Explorez tous les épisodes du podcast Cases and Controversies

Supreme Court justices kick off their new term with arguments on guns and the death penalty, but a case about attorneys’ fees in civil rights cases has grabbed the attention of a diverse set of outside parties. Pooja Chaudhuri, of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss why groups supporting gun rights, religious freedom, and racial justice have teamed up in Lackey v. Stinnie. The justices will consider whether a preliminary injunction is enough of a victory to support an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute intended to encourage lawyers to take civil rights cases and deter “bad actors.” The case to be argued Oct. 8 pits civil rights groups against government officials and entities who are the targets of these suits. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court kicks off its new term on Oct. 7 and the justices will hear arguments the first week in a dispute over “ghost gun” kits and an appeal from a death row inmate in Oklahoma. With about 27 cases granted for argument so far, the term is light on potential blockbusters. “There are a lot of cases that I would describe as kind of the meat and potatoes type cases that you typically see on the Supreme Court’s docket,” said Kannon Shanmugam, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Paul Weiss. Shanmugam joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss the court’s term and the more notable issues the justices will consider, including a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans health-care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to transgender minors. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court will hear its second abortion case of the term, this time on Idaho’s ban and the reach of federal law in anti-abortion states. The Biden administration argued that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to provide an abortion when there is a serious risk of harm to the mother. Alliance Defending Freedom’s John Bursch joins Cases and Controversies to explain why Idaho says its state law requires an abortion only when necessary to save the mother’s life. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement announcement gives President Joe Biden the chance to put the first Black woman on the high court and prevent Democrats from losing another seat to Republicans. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down Breyer’s impending departure, his legacy, his potential replacements, and what that replacement means—and doesn’t mean—for the future of the court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Stephen Breyer is known for letting his flamboyant intellect shine on the bench. And, according to those who clerked for him, Breyer's personality outside of the courtroom was no different. It was reported earlier today that this will be the 27-year veteran of the Supreme Court's final term. To learn more about who Breyer is, we spoke with some of the attorneys who clerked for the Justice over the years. Breyer was described as someone with an insatiable, extroverted mind, who thrived on conversation—sometimes to a fault. Andrew Crespo, a former clerk and current Harvard Law School professor, said going to lunch with the Justice required finding a restaurant with lots of space "so that, when we're sitting down and he's telling us all these stories about the Court, that we weren't accidentally sitting next to a reporter." In this special episode of our Cases & Controversies podcast, former Breyer clerks share stories from their time at the Court and about the man they describe as a "happy warrior," who remained optimistic despite a tenure spent, for the most part, in the Court's ideological minority. In this episode we hear from: Danielle Gray, global chief legal officer for Walgreens Boots Alliance Pratik Shah, a partner at the firm Akin Gump Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center Andrew Crespo, a professor at Harvard Law School Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court had a short but busy week, issuing orders on the Texas abortion law and Donald Trump’s attempt to keep records from the Jan. 6 commission, while hearing arguments and also issuing rare public statements on mask-wearing at the high court. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the “Maskgate” controversy that stemmed from an NPR report on Justice Gorsuch's alleged refusal to wear a mask during oral arguments. They also talk to Josh McDaniel, director of Harvard Law’s religious freedom clinic. The clinic filed a brief supporting the prisoner seeking resentencing in Concepcion v. United States, argued Jan. 19. Topics discussed in this episode: Masks & the justices--00:40 In re Whole Woman's Health--9:41 Trump v. Thompson--16:20 Concepcion v. U.S.--19:30 Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court issued its anticipated rulings on the Biden administration’s vaccine rules affecting millions of Americans, as the justices continue to hear cases in the first oral-argument sessions of 2022. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the vaccine opinions and give a sneak peek of upcoming arguments on Jan. 18 and 19. Those hearings include disputes over religion in Boston, Nazi-looted art in Spain, campaign finance in the Ted Cruz campaign, and criminal sentencing under the Trump-signed First Step Act of 2018. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court starts 2022 with an ultra-rare Friday argument session over President Joe Biden’s vaccine policies as the country continues to struggle with Covid-19. The justices will hear back-to-back arguments Friday over the employer and healthcare-worker mandates, an unusual step for the sort of emergency litigation that the court generally decides with briefs alone. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action and also preview the arguments coming up the week of Jan. 10, featuring disputes over Medicaid payments, immigrant detention, and whether tax courts can forgive late legal filings.

