An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps.
Unpersuasive Scholar Trolling
We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli and Percoco.
Relentless Personal Attacks
In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases.
For Liberty and not for Fascism
We check in on some Court-related news and Dan gives Will a hard time for his recent bold claim about the conservative justices. We then dig deep into Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a fascinating personal jurisdiction case being argued in the November sitting.
We provided an extended preview of the arguments in one of the October cases, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which takes us into a long discussion of the "dormant" Commerce Clause and extraterritorial regulation. But first we discuss some statements from Justice Alito and Ginni Thomas, the newest circuit justice assignment, and some updates from last episode.
We open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University.
I Say "Timbre"
We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone.
Great Resource for Law Students
I started following the show in my 2L year and haven’t missed an episode since. Professor Baude and Professor Epps keep their discussion accessible, yet highly nuanced and detailed. Their balanced discussions are especially useful for those still developing their ideological views about Constitutional interpretation and the law. Whatever your ideological priors, Divided Argument gives you an opportunity to explore the many sides of every issue before the Court.
Intellectual Property coverage is like Cowbell…
…in that there needs to be more of it.
I love Dan’s refreshing cynicism and Will’s incorrigible cheerfulness.