First in Flight

FromDivided Argument

Start listening View podcast show

First in Flight

FromDivided Argument

ratings:

Length:

67 minutes

Released:

Nov 6, 2021

Format:

Podcast episode

Description

Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action.

Released:

Nov 6, 2021

Format:

Podcast episode

Titles in the series (73)

An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps.

Skip carousel

Everybody Procrastinates: Dan and Will discuss the Court's recent run of unanimous cases, paying particular attention to United States v. Cooley; ponder weighty issues like the role of the Hart & Wechsler casebook in defining the field of federal courts; and announce a fun new way for listeners to engage with the show. by Divided Argument
62 min listen
Normal Procedural Regularity: Will and Dan have the first part of a two-episode discussion of the Supreme Court's "shadow docket." by Divided Argument
55 min listen
Woke to the Trend: Will and Dan finish up their conversation about the shadow docket. by Divided Argument
40 min listen
So What: Will and Dan break down the Court's fascinating decision yesterday in Van Buren v. United States, which interpreted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. by Divided Argument
53 min listen
Inner Sanctum: Will and Dan deal with listener feedback that prompts them to recall some of the Court's most bad-faith decisions in recent years. They then do a deep dive into Transunion v. Ramirez, the Court's major standing decision from the end of the Term. by Divided Argument
59 min listen
Grandma's House of Vice: Will and Dan discuss Edwards v. Vannoy and other opinions released this week, as well as the Court's decision to grant cert in an abortion case. by Divided Argument
64 min listen
Faith in Princes: Will and Dan ponder what this podcast is about, continue their discussion of good faith in judging, try to game out exactly what the Court is up to in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, and respond to listener feedback. by Divided Argument
56 min listen
Unspeakable Cruelty: Divided Argument is live from the University of Chicago Law School! In our first ever episode in front of a live studio audience, we catch up on recent Court-related developments, such as several Justices' recent public remarks pushing back on Court politicization and the Court's latest foray into whether capital prisoners can have spiritual advisors with them in the execution chamber. by Divided Argument
48 min listen
Evil and Corrupt Language, Images, and Thoughts: The Court dropped four fascinating constitutional law opinions on Wednesday, and Will & Dan talk through two of them. First up is Mahanoy, which addresses First Amendment protections for Snapchatting school kids. Then we have Cedar Point, an important decision about the Takings Clause. by Divided Argument
67 min listen
Early Wittgenstein: As October Term 2020 hurtles towards a thrilling conclusion (well, hopefully), Dan and Will break down two of Monday's decisions. They explore the separation of powers and severability in United States v. Arthrex and talk about antitrust law's implications for college sports in NCAA v. Alston. by Divided Argument
60 min listen
Triple Bank Shot: Will and Dan break down the Court's sudden burst of interesting opinions – California v. Texas, Fulton v. Philadelphia, and Nestle v. Doe. by Divided Argument
81 min listen
Crime of the Day: Will and Dan deal with some tough but fair listener feedback, and then get through AFP v. Bonta (finally). Listen to see if they get further! by Divided Argument
47 min listen
First in Flight: Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action. by Divided Argument
67 min listen
Very Breyeresque: Dan and Will return after their vacations to catch up on what they've missed. After checking in briefly on Justice Breyer, they try to talk about two of the Court's biggest cases from the end of the Term. They only manage to get through one of them: Brnovich v. DNC. by Divided Argument
76 min listen
House Parties: Will and Dan break down two more decisions from Wednesday. First is Collins v. Yellen, a complicated separation of powers and severability case with a lot of money on the line. Second is Lange v. California, a Fourth Amendment case about the "hot pursuit" doctrine, which gives rise to some high school confessions. by Divided Argument
70 min listen
Fast and Loose: Divided Argument is back after an unscheduled, unpredictable break to kick off a brand new season. We dig into this week's oral arguments in two cases involving Texas's abortion law. by Divided Argument
65 min listen
For Liberty and not for Fascism: We check in on some Court-related news and Dan gives Will a hard time for his recent bold claim about the conservative justices. We then dig deep into Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a fascinating personal jurisdiction case being argued in the November sitting. by Divided Argument
61 min listen
Settling of Scores: We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine." by Divided Argument
81 min listen
Out on a Limb: Dan and will try to catch up on the flurry of news from Thursday afternoon, including an update on the Acting Solicitor General and the Court’s surprising grant of injunctive relief against New York’s eviction procedures. Come for the breaking news, stay to find out how Dan procrastinate and to learn the relevance of Catskills humor to the shadow docket. by Divided Argument
27 min listen
Secondary Trolling: As October Term 2020 recedes in the rear-view mirror, Dan and Will take a moment to reflect. We ponder the current balance of power on the Court and how the pandemic era might change the institution. We also address some listener feedback on Transunion; Will defends himself against the charge that he worships the justices too much; and Dan takes issue with a bold claim that Will snuck in on a previous episode. by Divided Argument
60 min listen
Sovereign to Sovereign: The road show continues as Will and Dan record another live episode at the National Association of Attorneys General's State Solicitors General and Appellate Chiefs Conference in Chicago. They delve deeper into Texas's abortion law and the US's lawsuit seeking to stop it. Then, they have a broader discussion about the role and power of states in Supreme Court litigation. by Divided Argument
56 min listen
Beyond The Pale by Divided Argument
56 min listen
Speakin' to the Youth: We're back after a long absence, but there's a good excuse. We catch up on the biggest developments from the last couple months, including the Breyer retirement, the Court's COVID decisions, the masking imbroglio, and the Alabama redistricting shadow-docket ruling. We also discuss Dan's childhood meeting with Justice Thomas, speculate about the median age of our listenership, and invent a new empirical metric for evaluating Supreme Court justices. by Divided Argument
92 min listen
The Lightning Docket: Will and Dan break down the Court's late-night refusal to block the implementation of Texas's controversial "fetal heartbeat" law, and what it might mean for the future of the Court's abortion jurisprudence. by Divided Argument
67 min listen
Maoist Takeover: We open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University. by Divided Argument
64 min listen
Soft Target: We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak! by Divided Argument
48 min listen
Out of Whack: We’ve been waiting for months to bring you this one: we can finally talk about the President’s Supreme Court Commission, which just finalized its report this week. We also briefly talk about the recent argument in Dobbs and try to predict what the Court might do. by Divided Argument
73 min listen
Least Incorrect: We're live in at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree. by Divided Argument
65 min listen
Marshal Law: We're back to talk about the big news: the draft of Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, and the questions that surround it -- how and why this might have happened, what it means for the Court, and what the Court can do about it. by Divided Argument
61 min listen
Completely Naïve Idiot: Will and Dan try to make sense of the Court’s decisions in the two cases addressing the possibility of preenforcement challenges to Texas’s novel abortion ban. by Divided Argument
70 min listen

