the court’s legitimacy.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices handed down 11 opinions in recent days, and have 18 more to go by the end of the month or early July.

More decisions are expected on Tuesday with blockbuster rulings on abortion, guns, and religion outstanding.

On this episode of Cases and Controversies, host Kimberly Robinson highlighted a flurry of decisions on June 13 and 15.

An immigration case, Arizona v. San Francisco, suggests the justices might look for off-ramps to complex issues as the term winds down.

In an administrative law case, American Hospital Association v. Becerra, the justices made changes to the bedrock Chevron doctrine on judicial respect for federal agency rules, without saying the word “Chevron.”

And a pair cases about tribal sovereignty, Denezpi v. US and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, suggest tribes might have a friend in Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Athul Acharya, of the public interest law firm Public Accountability, says the June 8 ruling in Egbert v. Boule is one of several judge-made barriers to suing government officials.

There are many stages “in the gauntlet that civil rights plaintiffs have to run before they can have their claim heard on the merits,” Acharya said, noting there are jurisdictional and other technical barriers, questions about who can be sued, and then immunity doctrines.

The latest ruling limiting so-called Bivens claims, isn’t a surprise. The fortified conservative-majority court has questioned the authority of judges to permit suits against federal officials in instances where Congress hasn’t.

In “all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 6-3 Boule ruling that split the court along ideological lines.

Acharya explains that another barrier to suits against law enforcement—qualified immunity—is subject to the same criticism.

The doctrine, which often shields officers from being sued for all but the most obvious constitutional violations, has come under fire recently by groups on the right and the left.

But qualified immunity is still considered by courts to be “good law,” despite being a judge-made rule.

It’s an open question “why atextual doctrines like qualified immunity are OK” with the justices, while Bivens claims aren’t, Acharya said.

Cases dealing with qualified immunity are constantly pending before the justices. Cope v. Cogdill, alleging that jail officials failed to prevent a detainee’s suicide, has been considered at their private conferences 10 times. But the justices haven’t seemed eager to address the doctrine in that case or any other.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and producer David Schultz discuss the latest shadow docket developments, and how the handling of emergency orders highlight a broader divide between conservative and liberal justices.

And news on the court’s ongoing investigation into the draft abortion opinion leak last month suggests the atmosphere inside the building may be as divisive as the reaction to its rulings outside of it.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Goodwin partner Jaime Santos joins Cases and Controversies to remind listeners of the cases that in any other term would be the headlining cases, but which have taken a backseat in this headline-grabbing year.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to review the May 16 decision striking down another provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Muller explains how the issue of campaign finance splits the justices along ideological lines and what future challenges might come before the conservative-majority court.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Gabe Roth of the watchdog group Fix the Court joins host Kimberly Robinson of Cases and Controversies to discuss what the court could do to boost public confidence, and whether Congress has legal authority to rein in what he calls the “most powerful, least accountable” branch of government.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

“These elected prosecutors are going to become the last line of defense,” Miriam Krinsky said of a potential post-Roe world.

Krinsky, head of reform group Fair and Just Prosecution, discussed the issue on the latest Cases and Controversies episode with Bloomberg Law’s Jordan Rubin.

“This is simply a draft,” Krinsky emphasized, referring to Justice Samuel Alito’s proposed opinion circulated within the court earlier this year and published this week by Politico.

But if the draft becomes law and states turn their attention toward criminalizing people involved in abortions, then prosecutors will have the discretion not to pursue charges, Krinsky said.

She and other former prosecutors and law enforcement leaders filed an amicus brief supporting the clinic in the Mississippi appeal whose opinion was leaked, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.

“The notion of limited criminal-justice resources being used for these kinds of investigations and arrests and prosecutions, this should horrify any prosecutor or law enforcement leader that this is what we want to be spending our time on,” Krinsky said on the podcast.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

As surprising, even shocking, as this leak was, it could be the beginning of a new era at the court in which the justices' private deliberations are no longer sacrosanct and leaks become more common.

On this special breaking news edition of Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk about what this might mean for the future of the court and about how the leaked opinion itself could affect women seeking abortions.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

That issue reached the Supreme Court on April 26, as the justices wrestled with what presidents must do to change course from their predecessors.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and guest host Lydia Wheeler go live on Twitter to try to break down this “messy” case with professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

During the April 25-27 session, the court also will hear appeals over public-school prayer at football games, habeas corpus, method-of-execution litigation, and a follow-on case to the landmark 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma decision on criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the action and give an update on efforts by law firms to increase attorney diversity at the lectern.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the April sitting’s first week of arguments, including one on the famed Miranda warnings.

All eyes also are on Thomas, who’s been called on to recuse from 2020 election-related cases over his wife’s texts to the White House, and was seen posing with GOP Senate hopeful and former football star Herschel Walker at a private event at the court.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices will consider the limits on such prayer at argument April 25 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

A lawyer for Bremerton, Bradley Girard of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, joins Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies to discuss the case with host Jordan Rubin.

Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Madison Alder also joins to talk about Ketanji Brown Jackson’s historic high-court confirmation and what’s next for Joe Biden’s judicial appointments in the lower courts.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Ramirez v. Collier was an unusual case in a number of ways, including because the inmate won.

John Ramirez’s lawyer Seth Kretzer joins Cases and Controversies to talk about his experience arguing the novel dispute on an expedited timeline.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also break down the latest on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s likely confirmation next week, as well as the most recent developments in the world of Justice Clarence Thomas.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Following the close of those hearings on Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Thomas’ wife, Ginni, had encouraged the White House to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election in text message to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

Cases and Controversies details the controversy swirling around the longest-serving justice as well as developments in the Jackson hearings and what happens next.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Former Senate Judiciary counsel Nick Xenakis joins Cases and Controversies to give an inside look at the process and what to expect in Jackson’s hearings.

The hosts also give a sneak peek of the arguments that will be heard while Senate Judiciary Committee members question the nominee, including two arbitration disputes.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies discusses former Texas State Trooper Le Roy Torres' suit against the state Department of Public Safety for employment accommodations. He says he suffered lung damage due to exposure to burn pits while deployed in Iraq as an Army reservist.