The Supreme Court opened up its doors once again, returning to in-person arguments in October 2021. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the biggest moments from this consequential year—from reproductive rights, to the justices’ roadshows, to a covid diagnosis.

The Supreme Court effectively kept the Texas abortion ban in place, with a decision coming later this term in the Mississippi case that could decide the future of abortion rights nationwide. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the Texas S.B. 8 decision on Friday and, with guest Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, recap the Dec. 1 argument in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. They also talk about the school-funding case, Carson v. Makin, argued Dec. 8, and what to watch at the court with arguments done for the year.

Fresh off the contentious argument over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and the future of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court turns toward its final hearings of 2021. They include cases on religious-school funding, immigration, ERISA, and criminal procedure, including an ineffective assistance of counsel case that could lead to an innocent person being executed. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap Dec. 1’s abortion argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before previewing the cases that’ll be argued the week of Dec. 6. Have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is in the spotlight again Dec. 1, this time hearing a challenge to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban. Joining Cases and Controversies to discuss what's at stake in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is Kathryn Kolbert, who argued the landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the viability line being challenged in the Mississippi case. She said the climate leading up to that 1992 ruling was similar to today's in that she fully expected that there would be at least five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.  And while the outcome in Casey was a "compromised opinion" that ended up preserving the heart of Roe, Kolbert said she's not expecting the current court to rule the same way. "This court is much more ideological" that the court at the time of Casey, she said, noting that several Republican-appointed justices ultimately came down on the side abortion advocates. Kolbert is also joined by Julie F. Kay, who says that while abortion has been on the minds of court watchers lately—namely in the procedural challenge to Texas's six-week abortion ban—Dobbs is the case to watch. "I think of the Texas case as the toddler that bursts into the room and has a tantrum and gets everybody's attention," Kay said. "When in reality, it’s the Mississippi case that's the biggest threat to abortion rights."

The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to New York's strict concealed-carry law that's primed to set a precedent which could shape the future of guns in the U.S. Gun-rights supporters want the court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to bless more permissive public carry. Gun control advocates worry about the implications of doing so. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin have spent months reporting on Bruen. And in this special edition, they explore the Nov. 3 argument and the signals the justices sent. This episode takes listeners into the courtroom and breaks down essential points. Attorneys, scholars, and others working on the case talk about what's at stake if the challengers prevail, as expected. First, a primer. Previous 5-4 rulings said the Second Amendment grants an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, regardless of militia service. The amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Bruen raises the question of the scope of the right outside the home. At the argument, the justices probed the limits of their eventual ruling expected by July. "Can they say you cannot carry your gun at any place where alcohol is served?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked the challengers' lawyer, Paul Clement. "What about a football stadium?" Roberts pressed. While gun-rights advocates see fewer restrictions as vindicating the Second Amendment, gun control advocates worry about the consequences of more guns on the street. "If we were to now flood our cities with even more guns, I'm afraid that shooting rate will go up, that murder rate will go up, and we don't know what will happen to the everyday fights that take place in densely populated cities like New York if people are armed," said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent company Bloomberg LP. The group filed a brief at the Supreme Court supporting the New York restrictions.

The Supreme Court will consider whether prosecutors went too far in charging Jan. 6 rioters with an Enron-era statute, in a case that could have implications for the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump. Former Boston Police officer Joseph Fischer, who participated in the Capitol breach, hopes to tap into concerns by some justices that prosecutors have too much discretion. It's something the court's pulled back on in recent terms. Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the implications for Jan. 6 defendants, federal courts, and Trump, whose bid for immunity from criminal prosecution over alleged election interference will be heard April 25. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has charged Trump under the same provision, which prohibits interference with an official proceeding. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

It's another big week of arguments at the Supreme Court as the justices will hear cases involving national security and religious rights of death-row inmates. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin take a look in the latest sneak peek episode at the five cases on the court's docket next week. They also recap the blockbuster Nov. 1 arguments over the Texas abortion law, known as S.B. 8., in which numerous justices seemed skeptical that the should evade judicial review. Coming up next week, the podcast will take a deep dive into the Second Amendment. The hosts will explore the dispute heard Nov. 3. over a concealed carry restriction in New York and discuss concerns raised by the justices. They'll also look at how the case could impact gun restrictions across the country.

