If you were excited about the new five-justice conservative majority, this just-completed term of the Supreme Court might have left you disappointed.
But law professor Stephen Vladeck says that's not the full picture. A look at the so-called "shadow docket"—the work the court does without oral argument—suggests it was a much better term for conservatives and the Trump administration than it might seem.
On the latest episode of Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin lift the veil on some of these consequential yet enigmatic actions. This includes green-lighting President Trump's border wall and refusing to revisit the doctrine of qualified immunity.
07/17/20 • 33 min
Episode Comments
0.0
out of 5
No ratings yet
eg., What part of this podcast did you like? Ask a question to the host or other listeners...
Post
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/cases-and-controversies-111636/consequential-scotus-decisions-lurk-in-the-shadows-5740382"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to consequential scotus decisions lurk in the shadows on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy