Cases and Controversies

The Supreme Court kicks off its 2023 term on Monday with guns, abortion, and affirmative action potentially coming back—whether the justices are ready for them or not.

Advocates and lower courts are emboldened by the high court’s recent rulings in key areas and are bringing aggressive claims that the justices might not have anticipated, University of Chicago law professor David Strauss said.

The “chickens are coming home to roost,” Strauss said in noting the court has unsettled law in some areas with its rulings.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Headlines touting the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to keep Donald Trump on the Colorado presidential ballot obscured division among the justices over the Constitution’s insurrection clause.

UC Davis School of Law professor Ashutosh Bhagwat joins Cases and Controversies to explain what the justices did and didn’t agree on March 4 regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and what that means for the November election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Arguing at the Supreme Court is no walk in the park. The justices ask tough questions and give hypotheticals that can trip up even the most prepared advocate.

As the year comes to a close, Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr look back at the most memorable moments from Supreme Court arguments so far this term since the court follows its own calendar.

There were some uncomfortable, even awkward, exchanges during the free speech fight over a “Trump too small” trademark, the challenge to the $6 billion bankruptcy settlement involving opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, and the spat over the SEC’s use of in-house judges in fraud cases.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.

But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.

Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.