The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments over controversial abortion and gun laws in a jam-packed week at the high court. The court will scrutinize Texas’ abortion law, S.B. 8, that effectively bans the procedure, in back-to-back arguments on Nov. 1 that will feature Elizabeth Prelogar’s first appearance for the federal government since being confirmed solicitor general Oct. 28. Two days later, the justices will hear the biggest Second Amendment case in a decade in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court will probe the state’s strict concealed-carry regime and, more broadly, how the gun right identified in prior precedents applies outside the home. In between those arguments, on Nov. 2, the court will hear First Amendment and arbitration cases.

The Texas abortion law will be front and center at the Supreme Court Nov. 1 after the justices agreed to hear argument on an expedited basis over whether the Justice Department can sue despite the law's unusual enforcement mechanism. The justices on Friday agreed to hear two challenges to the Texas measure in short order, while allowing the abortion-blocking law to stay in place in the meantime over Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. Curiously, while the justices agreed to grant cert on this issue, they did not vote to place the law on hold until they issue an opinion in this case. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin go behind the headlines and the vote count to analyze what the court will consider when advocates step up to the lectern, and what it all might mean for abortion rights. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court’s first oral argument sitting of the new term is in the books as the nine-case docket included disputes over state secrets and the Boston Marathon bombing. The MacArthur Justice Center’s Amir Ali joins Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast to talk about what it was like to argue in the high court’s new hybrid, in-person format. Ali represented the petitioner in Thompson v. Clark, a case about federal civil rights lawsuits that led Justice Samuel Alito to pose a hypothetical question about a half man/half horse with a nicotine addiction. Seriously.

The Supreme Court will hear heavy arguments in a short week including disputes over the Boston Marathon bombing and abortion litigation. On top of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death-penalty case stemming from the 2013 bombing, the justices will also consider whether Kentucky’s Republican attorney general can defend the state’s abortion law after the Democratic governor declined. The high court will also hear a case about the rules for suing police, plus a dispute over civil-service pensions under the Social Security Act. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek at those upcoming arguments on Oct. 12 and 13.

In-person arguments will resume at the U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 4 after the courthouse was shuttered for the past year and a half due to Covid-19. Attendance in the courtroom is limited to staff, arguing attorneys, and a handful of journalists, so the court will continue to livestream the proceedings to the public.  For this episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin run down the five cases the justices will hear during their first week, including a battle between states over water rights and the federal government's attempt to block "state secrets" from being handed over to litigants.

When Supreme Court justices return to the courtroom for the new term in October, they’ll consider the government’s quest to reinstate Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentences. The court will hear arguments on Oct. 13 about pretrial publicity and mitigating evidence, as the justices decide whether to reverse an appeals court ruling that vacated Tsarnaev’s sentences for the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured hundreds more. Attorney General Merrick Garland imposed an execution moratorium this past summer, raising the question of how that will play into the case, if at all. To help break down the issues, “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are joined by Goodwin’s William Jay, who filed an amicus brief supporting the government on behalf of the National Fraternal Order of Police. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin Guest: William Jay Producer: David Schultz Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast | Via Spotify

The Supreme Court is typically thought to be out most of the summer. But it issued a momentous opinion on abortion rights that came from the court's so-called "shadow docket." For this special episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson discuss where this opinion came from and why it came outside of the court's normal operating procedures. They also talk about how the justices came down in this case and what this ruling means for the liberal justices' prospects moving forward.

The Supreme Court handed down the final two opinions of the term in argued cases, in contentious disputes involving voting rights and charity-donor disclosure. Progressives largely bemoaned both rulings, which fell 6-3 along ideological lines in the conservative-majority court. But the ACLU’s David Cole explained that, in his view, only the voting-rights ruling was wrong. Cole, the group’s national director who argued and won a school-speech case this term on behalf of a cursing cheerleader, joined Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to review the 2020-21 term. He expressed optimism at the court’s rulings that crossed ideological lines in a handful of cases, though it remains to be seen whether that continues next term, which starts in October. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court enters what is likely the final week of its term with a handful of cases remaining, including a closely watched one on Arizona ballot restrictions. All eyes, too, will be on Justice Stephen Breyer sometime after the last opinion is delivered to see if he retires, as progressives are pressuring him to do. Cases and Controversies dives into what's ahead and what the court did this past week in siding with student free speech and NCAA athletes in two big decisions. In Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of high-school cheerleader Brandi Levy, saying her school went too far when it suspended her for her Snapchat rant after failing to make the varsity team. And the court unanimously ruled in favor of college athletes in NCAA v. Alston, saying schools can't conspire to deny students education-related compensation in the name of preserving "amateurism."  Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin provide the details on decisions and look at what's coming up.

