Divided Argument

Will Baude & Dan Epps

An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps. In partnership with SCOTUSblog.

  1. Mechanical / Animal

    22 小時前

    Mechanical / Animal

    We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court strikes down Hawaii's rule requiring a property owner's express consent before a firearm may be carried onto otherwise-public premises. Then to Pung v. Isabella County, a takings case asking whether a homeowner whose property is sold for back taxes is owed only the sale proceeds or full fair-market value. Along the way: a theory about a Landor v. Louisiana flip, the week's run of 6-3 conservative wins, and a short detour into the perils of teaching Federal Courts. Key Topics[00:00:00] - Triage mode: recording June 25 amid the end-of-term opinion dump[00:01:29] - What's still outstanding — and the campaign-finance case's standing problem[00:03:56] - The Landor "flip" theory: did Justice Jackson lose the majority to Justice Gorsuch?[00:06:40] - Thursday's decisions: Monsanto v. Durnell (FIFRA), two immigration wins, Wolford v. Lopez[00:08:58] - Counting the week's seven 6-3 conservative wins; the Hemani surprise[00:12:57] - The throughline: when may a state redefine property to evade a constitutional right?[00:18:35] - Wolford v. Lopez: Hawaii's "express consent" gun rule after Bruen[00:20:42] - The Bruen framework — step one vs. step two, and the free-speech analogy[00:26:57] - The change vs. the outlier: uniformity and Hawaii's sensitive-places list[00:30:49] - Alito's historical analogues: poaching laws and the Black Codes[00:33:34] - Jackson's dissent: race, Equal Protection, and how non-mechanical Bruen really is[00:38:59] - Caetano, the Ramos v. Louisiana callback, and Alito on racist origins[00:41:21] - Barrett's concurrence, Kagan's narrower path, and the rejected "spirit of aloha"[00:48:23] - Pung v. Isabella County: tax sales, takings, and "just compensation"[00:51:45] - Thomas's historical turn on tax-sale rules, and the fairness backstop[00:55:45] - Sign-off Relevant LinksSupreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ Divided Argument podcast: https://www.dividedargument.com/ Transcripts: https://www.dividedargument.com/transcripts Commentary blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/ Merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/ New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf Tyler v. Hennepin County: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_q86b.pdf Ramos v. Louisiana: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_j4el.pdf

    56 分鐘
  2. Alcoholic Originalism

    2 天前

    Alcoholic Originalism

    The big opinions are starting to drop, and we're doing our best to keep pace. We first discuss Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which concerns religious liberty, the scope of Congress's power to create remedies against individuals under the Spending Clause, and whether there's any redress if government officials literally throw your rights into a trash can. We then turn to United States v. Hemani, where the Court found that a federal law barring gun possession by unlawful drug users violated the Second Amendment and revealed that some of the Justices are surprisingly open-minded about marijuana's role in American society. Key Topics[00:07:07] - Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections[00:08:02] - The facts of Landor’s case and the prison’s decision to ignore prior religious-hair protections[00:10:52] - RFRA, RLUIPA, and the path from Employment Division v. Smith to modern religious-liberty litigation[00:14:54] - The Spending Clause theory behind federal funding conditions and why the remedy question matters[00:19:54] - The majority’s reasoning: why money-damages suits against officials were held unconstitutional here[00:21:33] - Sabri, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the debate over third-party liability[00:26:04] - The parade of horribles: transgender sports, vaccines, and other funding-condition hypotheticals[00:33:03] - The constitutional background: “general welfare,” the spending clause, and the comma-versus-semicolon debate[00:38:49] - Why the Court granted the case and whether the facts pushed the legal outcome[00:42:13] - Hemani and the federal statute banning gun possession by unlawful drug users[00:44:05] - Historical analogies, habitual drunkards, and how Bruen and Rahimi are functioning together[00:47:17] - Discussion of the Court’s analogical method and its practical limits in lower courts[00:54:26] - Justice Thomas’s concurrence on jurisdictional hooks after Lopez[00:55:31] - Justice Jackson’s concurrence on Bruen and Justice Alito’s surprising marijuana comparison[00:57:51] - The real-world use of marijuana versus alcohol at the founding, and why the analogy is controversial Relevant LinksDivided Argument: https://www.dividedargument.com/ Podcast merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/ Podcast commentary and blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/ RLUIPA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rluipa RFRA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/religious_freedom_restoration_act District of Columbia v. Heller (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/554/570 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/597/1 United States v. Rahimi (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/602/230 South Dakota v. Dole (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/203 Sabri v. United States (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/541/600

