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. 4h ago

    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.

    43 min

  2. 6d ago

    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.

    49 min

  3. Jun 4

    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.

    31 min

  4. May 28

    $440 Million Cruise Ship Showdown + Supreme Court DIGs Death Penalty Case

    What happens when cruise lines dock at “stolen” Cuban property? In Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that using confiscated Havana docks triggers massive liability under the LIBERTAD Act — even after the original property interest expired. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion drops a history lesson from 1905 to the Cuban Revolution. Plus: The Court DIGs (dismisses as improvidently granted) the Hamm v. Smith death penalty case after 23 relists — a messy Atkins v. Virginia intellectual disability fight with borderline IQ scores. And a quick hit on states suing states: Florida & Texas vs. California on driver’s licenses and Justice Thomas’s fiery original jurisdiction dissent. Originalist takes on property rights, cruel and unusual punishment, and why the Court sometimes says “never mind.”

    46 min

  5. May 20

    Still Standing? Mifepristone Lights Up the Shadow Docket

    When the FDA openly admits it skipped its own procedural rules to fast-track the Biden administration’s post-Dobbs agenda, who exactly has the right to drag them into court over it? This week on Rightly Decided, Laura Beth Latimer, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon bypass the cultural hair-on-fire reporting surrounding the mifepristone litigation (Danco v. Louisiana) to talk about what’s actually keeping appellate lawyers awake at night: Article III standing. We’re tracing the legal gymnastics of standing—from the controversial "special solicitude" granted to states in 2007’s Massachusetts v. EPA, all the way to Louisiana's current attempt to force the federal government to enforce the law. What we’re covering:  The 10,000-Foot View: How the Biden Administration's post-Dobbs push to "pull every lever" led to bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and FDA patient safety protocols. The Standing Problem: Why an emergency room doctor doesn't have the standing to sue the FDA, but Louisiana thinks it does. Shadow Docket Chaos: What a "stay of a stay" actually means on the ground for drug manufacturers and state laws. The Dissents: Why Justice Alito wanted to hit the brakes, and Justice Thomas’s one-page mic-drop invoking the Comstock Act to point out a problem of criminal proportions.If you want to understand the actual mechanics of how the administrative state gets challenged in federal court, let’s get into it.

    40 min

  6. May 6

    Damocles' Donor List & Racial Gerrymander Mayhem

    This week, the crew wades into two fresh-from-the-Court opinions (with a healthy dose of side-eye and sword-of-Damocles metaphors). First up: Can a pro-life pregnancy center sue in federal court when the New Jersey AG demands their donor list (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport)? The Supreme Court delivers a unanimous, common-sense smackdown on standing that’ll warm the hearts of First Amendment (and standing) fans everywhere. Then it’s time for a deep dive into Louisiana’s Voting Rights Act showdown (Louisiana v. Callais). Expect spirited conversation about racial gerrymandering, partisan map-drawing, cracking and packing, constitutional avoidance, and why Section 2 of the VRA isn’t quite as simple as the media says it is.

    52 min
  7. Written in Stone: Stare Decisis and the 10 Commandments

    Apr 29

    Written in Stone: Stare Decisis and the 10 Commandments

    In a razor-thin 9-8 en banc decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas’ law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom. Laura Beth Latimer is joined by Chance Weldon and Nathan Seltzer to break down Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD. We discuss why the court held that Stone v. Graham no longer controls after the Supreme Court killed the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton, and what the new historical “hallmarks of establishment” test means going forward. We cover: — Vertical stare decisis and when lower courts can move past undermined precedent — The six historical hallmarks of religious establishment — Issues of coercion, compelled financial support, and compulsory school attendance — Offended-observer standing and the limits of Article III jurisdiction A sharp, originalist discussion on religion in public schools and the future of Establishment Clause jurisprudence—with a likely Supreme Court appeal ahead. What do you think—did the Fifth Circuit go too far, or get it right?

    48 min

  8. Apr 22

    Defending Justice Thomas and Demystifying the “Shadow Docket”

    In this week’s episode, we begin with Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent address at the University of Texas, where he offered a glimpse into his judicial philosophy and the interaction between natural law and the Constitution. We take a little journey into the influence of progressivism and legal positivism, and discuss what’s on the horizon for the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. Also, we pull back the curtain on the "Shadow Docket." While often criticized by the mainstream media as a "secret" tool, we explain the legal necessity of the emergency docket, how it actually functions, and why it remains a vital component of the Court’s ability to provide timely relief in urgent cases. In This Episode: — The Lion of the Court: Key takeaways from Justice Thomas’s UT speech and his "unyielding" approach to the Constitution. — A Breach of Tradition: Analyzing the legal and ethical implications of the recent SCOTUS leak. — Demystifying the Shadow Docket: The difference between the merits docket and the emergency docket, why the "shadow" moniker is a misnomer for standard procedural stays, and the impact of emergency rulings on national policy. — The Future of Judicial Integrity: How the conservative legal movement should respond to increasing pressure on the judiciary.

    50 min
See All (16)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
5 Ratings

About

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.

Information

  • Creator
    Texas Public Policy Foundation
  • Years Active
    2K
  • Episodes
    16
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Texas Public Policy Foundation

You Might Also Like