A fight over an Oregon city’s attempt to outlaw homelessness would make headlines in any other term. But the case, said to be the first of its kind in decades and set for argument April 22, has flown under the radar. The justices are being asked if the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits Grants Pass from enforcing an ordinance that makes it unlawful to sleep on public property. “This is the first case the Supreme Court has taken up on homelessness in 40 years,” said Antonia Fasanelli, the executive director of the National Homelessness Law Center. Fasanelli joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what’s at stake in a case that raises an issue of national importance as cities try to find solutions to a rise in homelessness. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

After weeks of low-profile rulings in technical cases, the justices dropped two of the most anticipated cases of the term on the same day this week. The court handed progressives a 7-2 win by once again upholding Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, while pleasing conservatives with a unanimous win for a religious group in the latest clash between LGBT rights and religious freedom. And although there appears to be broad agreement among the justices, the vote count masks significant disagreement among the nine. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the rulings, implications for future cases, and even a few conspiracy theories. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court rejected a petition challenging the military’s male-only draft, but a statement accompanying the denial from an interesting lineup of justices suggests the issue could come back to the court if Congress doesn’t act. Hogan Lovells partner Cate Stetson, who co-counseling with the ACLU brought the challenge, joins the latest Cases and Controversies to break down the issue and look at where it’s headed. She also talks with hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin about the justices’ seemingly-unusual alignments and how they show the court’s complexity. And the hosts recap the latest battle between Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh in a case that limited the scope of a repeat-offender gun law.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit on immigration and criminal justice, adding to the San Francisco-based appeals court’s string of high court losses. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those cases along with a third on a computer-hacking law that featured unusual alignments in the majority and dissent. Federal Indian law expert Mary Kathryn Nagle joins the podcast to explain the Ninth Circuit criminal case, United States v. Cooley, where the court affirmed tribal sovereignty and authority over non-Indians driving through reservations.

The Supreme Court issued three more opinions before the Memorial Day holiday, leaving the justices with 26 to go before wrapping things up for the term at the end of June. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the court's latest decisions and action on the "shadow docket." They're joined by MacArthur Justice Center's Easha Anand to talk about the court's decision to once again decline to hear a case involving police accountability.

The right to abortion enshrined in Roe v. Wade is in the crosshairs after the Supreme Court said it would take up a Mississippi case next term dealing with the issue. The high court’s grant kicked off a busy week that also saw several opinions, including a contentious criminal ruling over the right to unanimous jury verdicts that may foreshadow precedent fights to come. It was also one in which Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh got into a very heated judicial exchange. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down all of that and more on this week’s episode as the justices continue to issue the final rulings of the term. They’re joined by Skadden’s Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy, who won a unanimous ruling in another criminal case this week that bolstered search and seizure protections for homes.

The Supreme Court heard its last argument of the term—and perhaps the last of Justice Stephen Breyer’s tenure—in a crack-cocaine sentencing case May 4. D.C. Solicitor General Loren Alikhan, who filed a brief supporting the defense, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the dispute in Terry v. United States over whether low-level crack offenders can get relief under the First Step Act. Judging from the argument, it sounds like the court will say no, even though the Justice Department switched positions after the 2020 election to side with the defendant, Tarahrick Terry. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also speculate about the latest in Breyer Watch—will he retire? when?—and give some statistics on when other justices have announced their plans to step down.

