Rightly Decided

Texas Public Policy Foundation

Rightly Decided is a legal podcast from the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for the American Future, whose attorneys defend the Constitution through legal opposition to government overreach.

  1. 1日前

    Culture Wars & The Spending Clause

    TPPF litigators Laura Beth Latimer, Clayton Calvin, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon play catch-up on the Supreme Court docket, tackling two major "culture war" cases. But don't worry, constitutional nerds—the team balances out the cultural heat with a massive, juicy deep dive into the Spending Clause (which, as Nathan helpfully reminds us, doesn't actually exist in the Constitution). The crew breaks down Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, an unbelievable religious liberty case that hinges entirely on agency law, and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the highly anticipated Title IX and Equal Protection clash over transgender athletes in school sports. Grab your highlighters and pocket Constitutions—this one is a masterclass in statutory interpretation, tiers of scrutiny, and why the Supreme Court decides legal questions, not just cases. In this episode: The Spending Clause "Contract": Why federal funding acts more like a simple contract than a blank check for Congress to regulate conduct, and how that core philosophy drove the conservative majority in both of today’s cases.Landor v. LDOC (6-3): A Louisiana prisoner had his dreadlocks shaved by guards even as he physically handed them a 5th Circuit opinion protecting his rights. We discuss why RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) doesn't allow him to sue those officers for damages, exploring the downstream consequences of Employment Division v. Smith and basic agency law.West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Title IX - 9-0): The court unanimously agrees that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate boys and girls sports teams based on biological sex, adhering to the statute's 1975 original public meaning. We also break down why Justice Gorsuch's famous Bostock opinion doesn't apply here.West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Equal Protection - 6-3): We unpack "quasi-suspect classes" and intermediate scrutiny. Does a state law separating sports by biological sex constitute arbitrary discrimination? The conservatives say no; the liberals want more facts.

  2. 7月15日

    Guns and Drugs: Supreme Court Puts the 2nd Amendment to Work

    Laura Beth Latimer, Chance Weldon, Nathan Seltzer, and Clayton Calvin are unpacking the final drops of the Supreme Court's October 2025 session. The team is zeroing in on two landmark Second Amendment decisions: United States v. Hemani (the "guns and drugs" case) and Wolford v. Lopez (the Hawaii guns case). Before diving into the heavy constitutional lifting, the crew geeks out over some breaking SCOTUS lore: the official rebranding of the notorious "Shadow Docket." From there, the team breaks down the Bruen test, exploring why constitutional text and historical traditions are treated a lot like 1930s poultry contracts (seriously, it makes sense when you hear it). In this episode: — The Shadow Docket is Dead: Why the Supreme Court is officially pivoting to the highly neutral "Interim Docket" (and why Nathan is having a hard time adjusting). — United States v. Hemani (9-0): We break down 42 USC 922(g)(3) and whether the government can disarm occasional users of controlled substances. We discuss the historical "habitual drunkard" laws, Alito's pragmatism, and Justice Thomas’s spicy Commerce Clause concurrence. — Wolford v. Lopez (6-3): Hawaii tried to flip the default rules for carrying firearms on private property open to the public. We discuss property rights versus gun rights, Justice Barrett's brilliant First Amendment hijab analogy, and why post-Civil War "Black Codes" are completely invalid historical analogs. — Originalism in Action: A masterclass in the Bruen test, the flaws of "means-end scrutiny," and how the court uses text, history, and tradition to interpret the Constitution.

  3. 7月8日

    SCOTUS Rules on Birthright Citizenship & the 14th Amendment

    Welcome to Rightly Decided, where the litigators of the Texas Public Policy Foundation bring you mostly originalist takes and zero media hysteria. In this episode, Laura Beth Latimer is joined by Nathan Seltzer, Clayton Calvin, and Litigation Director Chance Weldon to cut through the noise on the massive end-of-term SCOTUS drop: Trump v. Barbara. It's time for a legal play-by-play of the 5-4 (or 6-3, or 7-2...it's complicated) ruling affirming birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. We leave the policy preferences at the door and dive straight into the text, the history, and the court's six separate opinions. In this episode: The Majority (Chief Justice Roberts): An originalist defense relying on English common law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the heavyweight precedent of Wong Kim Ark.The Concurrences: Justice Jackson’s historical lens on Black citizenship, plus Justice Kavanaugh’s argument that the Court could have bypassed the Constitution entirely and just used the 1952 Immigration Act.The Dissents (Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito): A deep dive into the "domicile" test, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and Alito's spicy pushback on American consent versus British subjecthood. Plus, we flag a major tactical warning on the decline of facial challenges.Whether you're celebrating or seething over the outcome, put down the Twitter hot takes and join us to take a look at what the Court actually said.

  4. 6月30日

    Humphrey’s Executor Gets Slaughtered: Trump v. Slaughter & Trump v. Cook

    A major morning drop at the Supreme Court completely reshaped the landscape of administrative law and the unitary executive theory. In this episode of Rightly Decided, Laura Beth Latimer is joined by Nathan Seltzer and Clayton Calvin to break down two blockbuster, newly released opinions: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook. Are independent agencies officially a thing of the past, or has SCOTUS carved out a permanent "headless fourth branch" for the Federal Reserve? Tune in for a comprehensive, originalist breakdown of how these rulings affect democratic accountability and the balance of power between Congress and the Executive. Trump v. Slaughter (6-3): The Supreme Court officially overrules the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, holds that the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) "for-cause" removal protections violate the Vesting Clause of Article II, restoring the president's unilateral authority to fire independent agency board members. We discuss the historical context—from the Decision of 1789 to James Wilson's views on executive unity—and what Justice Gorsuch’s powerful concurrence signals for the future of the non-delegation doctrine. Trump v. Cook (5-4): In a surprising shift via the shadow docket, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh cross over to side with the liberal bloc, ruling that the president cannot immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Why did the court handle the Fed differently than the FTC? We unpack the critical roles of party presentation, historical national bank precedents (McCulloch v. Maryland), and the statutory procedural due process issues that triggered Justice Thomas’s solo dissent.