His attorney, Brian Lawler, explains how Texas and a handful of states say the federal government can't authorize such suits against states, even though they can be brought against local governments.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies recaps the latest on the Jackson nomination and looks into what, if anything, Republicans can do to stop it.

Guest host David Schultz also examines this week's oral argument in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the justices appeared less hostile than expected to the executive branch's attempts to tackle climate change.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court kicks off the argument week with a potential blockbuster over the executive branch's ability to tackle climate change.

Although consequential on its own, the challenge to EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases could reverberate across administrative law by demanding more from Congress when it wants agencies to regulate "major questions."

Cases discussed in this episode

• West Virginia v. EPA -- 8:59
• Ruan v. US -- 10:58
• Marietta Memorial Hospital v. Davita -- 12:24
• Egbert v. Boule -- 13:04

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With the Presidents Day holiday on Monday, the justices are hearing two cases on Tuesday over tribal gaming and double jeopardy for American Indians. A procedural argument follows Wednesday over the Trump-era public-charge rule that blocked green cards for noncitizens needing public benefits.

Cases and Controversies gives a sneak peek as the justices return from their mid-winter break.

On the latest Cases and Controversies podcast, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the next chance for the 6-3 conservative majority to flex its muscles in this blockbuster term.

The hosts are joined by Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler to explain the upcoming challenge to EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and how it fits with high court rulings striking down the Biden administration’s attempts to deal with the pandemic.

Cases discussed in this episode:

• Merrill v. Milligan--0:39
• West Virginia v. EPA--6:43

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down Breyer’s impending departure, his legacy, his potential replacements, and what that replacement means—and doesn’t mean—for the future of the court.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

It was reported earlier today that this will be the 27-year veteran of the Supreme Court's final term. To learn more about who Breyer is, we spoke with some of the attorneys who clerked for the Justice over the years.

Breyer was described as someone with an insatiable, extroverted mind, who thrived on conversation—sometimes to a fault. Andrew Crespo, a former clerk and current Harvard Law School professor, said going to lunch with the Justice required finding a restaurant with lots of space "so that, when we're sitting down and he's telling us all these stories about the Court, that we weren't accidentally sitting next to a reporter."

In this special episode of our Cases & Controversies podcast, former Breyer clerks share stories from their time at the Court and about the man they describe as a "happy warrior," who remained optimistic despite a tenure spent, for the most part, in the Court's ideological minority.

In this episode we hear from:

• Danielle Gray, global chief legal officer for Walgreens Boots Alliance
• Pratik Shah, a partner at the firm Akin Gump
• Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center
• Andrew Crespo, a professor at Harvard Law School

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the “Maskgate” controversy that stemmed from an NPR report on Justice Gorsuch's alleged refusal to wear a mask during oral arguments. They also talk to Josh McDaniel, director of Harvard Law’s religious freedom clinic.

The clinic filed a brief supporting the prisoner seeking resentencing in Concepcion v. United States, argued Jan. 19.

Topics discussed in this episode:

Masks & the justices--00:40

In re Whole Woman's Health--9:41

Trump v. Thompson--16:20

Concepcion v. U.S.--19:30

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the vaccine opinions and give a sneak peek of upcoming arguments on Jan. 18 and 19.

Those hearings include disputes over religion in Boston, Nazi-looted art in Spain, campaign finance in the Ted Cruz campaign, and criminal sentencing under the Trump-signed First Step Act of 2018.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices will hear back-to-back arguments Friday over the employer and healthcare-worker mandates, an unusual step for the sort of emergency litigation that the court generally decides with briefs alone.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action and also preview the arguments coming up the week of Jan. 10, featuring disputes over Medicaid payments, immigrant detention, and whether tax courts can forgive late legal filings.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the biggest moments from this consequential year—from reproductive rights, to the justices’ roadshows, to a covid diagnosis.

Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the Texas S.B. 8 decision on Friday and, with guest Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, recap the Dec. 1 argument in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

They also talk about the school-funding case, Carson v. Makin, argued Dec. 8, and what to watch at the court with arguments done for the year.

They include cases on religious-school funding, immigration, ERISA, and criminal procedure, including an ineffective assistance of counsel case that could lead to an innocent person being executed.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap Dec. 1’s abortion argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before previewing the cases that’ll be argued the week of Dec. 6.

Have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Joining Cases and Controversies to discuss what's at stake in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is Kathryn Kolbert, who argued the landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the viability line being challenged in the Mississippi case. She said the climate leading up to that 1992 ruling was similar to today's in that she fully expected that there would be at least five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

And while the outcome in Casey was a "compromised opinion" that ended up preserving the heart of Roe, Kolbert said she's not expecting the current court to rule the same way. "This court is much more ideological" that the court at the time of Casey, she said, noting that several Republican-appointed justices ultimately came down on the side abortion advocates.

Kolbert is also joined by Julie F. Kay, who says that while abortion has been on the minds of court watchers lately—namely in the procedural challenge to Texas's six-week abortion ban—Dobbs is the case to watch. "I think of the Texas case as the toddler that bursts into the room and has a tantrum and gets everybody's attention," Kay said. "When in reality, it’s the Mississippi case that's the biggest threat to abortion rights."

Gun-rights supporters want the court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to bless more permissive public carry. Gun control advocates worry about the implications of doing so.

Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin have spent months reporting on Bruen. And in this special edition, they explore the Nov. 3 argument and the signals the justices sent.

This episode takes listeners into the courtroom and breaks down essential points. Attorneys, scholars, and others working on the case talk about what's at stake if the challengers prevail, as expected.

First, a primer. Previous 5-4 rulings said the Second Amendment grants an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, regardless of militia service. The amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Bruen raises the question of the scope of the right outside the home. At the argument, the justices probed the limits of their eventual ruling expected by July.

"Can they say you cannot carry your gun at any place where alcohol is served?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked the challengers' lawyer, Paul Clement.

"What about a football stadium?" Roberts pressed.

While gun-rights advocates see fewer restrictions as vindicating the Second Amendment, gun control advocates worry about the consequences of more guns on the street.

"If we were to now flood our cities with even more guns, I'm afraid that shooting rate will go up, that murder rate will go up, and we don't know what will happen to the everyday fights that take place in densely populated cities like New York if people are armed," said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City.

Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent company Bloomberg LP. The group filed a brief at the Supreme Court supporting the New York restrictions.

Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin take a look in the latest sneak peek episode at the five cases on the court's docket next week.

They also recap the blockbuster Nov. 1 arguments over the Texas abortion law, known as S.B. 8., in which numerous justices seemed skeptical that the should evade judicial review.

Coming up next week, the podcast will take a deep dive into the Second Amendment. The hosts will explore the dispute heard Nov. 3. over a concealed carry restriction in New York and discuss concerns raised by the justices. They'll also look at how the case could impact gun restrictions across the country.

The court will scrutinize Texas’ abortion law, S.B. 8, that effectively bans the procedure, in back-to-back arguments on Nov. 1 that will feature Elizabeth Prelogar’s first appearance for the federal government since being confirmed solicitor general Oct. 28.

Two days later, the justices will hear the biggest Second Amendment case in a decade in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court will probe the state’s strict concealed-carry regime and, more broadly, how the gun right identified in prior precedents applies outside the home.

In between those arguments, on Nov. 2, the court will hear First Amendment and arbitration cases.

The justices on Friday agreed to hear two challenges to the Texas measure in short order, while allowing the abortion-blocking law to stay in place in the meantime over Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. Curiously, while the justices agreed to grant cert on this issue, they did not vote to place the law on hold until they issue an opinion in this case.

Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin go behind the headlines and the vote count to analyze what the court will consider when advocates step up to the lectern, and what it all might mean for abortion rights.

Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The MacArthur Justice Center’s Amir Ali joins Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast to talk about what it was like to argue in the high court’s new hybrid, in-person format.

Ali represented the petitioner in Thompson v. Clark, a case about federal civil rights lawsuits that led Justice Samuel Alito to pose a hypothetical question about a half man/half horse with a nicotine addiction. Seriously.

On top of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death-penalty case stemming from the 2013 bombing, the justices will also consider whether Kentucky’s Republican attorney general can defend the state’s abortion law after the Democratic governor declined.

The high court will also hear a case about the rules for suing police, plus a dispute over civil-service pensions under the Social Security Act.

Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek at those upcoming arguments on Oct. 12 and 13.

Attendance in the courtroom is limited to staff, arguing attorneys, and a handful of journalists, so the court will continue to livestream the proceedings to the public. 

For this episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin run down the five cases the justices will hear during their first week, including a battle between states over water rights and the federal government's attempt to block "state secrets" from being handed over to litigants.

The court will hear arguments on Oct. 13 about pretrial publicity and mitigating evidence, as the justices decide whether to reverse an appeals court ruling that vacated Tsarnaev’s sentences for the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured hundreds more.

Attorney General Merrick Garland imposed an execution moratorium this past summer, raising the question of how that will play into the case, if at all.

To help break down the issues, “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are joined by Goodwin’s William Jay, who filed an amicus brief supporting the government on behalf of the National Fraternal Order of Police.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin

Guest: William Jay

Producer: David Schultz

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast | Via Spotify

For this special episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson discuss where this opinion came from and why it came outside of the court's normal operating procedures.

They also talk about how the justices came down in this case and what this ruling means for the liberal justices' prospects moving forward.

Progressives largely bemoaned both rulings, which fell 6-3 along ideological lines in the conservative-majority court. But the ACLU’s David Cole explained that, in his view, only the voting-rights ruling was wrong.

Cole, the group’s national director who argued and won a school-speech case this term on behalf of a cursing cheerleader, joined Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to review the 2020-21 term.

He expressed optimism at the court’s rulings that crossed ideological lines in a handful of cases, though it remains to be seen whether that continues next term, which starts in October.

Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

All eyes, too, will be on Justice Stephen Breyer sometime after the last opinion is delivered to see if he retires, as progressives are pressuring him to do.

Cases and Controversies dives into what's ahead and what the court did this past week in siding with student free speech and NCAA athletes in two big decisions.

In Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of high-school cheerleader Brandi Levy, saying her school went too far when it suspended her for her Snapchat rant after failing to make the varsity team.

And the court unanimously ruled in favor of college athletes in NCAA v. Alston, saying schools can't conspire to deny students education-related compensation in the name of preserving "amateurism." 

Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin provide the details on decisions and look at what's coming up.

The court handed progressives a 7-2 win by once again upholding Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, while pleasing conservatives with a unanimous win for a religious group in the latest clash between LGBT rights and religious freedom.

And although there appears to be broad agreement among the justices, the vote count masks significant disagreement among the nine.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the rulings, implications for future cases, and even a few conspiracy theories.

Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Hogan Lovells partner Cate Stetson, who co-counseling with the ACLU brought the challenge, joins the latest Cases and Controversies to break down the issue and look at where it’s headed.

She also talks with hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin about the justices’ seemingly-unusual alignments and how they show the court’s complexity.

And the hosts recap the latest battle between Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh in a case that limited the scope of a repeat-offender gun law.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those cases along with a third on a computer-hacking law that featured unusual alignments in the majority and dissent.

Federal Indian law expert Mary Kathryn Nagle joins the podcast to explain the Ninth Circuit criminal case, United States v. Cooley, where the court affirmed tribal sovereignty and authority over non-Indians driving through reservations.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the court's latest decisions and action on the "shadow docket."

They're joined by MacArthur Justice Center's Easha Anand to talk about the court's decision to once again decline to hear a case involving police accountability.

The high court’s grant kicked off a busy week that also saw several opinions, including a contentious criminal ruling over the right to unanimous jury verdicts that may foreshadow precedent fights to come. It was also one in which Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh got into a very heated judicial exchange.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down all of that and more on this week’s episode as the justices continue to issue the final rulings of the term.

They’re joined by Skadden’s Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy, who won a unanimous ruling in another criminal case this week that bolstered search and seizure protections for homes.

D.C. Solicitor General Loren Alikhan, who filed a brief supporting the defense, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the dispute in Terry v. United States over whether low-level crack offenders can get relief under the First Step Act.

Judging from the argument, it sounds like the court will say no, even though the Justice Department switched positions after the 2020 election to side with the defendant, Tarahrick Terry.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also speculate about the latest in Breyer Watch—will he retire? when?—and give some statistics on when other justices have announced their plans to step down.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District said schools can't punish on-campus speech unless it could cause a substantial disruption at the school.