The U.S. Supreme Court confronted how to update its landmark student free speech ruling to accommodate social media and its ubiquitous use among students. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District said schools can't punish on-campus speech unless it could cause a substantial disruption at the school. The question at argument April 28 in the case of a student who didn't make varsity cheer and expressed her displeasure on Snapchat was whether the 1969 standard applies to off-campus speech directed at the school on social media. Joining Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast to talk about issues around Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L. are activists Charlie Mirsky, of March for Our Lives, and Maya Green, of Student Voice. They describe the importance of social media to student political activities and the kinds of speech at risk in this case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss the court's newest Second Amendment case asking if there is a right to possess a gun outside of the home for self protection. It's a question left open by the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and one that's baffled the lower courts. Finally, the podcast will dip into the court's latest 6-3 vote in an immigration case that didn't break down along the usual ideological lines.

The Supreme Court wraps up its April sitting with another full week of arguments ranging from free speech to environmental law to immigration. A student's right to express herself on social media about her high school while on her own time and away from campus, and a California requirement that charities disclose top donors are at the heart of the court's free speech cases. Both garnered amicus support from across the ideological spectrum. But environmental cases also take center stage this week, with arguments on Superfund cleanups, renewable fuel standards, and the PennEast pipeline. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the action. They'll also recap the latest opinions and take a look at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's $2 million book advance and some of the criticisms surrounding the deal.

The U.S. Supreme Court enters the term's last full argument sitting as the political fate of the court hangs in the balance with debates over court packing, term limits, and other reforms sweeping the nation. Starting April 19, the justices will hear arguments over CARES Act relief for Indian tribes, immigration, gun convictions, appellate procedure, and patents. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action to come and recap the latest high court happenings.

Groups representing the spectrum of political ideologies have teamed up to challenge a California law that requires tax-exempt charities to disclose major donors. The state says this information is already required by the federal government and that it's needed to police the misuse of dollars donated by California residents. The charities and their "friends of the court" don't see it that way. The libertarian Goldwater Institute's Timothy Sandefur joins Cases and Controversies to explain why progressive groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have joined forces against the law. They say it will chill charitable donations and open up donors to harassment. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also explain the court's ruling in the Google v. Oracle blockbuster copyright case, Justice Clarence Thomas' thoughts on big tech, and the latest on the Stephen Breyer retirement watch.

Arguments in the challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone suggest the Supreme Court will nix the dispute on technical standing grounds. Justices from across the ideological spectrum suggested the anti-abortion doctors at the center of the case were asking too much. Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lopsided arguments that focused little on the merits and almost exclusively on whether the doctors could prevent access to the drug nationwide. They also discuss how the Supreme Court’s action—or inaction—means South Carolina can use an unconstitutional voting map in the upcoming election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court heard argument in the NCAA’s highly-anticipated antitrust appeal over student-athlete compensation on March 31. The court had tough questions for WilmerHale’s Seth Waxman, who represented the NCAA and attempted to defend the unique amateurism status of college sports against allegations of exploitation. On the other hand, the justices worried about the limits of a ruling for the students. Tillman Breckenridge, who filed an amicus brief supporting the students on behalf of African American Antitrust Lawyers, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap recent high court action, including a new grant in a case that both is and isn’t about abortion, as well as three unanimous decisions on water rights, media consolidation, and robocalls.

A day after the NCAA wraps up basketball's Elite Eight, the Supreme Court team of nine will consider whether collegiate athletes can receive compensation. The justices will hear argument March 31 in an antitrust case where the Ninth Circuit invalidated limits on education-related compensation for college athletes, but preserved the NCAA’s ban on outright pay. That argument, which will conclude the March sitting, will be preceded by two other class action cases. These include efforts to limit securities actions and the damages available to class members. Check out the pregame action with Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin in the latest "Sneak Peek" edition of the Cases and Controversies.

The Supreme Court hears argument in three cases the week of March 22, two dealing with searches and seizures, and a third dealing with property rights in the labor context. The justices will consider Fifth Amendment protections for employers trying to keep union organizers away, the scope of tribal police officers’ authority to detain and search non-Indians, and whether law enforcement can enter a home and seize property under the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

Supreme Court justices will hear argument in their latest Fourth Amendment case on March 24 over warrantless law enforcement action. The high court will examine whether the so-called "community caretaking" doctrine permits warrantless searches and seizures of homes. The court previously allowed such searches of vehicles. The Constitutional Accountability Center’s David Gans, who filed an amicus brief against the government, joins Cases and Controversies to explain why he thinks the answer is a resounding no. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also break down the latest Supreme Court news, including the first solo dissent in an argued case by Chief Justice John Roberts, and a new grant on civil suits against police.

