BONUS: COVID and Court Packin’

04/16/21 • 23 min

In the inaugural bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s latest COVID order and Justice Breyer’s “dissent” on court packing. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the inaugural bonus episode, the ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s latest COVID order and Justice Breyer’s “dissent” on court packing. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Previous Episode

A Regulator Walks Into a Pandemic

Almost as soon as the government started passing measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, the lawsuits began. Many of them wound up arguing about Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a 1905 Supreme Court decision that said states had the power to impose mandatory smallpox vaccinations. If the government has the power to vaccinate you, surely---regulators argued---it has the power to do things like shutting down businesses. But the existence of another case that term, called Lochner v. New York, calls into question that narrative. What does Jacobson actually have to say about when a regulator walks into a pandemic? Tune in to find out.

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Special thanks to guests David Bernstein, Richard Epstein, and Stephen Vladeck, and Jonny May for his ragtime pop covers.

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Next Episode

Don't Call It a Comeback

For much of our nation’s history, courts asked whether government physically intruded on property to determine if it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court later adopted a standard looking at whether the government violated an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But in recent years, the property-based approach has been making a comeback, most recently in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent in Carpenter v. United States. Will the property-based approach knock out the reasonable expectation of privacy test? Tune in to find out!

Special thanks to guests Orin Kerr, James, Stern, and Jamil Jaffer.

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.