The question at argument April 28 in the case of a student who didn't make varsity cheer and expressed her displeasure on Snapchat was whether the 1969 standard applies to off-campus speech directed at the school on social media.

Joining Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast to talk about issues around Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L. are activists Charlie Mirsky, of March for Our Lives, and Maya Green, of Student Voice. They describe the importance of social media to student political activities and the kinds of speech at risk in this case.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss the court's newest Second Amendment case asking if there is a right to possess a gun outside of the home for self protection. It's a question left open by the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and one that's baffled the lower courts.

Finally, the podcast will dip into the court's latest 6-3 vote in an immigration case that didn't break down along the usual ideological lines.

A student's right to express herself on social media about her high school while on her own time and away from campus, and a California requirement that charities disclose top donors are at the heart of the court's free speech cases. Both garnered amicus support from across the ideological spectrum.

But environmental cases also take center stage this week, with arguments on Superfund cleanups, renewable fuel standards, and the PennEast pipeline.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the action. They'll also recap the latest opinions and take a look at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's $2 million book advance and some of the criticisms surrounding the deal.

Starting April 19, the justices will hear arguments over CARES Act relief for Indian tribes, immigration, gun convictions, appellate procedure, and patents.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action to come and recap the latest high court happenings.

The state says this information is already required by the federal government and that it's needed to police the misuse of dollars donated by California residents.

The charities and their "friends of the court" don't see it that way.

The libertarian Goldwater Institute's Timothy Sandefur joins Cases and Controversies to explain why progressive groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have joined forces against the law. They say it will chill charitable donations and open up donors to harassment.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also explain the court's ruling in the Google v. Oracle blockbuster copyright case, Justice Clarence Thomas' thoughts on big tech, and the latest on the Stephen Breyer retirement watch.

The court had tough questions for WilmerHale’s Seth Waxman, who represented the NCAA and attempted to defend the unique amateurism status of college sports against allegations of exploitation.

On the other hand, the justices worried about the limits of a ruling for the students.

Tillman Breckenridge, who filed an amicus brief supporting the students on behalf of African American Antitrust Lawyers, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the case.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap recent high court action, including a new grant in a case that both is and isn’t about abortion, as well as three unanimous decisions on water rights, media consolidation, and robocalls.

The justices will hear argument March 31 in an antitrust case where the Ninth Circuit invalidated limits on education-related compensation for college athletes, but preserved the NCAA’s ban on outright pay.

That argument, which will conclude the March sitting, will be preceded by two other class action cases. These include efforts to limit securities actions and the damages available to class members.

Check out the pregame action with Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin in the latest "Sneak Peek" edition of the Cases and Controversies.

The justices will consider Fifth Amendment protections for employers trying to keep union organizers away, the scope of tribal police officers’ authority to detain and search non-Indians, and whether law enforcement can enter a home and seize property under the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

The high court will examine whether the so-called "community caretaking" doctrine permits warrantless searches and seizures of homes. The court previously allowed such searches of vehicles.

The Constitutional Accountability Center’s David Gans, who filed an amicus brief against the government, joins Cases and Controversies to explain why he thinks the answer is a resounding no.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also break down the latest Supreme Court news, including the first solo dissent in an argued case by Chief Justice John Roberts, and a new grant on civil suits against police.

In a just-argued case challenging out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting prohibitions in Arizona, the justices will decide how to measure whether voting restrictions unconstitutionally discriminate against minorities or are simply the "ordinary burdens" of voting.

University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to discusses the importance of the case beyond the battleground Grand Canyon State.

Cases and Controversies dives into the separation of powers dispute involving medical device company Arthex Inc. and the patent office and another centered on challenges to Social Security Administration judicial appointments.

The Arizona case looks at the limit on who can return early ballots on behalf of third parties and the state’s out-of-precinct voting policy. The outcome could provide guidance for future voting rights challenges following the court's landmark ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. The 2013 decision struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.

Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss disputes the justices finally cleared from their docket. They include challenges to the 2020 presidential election and the look into Donald Trump's financial dealings.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the disputes that will be argued each day starting Feb. 22.

The justices will hear arguments—still remotely due to the pandemic—about water apportionment between Florida and Georgia, the credibility of asylum seekers, and home search and seizure protections against police investigating misdemeanors.

Jennifer Kay, Bloomberg Law’s Florida correspondent, says this dispute is so contentious that, if Florida and Georgia were sovereign countries instead of states within the U.S., warfare may be the only way to resolve it.

The heart of the conflict is a river that runs through both states. Florida says Georgia is withdrawing far too much of the river’s water, to the point that it’s merely a trickle by the time it reaches the state line. Georgia, meanwhile, denies this and says a ruling against it would kneecap its thriving agriculture industry.

We hear from the people living in these states who will be most affected by the court’s ruling. And Jennifer speaks to Cases and Controversies producer David Schultz about how we got to this point in the first place.

From the Chief Justice's refusal to preside over a second impeachment trial to the justices' dismissal of the "emoluments" litigation, Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin explain the consequences of the court's inaction.

On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, veteran public defender Kelley Henry gives an inside look at those efforts, which, for Henry, led to contracting Covid-19 while working on the case.

Henry talks about the “last-minute” litigation and her frustration at the government’s and the court system’s treatment of Montgomery. She explains what it was like, as an attorney, to endure rejection from the high court—without explanation—as the majority sided with the Justice Department, like it did in every case to come before the court during the Trump administration’s unprecedented run of executions.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap the justices’ bit role in the presidential inauguration, as well as news of President Biden’s top lawyer at the court—for now, anyway.

The justices will hear arguments over FCC media ownership rules and climate litigation on Jan. 19 in a work week shortened by the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and presidential inauguration.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview those arguments and recap a week of divided shadow docket orders on federal executions and abortion-pill restrictions.

The court will hear disputes related to immigration, speech and religion, and the Federal Trade Commission the week of Jan. 11.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview these cases and discuss the latest rejected Republican election challenge against the backdrop of the deadly insurrection at the Capitol.

They also note some pressure on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire with Democrats set to control the White House and Senate.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin round up the biggest moments in their year-end podcast.

