Relitigated

Relitigated Podcast Team

A podcast about real Supreme Court cases. No law degree required. Join hosts Jarret and Nikki as they re-argue a real Supreme Court case in front of 3 friends role-playing as "justices". Each episode includes an overview of the case, arguments from the hosts, deliberations and opinions issued by our panel of "justices", and finally a reveal of what the real Supreme Court ruled and how their decision impacts us today. Also, we should mention no one on the show is a lawyer. Our goal is to present the history and decisions of the Supreme Court in an engaging and accessible way. If you're not a lawyer, that's okay, we aren't either!

  1. 03.09.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #20 McCleskey v. Kemp

    In the season 2 finale we re-argue the Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp. WM, a Black man, was sentenced to death for murder. On appeal, he submitted statistical evidence to show that the race of the victim (and, to a lesser extent, of the defendant) is associated with whether the defendant gets sentenced to death or not. The question before the court: does statistical evidence of racial disparities in a state’s capital sentencing system prove racism? Does the evidence make that system unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th amendments?

    1 ч. 39 мин.

  2. 27.08.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #19 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

    In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. High school students wrote and edited articles as the staff for their school newspaper. One day, they found that their articles about divorce and teen pregnancy had been removed from their newest issue. The principal cut them because he thought they were “inappropriate.” That’s a violation of the First Amendment, right?

    1 ч. 14 мин.

  3. 20.08.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #18 Objection! The Relitigated Game Show

    In this special episode we bring you the first ever edition of Objection! The Relitigated Game Show. 3 of our justices, Sarah, Adam, and Preston, compete for points to see who will be crowned the official Chief Justice of Relitigated and earn the commemorative gavel. To make things spicy, contestants can object when they believe a colleague is wrong and wager points to get either a boost or a setback. With 6 rounds of questions on the most recent Supreme Court term, and some of the, honestly, most unfair questions ever asked in a multiple-choice trivia game, the contestants have their work cut out for them. Who will be victorious and crowned the official Chief Justice of Relitigated?

    1 ч. 48 мин.

  4. 13.08.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #17 Griggs v. Duke Power Company

    In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Company. In the wake of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in employment, a major company changed its hiring and promotion policies and implemented alternate requirements. Black employees, who largely did not advance, complained of continuing discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated and substantiated their allegations. The employer denied. The question before the court: did the company’s promotion requirements violate the Civil Rights Act?

    1 ч. 36 мин.

  5. 06.08.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #16 Watts v. United States

    In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Watts v. U.S. At a protest, a young man made a statement about getting the president in the sights of his rifle, and was convicted of threatening the life of the president. Was he, though? The question before the court: Was his statement actually a threat? Was it prohibited by the law?

    1 ч. 17 мин.

  6. 30.07.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #15 Berghuis v. Thompkins

    In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins. A man is arrested, informed of his rights, and interrogated. But for two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, he is mostly silent. At trial he argued that he was exercising his right to silence under Miranda v. Arizona, and police should have stopped the interrogation. The Appeals Court thought so, too. The question before the court: was the Appeals Court correct in its interpretation of the right to remain silent? --- For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/29/15-berghuis-v-thompkins/.

    1 ч. 39 мин.

  7. 23.07.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #14 North Carolina v. Butler

    In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Butler. A man is arrested by the FBI, who gave him both a verbal and written notification of his rights. WB refused to sign a form indicating that he wished to waive his rights. Statements to the agents were included in evidence against him at trial. He was convicted, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction, and the State cried foul. The question before the court: can a suspect’s statements be used against him if he did not explicitly say he was waiving his Miranda rights? --- For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/23/14-north-carolina-v-butler.

    1 ч. 16 мин.

  8. 16.07.2025 · ВИДЕО

    #13 Reflections on Buck v. Bell: An Interview with Dr. Paul Lombardo

    In this episode, we speak with Dr. Paul Lombardo, Regents’ Professor and Bobby Lee Cook Professor of Law at Georgia State University. He is a historian and legal scholar who has written on eugenics, medical ethics, and Buck v. Bell. He tells us about Carrie Buck, those at the Virginia Colony who drove her case to the Supreme Court, and the impact of the Court’s decision. --- For more information about Dr. Lombardo's book Three Generations, No Imbeciles, visit https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12262/three-generations-no-imbeciles. --- For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/16/13-reflections-on-buck-v-bell-an-interview-with-dr-paul-lombardo.

    1 ч. 41 мин.
См. все (21)

Трейлер

Оценки и отзывы

4,5
из 5
Оценок: 2

Об этом подкасте

A podcast about real Supreme Court cases. No law degree required. Join hosts Jarret and Nikki as they re-argue a real Supreme Court case in front of 3 friends role-playing as "justices". Each episode includes an overview of the case, arguments from the hosts, deliberations and opinions issued by our panel of "justices", and finally a reveal of what the real Supreme Court ruled and how their decision impacts us today. Also, we should mention no one on the show is a lawyer. Our goal is to present the history and decisions of the Supreme Court in an engaging and accessible way. If you're not a lawyer, that's okay, we aren't either!

Информация

  • Автор
    Relitigated Podcast Team
  • Годы выхода
    2024 - 2025
  • Выпуски
    21
  • Ограничения
    С ненормативной лексикой
  • Авторские права
    © 2024-2025
  • Сайт подкаста
    Relitigated