With more proposals at statehouses to restrict voting following the 2020 election, the Supreme Court is considering a case that could make it harder to challenge such laws in federal court. In a just-argued case challenging out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting prohibitions in Arizona, the justices will decide how to measure whether voting restrictions unconstitutionally discriminate against minorities or are simply the "ordinary burdens" of voting. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to discusses the importance of the case beyond the battleground Grand Canyon State.

The Supreme Court wraps up its February sitting with arguments exploring the independence and accountability of federal agencies and the fate of Arizona voting restrictions and their potential wider impact. Cases and Controversies dives into the separation of powers dispute involving medical device company Arthex Inc. and the patent office and another centered on challenges to Social Security Administration judicial appointments. The Arizona case looks at the limit on who can return early ballots on behalf of third parties and the state’s out-of-precinct voting policy. The outcome could provide guidance for future voting rights challenges following the court's landmark ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. The 2013 decision struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss disputes the justices finally cleared from their docket. They include challenges to the 2020 presidential election and the look into Donald Trump's financial dealings.

The Supreme Court returns from its winter break to hear arguments in three cases dealing with water rights, immigration, and the Fourth Amendment. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the disputes that will be argued each day starting Feb. 22. The justices will hear arguments—still remotely due to the pandemic—about water apportionment between Florida and Georgia, the credibility of asylum seekers, and home search and seizure protections against police investigating misdemeanors.

The Supreme Court is coming back from its winter break and the first argument on its docket is a fight over water rights between Florida and Georgia. Jennifer Kay, Bloomberg Law’s Florida correspondent, says this dispute is so contentious that, if Florida and Georgia were sovereign countries instead of states within the U.S., warfare may be the only way to resolve it. The heart of the conflict is a river that runs through both states. Florida says Georgia is withdrawing far too much of the river’s water, to the point that it’s merely a trickle by the time it reaches the state line. Georgia, meanwhile, denies this and says a ruling against it would kneecap its thriving agriculture industry. We hear from the people living in these states who will be most affected by the court’s ruling. And Jennifer speaks to Cases and Controversies producer David Schultz about how we got to this point in the first place.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions, but recently its biggest decisions have been ones where the justices have refused to weigh in. From the Chief Justice's refusal to preside over a second impeachment trial to the justices' dismissal of the "emoluments" litigation, Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin explain the consequences of the court's inaction.

Lisa Montgomery was executed Jan. 13 by the lame-duck Trump administration despite her lawyers’ best efforts to save her. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, veteran public defender Kelley Henry gives an inside look at those efforts, which, for Henry, led to contracting Covid-19 while working on the case. Henry talks about the “last-minute” litigation and her frustration at the government’s and the court system’s treatment of Montgomery. She explains what it was like, as an attorney, to endure rejection from the high court—without explanation—as the majority sided with the Justice Department, like it did in every case to come before the court during the Trump administration’s unprecedented run of executions. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap the justices’ bit role in the presidential inauguration, as well as news of President Biden’s top lawyer at the court—for now, anyway.

Lower court rulings that largely halted Biden administration communication with social media companies to combat misinformation about Covid and the 2020 election faced skepticism from Supreme Court justices. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the March 18 arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo, a second First Amendment fight about alleged government censorship. They also discuss the legal whiplash over a Texas law that makes it a crime to illegally enter the US through the state. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court will hear just two arguments to wrap up the January sitting. But it has been busy—and divided— as it issued orders on executions and medication abortion access during the Covid-19 pandemic. The justices will hear arguments over FCC media ownership rules and climate litigation on Jan. 19 in a work week shortened by the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and presidential inauguration. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview those arguments and recap a week of divided shadow docket orders on federal executions and abortion-pill restrictions.

Supreme Court justices kick off the New Year with three arguments that they’ll hear remotely, continuing Covid-19 pandemic precautions. The court will hear disputes related to immigration, speech and religion, and the Federal Trade Commission the week of Jan. 11. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview these cases and discuss the latest rejected Republican election challenge against the backdrop of the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. They also note some pressure on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire with Democrats set to control the White House and Senate.

From impeachment to historic pandemic-driven change to losing a justice to gaining a new one—it’s been an extraordinary year for the U.S. Supreme Court. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin round up the biggest moments in their year-end podcast.