Shanmugam gives hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin an inside look at what it's been like running the practice at Paul, Weiss, a role he took on last year having no idea what Covid-19 had in store.

The former Antonin Scalia clerk talks about arguing remotely at the high court, notching a staggering success-rate when it comes to cert. petitions, mentoring younger lawyers, juggling family life, and, in one of the episode's lighter moments, what it's like being compared to pop star Britney Spears—when it comes to headsets, anyway.

Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin detail Texas's last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, historic lame duck federal executions, and the court's first opinions in argued cases this term.

And Goldstein and Russell's Sarah Harrington joins Cases and Controversies to discuss her latest—remote—argument in a bid to reclaim Jewish property taken during the Nazi era.

In those cases—Germany v. Philipp and Hungary v. Simon—the justices will consider whether Holocaust survivors and their families can sue former Axis countries in the U.S. or whether they must press their claims oversees.

It's déjà vu for the remainder of the week, as the justices will consider issues—and in one instance, a case—that they've recently tackled in previous terms.

In Facebook v. Duguid, the court will once again consider what counts as a prohibited "robocall" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The arbitration case Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. comes back to the court for a second time. This time the justices will consider when an arbitrator—not a court—gets to decide whether claims should go to arbitration or should they go to the judiciary in the first instance.

Finally, the court considers another separation of powers challenge to a federal agency—this time the Federal Housing Finance Agency—in Collins v. Mnuchin.

Hosts Adam Allington and Lisa Helem, along with reporters Ayanna Alexander, Ruiqi Chen, and Meghan Tribe, interviewed lawyers across the industry, from corporate general counsels to top Am Law 200 lawyers to current law students, each sharing their experience navigating the legal space as a person of color. We try to answer what law firms are doing to recruit more diverse classes of lawyers, and how they are addressing barriers to entry for Black lawyers.

In between, the justices will hear an array of arguments over the scope of an anti-hacking law, the ability to sue the IRS to prevent enforcement, and corporate immunity from suits involving overseas atrocities.

Bloomberg Law breaks down these cases in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies podcast.

On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk about how that Mueller case could be wiped from the docket.

They also discuss the latest Census case, Trump v. New York, which deals with the administration’s attempt not to count non-citizens. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s Mahogane Reed joins the hosts to break down the case and explain LDF’s support for New York’s position.

Kimberly and Jordan also discuss the latest religion cases at the court involving challenges to Covid-prompted gathering restrictions, and how the justices may choose to avoid issuing sweeping rulings in both this and the Census case.

Akin Gump’s Pratik A. Shah joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to game out the likely outcomes that include the justices leaving most of the law intact.

The case, California v. Texas, derives from a 2017 amendment to the landmark law known as Obamacare that zeroed out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate.

GOP-led states and the federal government say the mandate was so integral to Obamacare that the rest of the law can’t stand without it. Shah, who filed an amicus brief in the case, explains why that’s unlikely to happen and why eyes should be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

All ears will be on Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her second phone argument week as the justices remotely hear a Republican challenge to the healthcare law that dominated discussion during her confirmation hearings.

On Nov. 9, the court will hear arguments on time rules surrounding immigration removal proceedings and whether federal law blocks a man’s suit against federal task force officers who beat him up.

This will be one of the first cases new Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett will hear.

Also this week, the court will likely continue fielding emergency requests ahead of and after Election Day to sort out mail-in ballot and other disputes in the states over voting security and pandemic safety.

William Haun with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty  joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin on this deep dive episode to break down Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Haun’s group represents Sharonell Fulton, Toni Lynn Simms-Busch, and Catholic Social Services, which says the city is wrongly barring them from working in its foster care system because CSS won’t place children with same-sex couples.

The hosts also catch up on Barrett’s almost certain confirmation, as well as the contentious voting cases that continue to divide the justices on their “shadow docket,” and some new appeals they agreed to hear argued later this term.

Ramzi Kassem of CUNY law school and Sean Marotta of Hogan Lovells recount everything ranging from missing Justice Ginsburg to technical issues to what to eat for breakfast ahead of a pandemic-era remote argument.

And Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Madison Alder joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down the latest in the high court confirmation process for Amy Coney Barrett, which appears secure for Republicans before the Nov. 3 elections are decided.

Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings kick off Monday, a federal holiday. But in the second and final week of the October argument session, the justices will hear disputes in cases involving military justice, bankruptcy, Fourth Amendment civil suits against law enforcement, and immigration.

As in May, all arguments for the sitting will be conducted by phone due to social distancing demands of the coronavirus. A live audio feed will be provided by C-Span and other news outlets.

This will be the first term in nearly three decades that the court will be without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18, and the second time in the past three terms the court starts work with a prospective colleague in the confirmation process.

On this special episode of Cases and Controversies, Bloomberg Law’s Kimberly Robinson, Jordan Rubin, and Madison Alder break down the nomination and what to expect in the weeks ahead. Republicans are pushing to seat Barrett before a winner is declared in the Nov. 3 election, raising questions of what Democrats can do to stop them, and, perhaps more importantly, what Democrats will do next if Republicans are successful.

Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin look at the future of the court, both in the near- and long-term, in this term preview episode featuring two guests.

Weil’s Zack Tripp, a former Ginsburg clerk, joins the show to recount his experience at her memorial and share some of his memories clerking for the Notorious RBG.

Then, the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Anastasia Boden talks about what Ginsburg meant to her and helps the hosts break down where the high court is headed.

In the latest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the list, which includes notable names in Republican political circles, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. 

The hosts also bring on the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro, who has a new book coming out on the contentious Supreme Court confirmation process.

Election law expert Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices will approach these questions and what it may mean for voters.

And check out this Bloomberg Law video on election safety with Hasen.

On this episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk with Alliance Defending Freedom’s John Bursch. He’s one of the lawyers representing Calvary Chapel against the state of Nevada in one of the latest emergency cases that resulted in a 5-4 ruling. The church argues the state is unlawfully letting casinos operate at greater capacity than houses of worship during the pandemic.

The hosts also run through the gamut of high court news, including some Supreme scoops, another Covid-related emergency order, Justice Ginsburg being back in the hospital, and Justice Stephen Breyer becoming an epic meme.

