SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast
Van Buren v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 3, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. United States. The issue was whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “An individual ‘exceeds authorized access’ under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer — such as files, folders or databases — that are off-limits to him..”
Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined.
Orin Kerr, Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
United States v. Palomar-Santiago - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On May 24, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Palomar-Santiago. The issue was whether a defendant who was removed from the United States is automatically entitled to a defense of invalid removal where the crime underlying his removal is no longer a qualifying removal offense within his circuit.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Each of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)’s statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack on a prior deportation order is mandatory.”
Brian Fish, Special Assistant to the United States Attorney in Baltimore, MD, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
United States v. Cooley - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Cooley. The issue was whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search the respondent, Joshua James Cooley, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded. The Supreme Court held, “A tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law.”
Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.
Anthony Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP, joins us today to discuss the Court’s decision and its implications.
City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On June 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com L.P. The issue was whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit alone has held, district courts “lack discretion to deny or reduce” appellate costs deemed “taxable” in district court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e).
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court held, “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 does not permit a district court to alter a court of appeals’ allocation of the costs listed in subdivision (e) of that rule.”
Charles Campbell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law at Faulkner University’s Jones School of Law, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
Carr v. Saul - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On April 22, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Carr v. Saul. was whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits an Appointments Clause challenge to the appointment of an administrative law judge by failing to present that challenge during administrative proceedings.
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.”
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Thomas Berry, Research Fellow at the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies of Cato Institute and Managing Editor of the Cato Supreme Court Review, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.The issue was was whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.
In a 7-1 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding, “Where defendant energy companies premised 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d) removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, Section 1442, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all grounds for removal rejected by the district court.”
Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, joins us to discuss this decision.
Box vs Planned Parenthood
Why has this case been taken down??
It’s not filed/audible; can you please consider putting it up? Thank you.
Great shorter format
If you just want a SCOTUS case quickly broken down with no discussion unlike the teleforums, this is a fantastic series.
Broad, bipartisan views of SCOTUS cases