  5. 6月24日

    Judicial Courage – An Interview with Justice James Sullivan

    What happens when a Texas Supreme Court Justice walks into a podcast studio? You get an episode packed with everything from Monsters, Inc. jokes to hardcore constitutional theory. Hosts Laura Beth Latimer and Clayton Calvin are joined by Justice James P. Sullivan (aka "Judge Sully") of the Texas Supreme Court to talk life, law, why judicial opinions don’t have to be a snooze fest, and what it takes to display judicial courage – even when it means risking an election. Also in this episode: The "Judge Sully" Origin Story: How a college football injury (and hitting Drew Brees in practice) accidentally created a Texas Supreme Court Justice.Old School Process: Why he prefers printing hard copies and "drawing mustaches in the margins" over relying on the cloud.Pop Culture & The Law: Why he channels his inner Antonin Scalia to inject wit, zingers, and The Big Lebowski context into legal writing.The Ultimate Law Nerd Debate: Breaking down the real difference between Textualism and "Bloodthirsty Originalism."The Lightning Round: Why he’d keep the even-numbered Bill of Rights amendments, his favorite pre-1950 Justice, and his definitive (originalist) Star Wars take.

  6. 6月17日

    Machine Guns and Bootleggers

    In this episode of Rightly Decided, the litigators from the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future begin by breaking down a major Fifth Circuit victory that struck down an 1869 federal ban on home distilling of spirits. They analyze the McNutt and Hobby Distillers Association v. U.S. Department of Justice case, dissecting standing doctrine, the limits of the taxing power, and the Necessary and Proper Clause’s role in preserving federalism.   They also highlight their litigation targeting the Hughes Amendment’s ban on post-1986 machine guns (Temple Gun Club v. Blanche), and the FinCEN case (Corley v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury) involving Treasury rules on residential real estate transfers.

  7. 6月11日

    Catching up with SCOTUS: Commerce, Preservation, and Calling the FCC's Bluff

    In this episode of Rightly Decided, the litigators from the Texas Public Policy Foundation  return to the hallowed (and slightly dusty) halls of the Supreme Court. Fresh off getting sworn into the SCOTUS bar, Clayton Calvin gives us a behind-the-scenes look at drop days in June and what it’s really like to watch the justices read from the bench.   Then, the team unpacks a trio of fascinating cases that touch everything from delivery vans to death penalty appeals:  The "Last Mile" Loophole: How a Gorsuch-authored, unanimous decision in Flower Foods impacts interstate commerce, delivery drivers, and why originalists aren't crying into their pillows over it.  The Magic Words of Jury Selection: A deep dive into Pitchford v. Cain and the messy reality of trial law. What happens when a judge cuts off a Batson challenge? How far does an attorney have to go to preserve a constitutional claim without completely infuriating the bench?  The FCC's Empty Threats: An 8-1 breakdown of FCC v. AT&T. The government completely rewrites its own playbook on the fly, leading Chief Justice Roberts to send an emphatic message to agencies about how they interpret their rules. Key Takeaways From the Episode  The Wickard Distinction: Why the Flower Foods case is a traditional application of interstate commerce routing rather than an aggressive expansion of the substantial effects test.  The Debate Over Party Presentation: Chance and Laura Beth lock horns (amicably) on Article 3, footnotes, and how much a judge should rely strictly on the arguments framed by the litigants.  An Invitation to Ignore: Why the Supreme Court's ruling on the FCC's non-self-enforcing penalties might just incentivize companies to start tossing administrative "orders" straight into the recycling bin.  Enjoying our mostly originalist takes? Leave us a review, drop a comment, and don't forget to subscribe for more breakdown of the nation's biggest legal battles.

  8. 6月4日

    From Callais to Chaos: The New Redistricting Wars

    TPPF's National Election Protection Project Director Josh Findlay provides a timely deep dive into the seismic changes in redistricting following the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais.  Josh, a veteran election lawyer who served as the RNC’s first National Director of Election Integrity, breaks down how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has shaped congressional maps for decades. We explore the shift away from race-based districting as the predominant factor, the practical fallout in states like Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia, and the controversial push for mid-decade redistricting.  We also get into the Purcell principle, the tension between race and partisan considerations in map-drawing, standing and mootness issues in election litigation, and what the post-Callais landscape means for the 2026 and 2028 election cycles. With up to 70 congressional seats potentially in play, this episode offers critical insight into the new frontier of election integrity battles.

すべて見る（21）

番組について

Rightly Decided is a legal podcast from the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for the American Future, whose attorneys defend the Constitution through legal opposition to government overreach.

情報

  • クリエイター
    Texas Public Policy Foundation
  • 配信期間
    26年
  • エピソード
    21
  • 制限指定
    不適切な内容を含まない
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Texas Public Policy Foundation

その他のおすすめ