On the latest episode, they interview ACLU attorneys starring in the forthcoming documentary “The Fight,” out July 31, which tracks several high-profile legal battles against the Trump administration over the last few years. The guests talk about their cases, their favorite film moments, and their thoughts on the just-completed high court term.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest health scare and the justices’ divergent—and unexplained—orders in the aftermath of the Trump financial subpoena litigation.

But law professor Stephen Vladeck says that's not the full picture. A look at the so-called "shadow docket"—the work the court does without oral argument—suggests it was a much better term for conservatives and the Trump administration than it might seem.

On the latest episode of Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin lift the veil on some of these consequential yet enigmatic actions. This includes green-lighting President Trump's border wall and refusing to revisit the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Chief Justice John Roberts continued to dominate the direction of the court he leads, authoring landmark opinions on presidential power in the cases over subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records.

He was also in the majority for two big cases handing victories to religious employers seeking to avoid compliance with discrimination laws and provide contraception coverage to their employees.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies break down the final week of the term, which also included a consequential ruling about American Indian land in Oklahoma.

They also discuss Supreme Court retirement and health care news—but not the kind court watchers were bracing for.

The justices were able to clear their decks of five cases this week, in which the chief justice took a starring role. From his swing vote in a Louisiana abortion case to his vote in favor of a unitary executive, Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those cases and the chief's pivotal role in this episode of our podcast, Cases & Controversies.

And later in the episode, Hogan Lovells' Cate Stetson joins the podcast to discuss Roberts' not-so-surprising votes and what it means for the future of the court.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those two divided decisions, on SEC enforcement and the rights of immigrants facing expedited removal. They also talk about what the rest of the term looks like, including how the Roberts Court will likely break new ground by not issuing its final decisions until July.

Also, Bloomberg Law’s judiciary reporter, Madison Alder, joins the podcast to discuss President Trump’s twin milestones this week: appointing his 200th federal judge while failing to put any Black judges on the appeals courts.

Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts faced backlash from Republicans for siding with Democratic appointees in the closely-watched employment discrimination and DACA disputes, both of which will have immediate impacts for millions of Americans.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down these momentous decisions, joined by guests Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown and Omar Gonzalez-Pagan of Lambda Legal, who filed briefs in the LGBT discrimination cases.

The hosts also highlight some important appeals the high court chose not to take up, as well as some notable instances of tempers flaring in dissent.

The court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, has quickly become the median justice. He's the only one to be in the majority in 100% of the argued cases that he's participated in this term. Chief Justice John Roberts is close behind.

Kavanaugh also has authored three of the court's six split decisions that were decided by just one vote. Such contentious issues typically get assigned to more senior justices.

All that's likely to change with the end of the term fast approaching and the court handing down its most consequential decisions. Look for insight on how things might change in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies with Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

This week’s Cases and Controversies episode breaks down that ruling as well as decisions on immigration, arbitration, and more.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also look at what’s ahead and note that the term’s most contentious opinions could come soon. Among the 20 cases remaining are ones on discrimination protections for LGBT workers and the Obama-era DACA program that shields hundreds of thousands of immigrants from deportation.

The hosts also update the situation on pending petitions over qualified immunity, which was discussed in the May 22 episode. The legal doctrine that shields law enforcement from liability, even in the face of egregious allegations of civil rights violations, is taking on new significance following George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police.

Lyle Denniston has covered the court for nearly six decades, and he joins Cases and Controversies to review the big pending cases and the pandemic's implications for the future of the Supreme Court. He'll also disclose what he's been up to during his third shot at "retirement."

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin will also get listeners up to date with the latest filings and court happenings. These include two likely new cases and emergency requests related to the pandemic.

The latest Cases and Controversies episode highlights an issue that’s been piling up on the high court’s docket: qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields law enforcement from liability even after the most egregious allegations of civil rights violations.

The Cato Institute’s Jay Schweikert has been fighting against the doctrine at the court and he joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to explain why, in his view, it puts plaintiffs in a hopeless “Catch-22" when trying to vindicate their rights, and why the time has come for the justices to take another look at immunity.

The hosts also discuss a variety of high court action, including litigation over the release of the full Mueller Report, as well as the court’s most recent opinion, in a suit over the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa more than two decades ago.

Producers: David Schultz and Josh Block

Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the historic sitting, from an all-female lineup to taciturn Justice Clarence Thomas's multiplicity of questions to, once again, The Flush.

And attorney Jason Harrow, who made his high court debut remotely, joins to chat about his case and his unusual argument experience. Listen to find out why Harrow really should have brushed up on his Tolkien before calling in to SCOTUS.

Headlining this upcoming week are the May 12 arguments over congressional and prosecutorial efforts to get President Trump’s private financial records from third-party banks and accounting firms. In another dispute with 2020 presidential election implications, the justices will hear arguments May 13 over whether "faithless" Electoral College electors’ can vote their own way.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview those highly anticipated disputes, as well as back-to-back arguments May 11 over American Indian reservation status and religious employers’ First Amendment claims.

The hosts also highlight some of the more noteworthy moments from the high court’s historic first week on the phone.

Two female advocates will kick off the first one, which is being argued over by phone and livestreamed to the public—both a first for the famously technophobic court.

Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin breakdown that case as well as the three others being argued during the week, from IP to free speech to religious freedom.

And they'll highlight some of the technical issues facing the justices and the advocates.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin unpack the ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana. It was a stare decisis throwdown in which Justice Elena Kagan joined some of her Republican-appointed colleagues in dissent, prompting speculation about why she did so.

The hosts also recap the other opinions that included interesting vote lineups among the justices.

And Kimberly and Jordan speak with Riyaz Kanji, who next month will argue for his clients, the Creek Nation, in a telephonic oral argument in the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma. That dispute calls into question the status of tribal reservations in the eastern half of the Sooner state. Kanji explains why he believes claims by Oklahoma officials of a crisis if the justices side with the Creek Nation are overblown.

In another first, the court also said it will hear those arguments over the phone. Among the case to be argued is the subpoena fight for President Trump's financial records, which will be argued May 12.

Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal joins Cases and Controversies' hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson to put the court's moves in perspective.

"This is an extraordinary thing," Katyal explains.