    1 小時 3 分鐘
  3. Watch Snobs

    6月14日

    Watch Snobs

    We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a 9-0 judicial-estoppel case that lets us ask where the doctrine even came from (Tennessee, 1857, apparently), and Abouammo v. United States, the venue case about a former Twitter employee who fabricated a document while the FBI sat downstairs. The venue talk wanders, happily, into the Yellowstone "zone of death," a C.J. Box thriller, Jim Comey's second career as a novelist, and an extended appraisal of watch brands. Highlights [00:00:53] - Podcast update, SCOTUSblog partnership, and listener reviews [00:01:49] - Justice Thomas's "foot fault" joke [00:03:48] - Sam Bray citation discussion (Aldridge v. Regions Bank) [00:05:02] - Justice Alito retirement speculation and clerk rumors [00:17:23] - Vacation schedule and the upcoming opinion gap [00:21:03] - June 11 merits decisions overview [00:23:17] - Landor and the still-outstanding big case of the term [00:27:49] - Justice Sotomayor's statement respecting denial of cert on ineffective assistance [00:29:53] - Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: bankruptcy and judicial estoppel [00:36:10] - The Fifth Circuit's rule on inadvertence and mistake [00:38:47] - Justice Jackson's majority opinion [00:40:29] - Justice Thomas's concurrence and the history of judicial estoppel [00:48:42] - Justice Sotomayor's concurrence and totality-of-the-circumstances approach [00:52:11] - Abouammo v. United States: Article III venue and criminal prosecution location [00:55:09] - Yellowstone's "zone of death" and vicinage problems [00:59:21] - The fake invoice, FBI investigation, and venue dispute [01:06:33] - Venue, personal jurisdiction, and extraterritorial conduct [01:10:22] - Statutory venue rules and unresolved constitutional questions [01:12:30] - Reprosecution after a venue reversal and double jeopardy

    1 小時 17 分鐘
  4. Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

    6月8日

    Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

    After puzzling over an interesting follow-up question about Pitchford v. Cain, we unpack a summary vacatur in Whitton v. Dixon. We then spend a while breaking down the latest developments in Allen v. Milligan line, in which we discuss the future of the Purcell principle and whether the Court should be unusually attentive to public appearances in election cases. We finish with Sripetch v. Jarkesy, where the Court rejects a requirement that the SEC prove victims suffered pecuniary loss before seeking disgorgement, with specific attention to the interesting Seventh Amendment question raised in Justice Thomas's concurrence. Key Topics[00:03:23] - Listener question on Pitchford v. Cain, AEDPA, and procedural default[00:08:12] - Whitten v. Dixon: summary vacatur in a capital case and harmless-error review[00:12:44] - Justice Thomas’s dissent and the critique of selective error correction[00:22:46] - Allen v. Milligan / Alabama redistricting and the stay of the lower court injunction[00:27:24] - The Court’s restatement of Milligan and discussion of “colorblind constitution” language[00:32:30] - Purcell, election timing, and whether the doctrine is really about federal court intervention[00:41:20] - Merits and legitimacy concerns in election-law cases[00:53:27] - SEC v. Sripetch and the disgorgement remedy[00:58:42] - Justice Thomas’s concurrence on disgorgement, equity, and the Seventh Amendment[01:03:36] - Broader implications for administrative law and jury-trial rights

    1 小時 13 分鐘
  5. Smooth Stone in the River

    6月1日

    Smooth Stone in the River

    The Court has been busy, and we somehow manage to cover a number of developments with unpredictable efficiency. We talk about the Court's latest summary reversal on the "party presentation principle"; Justice Kavanaugh's vindication of his law journal student note in Pitchford v. Cain; Rutherford and Fernandez, two related cases about the intersection of compassionate release and habeas; and the DIG in Hamm v. Smith, a case about capital punishment and intellectual disability. Along the way, we also get into backlash against a certain SCOTUS advocate's TED talk and further Alabama redistricting fallout. Key Topics[00:02:25] - The infamous tweet and TED talk[00:14:56] - Alabama redistricting developments[00:19:07] - Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges and the Court’s renewed emphasis on the party presentation principle[00:29:02] - Pitchford v. Cain and Batson[00:35:56] - Justice Kavanaugh’s Yale Law Journal note on Batson procedure and how it connects to the case[00:40:40] - Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States: compassionate release, retroactivity, and innocence claims[01:03:34] - Hamm v. Smith, the post-argument DIG, and the future of the Atkins rule Relevant LinksSCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/ Divided Argument website: https://www.dividedargument.com/ Divided Argument blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/ Divided Argument store: https://store.dividedargument.com/ Ethan Lowen's article on interstate extradition: https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2026/04/4-Lowens-–-Camera-ready.pdf

    1 小時 11 分鐘
  6. Ninja Court Packing

    5月19日

    Ninja Court Packing

    We are joined by guest co-host Professor Pam Karlan at the American Law Institute Annual Meeting for the last live show of season 6. We work through a busy stretch of the interim docket: the Alabama GVR in Allen v. Caster and what Callais has done to Section 2; the denied stay in the Virginia redistricting fight, Scott v. McDougle; and the mifepristone cases, Danco and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, where Thomas rides the Comstock Act alone and Alito takes it personally. Then a turn to executive power and the term's looming merits decisions—birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, Humphrey's Executor—before audience questions on state voting rights acts, fixing the single-member-district statute, and whether you can wish yourself more wishes. Key Topics[00:00:11] - Live show introduction at the American Law Institute with guest host Pam Karlan[00:02:30] - Fallout from Louisiana v. Callais and the Alabama redistricting order[00:06:26] - Purcell principle, mid-election rule changes, and discriminatory intent findings[00:17:32] - Virginia’s redistricting amendment case and why the Supreme Court declined to intervene[00:32:41] - Danco Laboratories / GenBioPro and the mifepristone stay[00:39:56] - Justice Thomas, the Comstock Act, and Justice Alito’s dissent[00:47:15] - Big-picture trends in executive power and the Court’s posture toward the administration[01:00:54] - Audience Q&A on Congress, district design, and gerrymandering reform[01:05:47] - The President’s public attacks on the Court and possible effects on future cases