Watch Justice Breyer's census PSA here.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the heated dispute and all of the latest Supreme Court news, coronavirus-related and otherwise.

They’re joined by Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R), whose office’s win in a recent Fourth Amendment case marked a clean sweep of all three of the state’s cases argued at the high court this term.

Schmidt talks to the hosts about all three disputes, his oral argument preparation, how coronavirus is impacting both the high court and his home state, and what might be the next Kansas dispute to come to the court.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the snafu and how the coronavirus is changing the way the justices themselves stay in shape.

They’re joined by the lawyer who won the court’s latest decision, SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein.

The Goldstein & Russell partner breaks down the implications of the maritime decision in CITGO v. Frescati, whose issuance was delayed by problems with the court’s website. He also talks about how the justices might handle, or not handle, the spring arguments in this era of social distancing.

Kimberly and Jordan also preview a new case that the court will hear next term involving mistaken identity and suing law enforcement. Producer: David Schultz.

The court issued four opinions Monday March 23, including a closely watched racial discrimination case that could make it harder to bring such suits.

Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also give an update on the latest coronavirus news out of the high court.

Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the impact of the pandemic on the court's business and what cases are up in the air.

Supreme Court watchdog Gabe Roth of Fix the Court highlights routes the justices could take if the outbreak causes further delay.

And with courts around the country facing similar questions, Bloomberg Law's Madison Alder explains what lower federal courts are doing to keep their doors open—electronically, if needed.

The much-anticipated dispute comes to the high court as coronavirus concerns sweep the nation, prompting uncertainty over how the notoriously old-fashioned institution—which doesn’t livestream arguments and has multiple members in their 80s—will handle the proceedings.

On March 12, the court closed to the public until further notice “out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees.”

However, the building “will remain open for official business,” the court added. It’s unclear at this point whether health concerns will affect arguments scheduled for the two-week session starting March 23.

For now, anyway, the court’s official business includes oral arguments in multiple cases—Trump v. Mazars, Trump v. Deutsche Bank, and Trump v. Vance—stemming from several Trump-related subpoenas.

To break down the historic, politically-charged issue, Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are joined by Supreme Court litigators who filed amicus briefs in these cases: Virginia Solicitor General Toby Heytens and Weil, Gotshal & Manges partner Zack Tripp.

The two-week session included arguments over challenges to a Louisiana law requiring hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers and a challenge to the structure of the bureau that’s long been a target of conservatives.

The Constitutional Accountability Center’s Brian Frazelle, who filed a brief supporting the consumer protection bureau, joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down the crucial case that could impact a wide range of government agencies.

The hosts also break down the latest 5-4 opinions, court line-standing controversies, and Chief Justice John Roberts’ latest rare public statement defending judicial independence.

The justices will also hear immigration disputes, continuing a theme of the term where such cases have dominated the docket.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview these hot-button arguments in this latest “Sneak Peek” episode.

The Trump administration says that hypothetical is far-fetched, but it'll be on the justices' minds this week as they take on a law that punishes encouraging illegal immigration at oral argument Feb. 25.

It's just one of the disputes up for argument at the U.S. Supreme Court over the next few days, and "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are here to get you up to speed on all of them, including an environmental case involving a multi-billion-dollar pipeline, prisoner litigation claims, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in a terrorism case.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: David Schultz.

The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off 2020 with blockbuster grants and notable oral arguments, and Chief Justice John Roberts presided over an impeachment trial.

In this deep dive episode of "Cases and Controversies," Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin get you current with the latest Obamacare case and the challenge to "faithless electors."

They also highlight star-powered arguments that featured tense rebuttals and even millennial slang.

George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason also explains why there wasn't "a lot of love" for the prosecution of "Bridgegate" figures Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin

Guest: George Washington University Law Professor Randall Eliason

Producer: RJ Jewell

Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down Roberts' role in Trump's trial as well as three argued cases: disputes over career criminal sentencing, arbitration, and the closely-watched case over funding religious schools. 

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: RJ Jewell.

Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the cases, including the fallout from 2013's "Bridgegate" scandal and an age discrimination suit that could have reverberations beyond employment discrimination.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: RJ Jewell.

We want to do our part at Bloomberg Law. So we present this special "Supremely Funny" episode on the funniest high court moments of 2019. 

From Ruth Bader Ginsburg's damning admission that she doesn't read her cumbersome financial documents to Samuel Alito's late-night observations on the D.C. Metro, there's something for all court watchers.

In this deep dive recap of the December session, Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Elaine Goldenberg joins "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down some of the session's biggest arguments—on the Second Amendment and Obamacare—and the first opinion of the term in a debt collection case that could have implications in other areas of the law.

They also take on the denial of the closely-watched petition in the Adnan Syed "Serial" case, as well as high-profile litigation over subpoenas into Trump's financial information and the high court's blocking of his administration's attempt to resume federal executions—for now, anyway.

They'll hear a dispute at the intersection of criminal law and immigration, a case that could impact patent litigation, and a complaint from health insurance companies that the government still owes them—big time, to the tune of $12 billion.

Also up for argument are cases from Arizona death row, a technical sentencing puzzle, and an international child custody dispute.

In addition to arguments over a strict New York City gun provision—which is no longer in force, thus potentially mooting the issue—the justices will also take on a diverse array of disputes on copyright, the environment, and ERISA, among others.

In this Deep Dive episode, constitutional law professor Josh Blackman discusses the Second Amendment's second-class status as well as how the fight over a procedural issue—mootness—has drawn the ire of liberal senators.

He'll also chat about the terrible process of SCOTUS line standing.

They'll look at the closely watched arguments over the fate of the Obama-era DACA program, which protects individuals brought to the country illegally when they were children. The program may well be in jeopardy. Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro joins them to discuss.

They also recap cases on cross-border shooting liability, race discrimination, and traffic stops, as well as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's conspicuous absence from arguments Nov. 13.

On this latest Sneak Peek episode, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the DACA argument as well as other important ones that might be flying under the radar. These include a case dealing with race discrimination and another on a shooting at the Mexican border that's making its second appearance before the justices. The high court will hear a bankruptcy case, too. 

For past episodes this season taking a deeper look at the DACA issue, check out the interview with attorney and DACA recipient Jose Magaña-Salgado, and the term preview episode with Goldstein & Russell partner Sarah Harrington.

On this Deep Dive episode of "Cases and Controversies," Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the legal saga surrounding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that's granted temporary protections to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

Kimberly and Jordan also interview a lawyer—himself a DACA recipient— who signed onto a brief challenging the Trump administration's move to undo Barack Obama's executive action.

The hosts dive into the contentious arguments on whether federal employment discrimination law bars discrimination against LGBT employees, a closely-watched dispute where Justice Neil Gorsuch could hold the deciding vote. 

They also interview a first-time advocate, Jessica E. Méndez Colberg, a Ponce, Puerto Rico attorney who represented labor interests at the 80-minute, star-packed argument featuring two former U.S. solicitors general over the fate of the island's oversight board. 

Kimberly and Jordan also examine the court's new "two-minute rule," where the justices—in theory, at least—are supposed to allow lawyers to speak uninterrupted at the beginning of their arguments. 

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Guest: Jessica E. Méndez Colberg

In this SCOTUS Sneak Peek episode, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down upcoming arguments over the constitutionality of Puerto Rico's Financial Oversight and Management Board, the latest juvenile sentencing test involving the D.C. sniper rampage, and the first of several disputes this term at the intersection of immigration and criminal law.

The episode also features a cameo from Bloomberg Law intern Heather Saltz, who previews a case about debt collection litigation.

Guest: Heather Saltz

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

In this SCOTUS Sneak Peek episode, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin will also highlight arguments on states' ability to eliminate the insanity defense, available fees in patent cases against the federal government, and whether the Bill of Rights' requirement of unanimous juries for criminal convictions applies to the states.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

Supreme Court veteran advocate Sarah Harrington joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin on this deep dive term preview. Harrington is a partner at Goldstein & Russell, a former assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, and she's argued twenty cases at the high court.

The podcast will break down the biggest issues facing the court, including a Fourth Amendment dispute that Harrington's arguing in November. Harrington gives an insider's look at preparation for a Supreme Court argument.

Guest: Sarah Harrington.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast |Via Spotify

This term, only 17% of Supreme Court cases were argued by women, a statistic that's gone largely unchanged in recent history.

The numbers are even worse in BigLaw. While men from large law firms argued 51 times at the high court last term, female BigLaw lawyers argued just eight. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Guests: Goodwin Procter's Jaime Santos and Bloomberg Law intern Jake Holland.

Producers: RJ Jewell and Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

Kimberly and Jordan were joined in this end-of-term roundtable by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and Goodwin's William Jay, as they look at where the high court is and where it's going. 

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: RJ Jewell

Bloomberg Law's Supreme Court team recaps the action in cases about double jeopardy, redistricting, uranium, and the First Amendment featuring parings like Gorsuch and Ginsburg in one case and a 3-3-3 vote breakdown in another.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast|Via Spotify

The justices also granted review for next term in five cases and rejected a notable one challenging indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay.

Countdown: There have been 45 cases decided so far this term with 24 more to go.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast|Via Spotify

Last week, it was Clarence Thomas crossing over to join the liberals in a 5-4 class action decision. The week before that, it was Neil Gorsuch in a tribal matter. And the week before that, Brett Kavanaugh handed the liberals a victory in a divided antitrust suit.

This week, it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg's turn. Bloomberg Law breaks down the 5-4 sentencing case in which she joined four of her conservative colleges, as well as the other three cases.

Countdown: There have been 42 cases decided so far this term with 27 more to go.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

This week, the latest contestant on Join-the-Liberals is the ever-idiosyncratic Justice Thomas, casting the tie-breaking vote against Home Depot in a class action case.

But he made waves once again on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, with a separate opinion in a case over an Indiana abortion law in which he dueled with Justice Ginsburg, alleging her dissent in the case “makes little sense.”

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those opinions as well as others on retaliatory arrests and Social Security benefits. They also highlight the latest case added to the high court’s already-charged docket for next term involving a cross-border shooting.

With 38 decisions in argued cases down and 31 to go, stay tuned for more “Cases and Controversies.”

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast|Via Spotify

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the 5-4 decision in Herrera v. Wyoming, along with the other two opinions from Monday. Those involved pharmaceutical litigation and a mix of bankruptcy and trademark law.

They also try to figure out what’s happening on the “shadow docket” with RBG and Justice Thomas.

With 35 decisions in argued cases down and 34 to go, stay tuned for more “Cases and Controversies.”

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

This week, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the three cases the justices handed down, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh's first solo cross-over vote to give the liberal justices a victory in a 5-4 antitrust case.

They also discuss the growing chasm between the court's conservative and liberal blocs over the death penalty, which was exposed this week in unusual dueling opinions in a previously decided matter.

With 32 decisions down and 37 left to go, stay tuned for more Cases and Controversies.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device:

Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast | Via Spotify

Law professor Leah Litman joins "Cases and Controversies" to chat about that and other happenings at the court's April sitting. 

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. 

Guest: Leah Litman, University of California, Irvine. 

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. 

The justices have a stacked schedule, with seven cases set for argument during the three-day session. On Tuesday the court will tackle one of the biggest issues of the term: Whether the Department of Commerce can add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Check out our Deep Dive episode for more on that dispute.

The justices kick off the last sitting of the term with arguments in six cases this week, including ones on "scandalous" trademarks, securities suits, and a law used to prosecute violent crime that defendants say is too vague. 

Hosts: Jordan Rubin and special guest host, Bloomberg News' Greg Stohr.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

It follows last term's controversial decision in the travel ban case, where a majority of the court deferred to Trump's executive judgment, looking past arguments of racial animus. 

Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin get you up to speed on the census case and discuss, among other things, whether it will turn into a "Travel Ban, Part Two." 

They also talk to Oklahoma Solicitor General Mithun Mansinghani, who filed an amicus brief supporting the federal government on behalf of a coalition of conservative states.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. 

Guest: Mithun Mansinghani.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

And, of course, they discuss the biggest news of the sitting: Justice Thomas speaks!

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Guest: Elaine Goldenberg.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. 

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. 

Will the Notorious RBG re-join her colleagues on the bench after her absence last sitting?

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.