    1 小時 9 分鐘
  7. Majordoma

    5月7日

    Majordoma

    The Court’s latest Voting Rights Act decision, Louisiana v. Callais, narrows Section 2 in a way that could reshape redistricting, weaken majority-minority districts, and intensify the fight over how race and partisanship interact in elections. We unpack what the Court said, what it quietly overruled, and why the reasoning matters far beyond Louisiana. We walk through the statutory text, the long-running collision between the Voting Rights Act and the Court’s racial gerrymandering cases, and the practical consequences for future election-law litigation. Along the way, we debate whether this is best understood as a textual decision, a constitutional avoidance move, or a major shift in how the Court treats political power and racial representation. The conversation also covers the Court’s emergency procedural move after judgment, Justice Kagan’s forceful dissent, and the broader question of whether the decision is likely to help one party more than the other in the short run. The result is a sharp, candid look at one of the term’s most consequential rulings Key Topics[00:00:20] - Introduction to the episode and SCOTUS Blog partnership update[00:03:06] - Brief Supreme Court news: mifepristone litigation and shadow-docket timing[00:05:20] - Louisiana v. Callais and why the case is a major Voting Rights Act decision[00:11:35] - Voting Rights Act history: Section 2, Section 5, and Shelby County[00:13:39] - The collision course between racial gerrymandering doctrine and Section 2[00:16:17] - Allen v. Milligan and how the Court shifted course[00:21:21] - Procedural background of the Louisiana map challenge[00:23:02] - Is the decision constitutional, statutory, or both?[00:24:28] - Section 2’s text and the 1982 amendments[00:29:14] - The Court’s reading of “less opportunity” and the role of partisanship[00:41:46] - How the majority treats Allen v. Milligan and prior precedent[00:43:06] - Constitutional avoidance and the Section 5 enforcement-power question[00:46:28] - The Court’s “updated” Gingles framework and why that matters[00:52:29] - Likely effects on majority-minority districts and partisan gerrymandering[00:54:25] - Justice Kagan’s dissent and the Court’s broader democracy critique[00:56:04] - The post-judgment timing dispute and Justice Jackson’s separate dissent[00:58:55] - Final assessment of the decision and its likely consequences Relevant LinksRick Pildes's post on the decision: https://democracyproject.org/posts/supreme-court%E2%80%99s-gutting-of-voting-provision-was-long-time-coming Travis Crum Amicus Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/373625/20250903201226237_2025.09.03%20Callais%20Crum%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

    1 小時 1 分鐘
  8. Even Eve-ier

    4月29日

    Even Eve-ier

    A deep dive into the latest Supreme Court news, a couple of unusual shadow docket rulings, and a cross-ideological merits decision that raises classic questions about federal power, preemption, and how much weight lower courts should give to context. We open with reporting on leaked internal Supreme Court memoranda related to the 2016 stay of the Clean Power Plan, including what the documents may reveal, why the leak itself is so unusual, and whether timing and incomplete records change the story. We also discuss Justice Sotomayor’s public apology after comments about Justice Kavanaugh, and what that moment says about judicial professionalism and public exchange. From there, we turn to some shadow docket happenings: a one-line summary reversal in a Texas redistricting case and a Fourth Amendment summary reversal out of the D.C. courts. Finally, we move to the merits docket and consider Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (24-924), a case involving federal contractor preemption and a terrorist attack in Afghanistan, where the Court narrows a (possibly infamous) Scalia opinion. Key Topics [00:05:32] - NYT leak of Supreme Court memoranda on the Clean Power Plan stay[00:10:13] - Whether document leaks are better than source-based leaks[00:21:30] - Justice Sotomayor’s remarks about Justice Kavanaugh and her apology[00:27:27] - Summary reversal in Abbott v. LULAC and Texas redistricting[00:35:18] - D.C. Fourth Amendment summary reversal and reasonable suspicion[00:47:04] - Hencely v. Fluor Corp.: military contractor liability and preemption[00:52:48] - Little v. Barreme, general law, and the limits of contractor immunity

    1 小時 1 分鐘
顯示全部 (130)

主持人與來賓

簡介

An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps. In partnership with SCOTUSblog.

資訊

  • 創作者
    Will Baude & Dan Epps
  • 活躍年代
    2021年 - 2026年
  • 集數
    130
  • 年齡分級
    兒少適宜
  • 版權
    © 2026. Will Baude & Dan Epps
  • 節目網站
    Divided Argument

你可能也會喜歡