More Episodes from Divided Argument

Skip carousel

Hope Springs Eternal: We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. by Divided Argument
94 min listen
Felony-Adjacent: We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey. by Divided Argument
68 min listen
Small Victories: After another discussion of Supreme Court ethics and legitimacy (hopefully our last for a long time), we discuss three of last week's decisions. We cover issues of statutory interpretation in Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock case), of standing in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the mifepristone case), and of constitutional remedies in US Trustee v. John Q Hammons (a bankruptcy case). by Divided Argument
88 min listen
Vexillology: Unpredictably, we take a new approach and record immediately after the Court drops new opinions. We dig into Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (voting rights) and NRA v. Vullo (free speech). Before that, we engage with listener feedback and talk about the latest developments in the endless Alito flag saga. by Divided Argument
98 min listen
p(doom): Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence. by Divided Argument
89 min listen
Poison Pill in Your Pocket: We follow up on feedback, puzzle over the Court's apparent continued lack of interest in Fourth Amendment cases, and then discuss two of the latest opinions—Culley v. Marshall (civil forfeiture) and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (copyright). And yes, we know Dan's audio sounds terrible due to a technical snafu, sorry! by Divided Argument
77 min listen
Radical Agreement: After taking some listener questions, we analyze the lengthy shadow docket opinions in Labrador v. Poe, dealing with universal relief, emergency applications, and more. We then tackle two recent merits opinions: Devillier v. Texas (takings) and Muldrow v. St. Louis (Title VII). by Divided Argument
70 min listen
Bootlegging-Adjacent: After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies. by Divided Argument
65 min listen
Dinkus: After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour! by Divided Argument
64 min listen
Political Hacks Pretending to be Lawyers: We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech. by Divided Argument
59 min listen
Votin' for Lincoln: After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot? by Divided Argument
53 min listen
Into the Brick Wall: After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it. by Divided Argument
66 min listen
Muppetproof: We discuss the passing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then turn to two interesting opinions on the shadow docket (in Griffin v. HM Florida and DuPont v. Abbott), and finally break down the Court's first merits opinion of the term in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, at the intersection of standing and mootness. Will also expresses skepticism about Dan's latest AI habit. by Divided Argument
69 min listen
Easy Win: We discuss the Court's new Code of Conduct, catch up on shadow docket happenings, and debate what historians can teach originalists. We then recap the argument United States v. Rahimi, the Term's big Second Amendment case). Finally, we stay on brand by circling back to Pulsifer v. United States from the October sitting, where the Justices puzzled over deep questions about statutory interpretation. by Divided Argument
73 min listen
Good Dig: The October Term is now underway, and that means it's time for Season 4 of the show. We catch up on the inevitable shadow docket happenings before diving into a discussion of two cases that were argued earlier in the month. First, we dig into Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, and debate which jurisdictional ground the Court will rely on to get rid of the case. Then, we give the people what they want and talk about admiralty law in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. by Divided Argument
68 min listen
Screaming Clown: The Court hasn't done too much while the summer recess drags on, but we're back for what might be our last episode of Season 3 before Season 4 kicks off with the new Term. We manage to piece together an episode with some items from the mailbag, some SG gossip, and a few shadow docket happenings. by Divided Argument
64 min listen
Lib Fanfiction: The Justices have been on their European vacations for a couple of months but we're still cranking out episodes breaking down last Term. We start off by discussion Will and Michael Stokes Paulsen's SSRN-breaking article arguing that Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We then break down a couple of shadow-docket happenings involving "ghost guns" and the Purdue bankruptcy. We then finally clear our backlog of June opinions by discussing two last opinions: Coinbase v. Bielski, which involves the intersection of arbitration and appellate jurisdiction, and Groff v. DeJoy, which importantly clarified employers' obligations to provide religious accommodations to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. by Divided Argument
70 min listen
Map Guy: We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests. by Divided Argument
70 min listen
Triple Threat: What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in a week? We briefly discuss the jurisdictional complexities in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit recent ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. by Divided Argument
66 min listen
Dishonorable Tradition: We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States. by Divided Argument
74 min listen
Peak SG: In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely three days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper. by Divided Argument
113 min listen
My Despised World: After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned "United States v. Texas." by Divided Argument
115 min listen
Demokratia: We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hansen, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge. by Divided Argument
94 min listen
Justified True Belief: We a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss Tyler v. Hennepin County, United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., and Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. by Divided Argument
69 min listen
Pale Fire: We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. by Divided Argument
71 min listen
Break the Fourth Wall: After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, Percoco and Cimenelli. by Divided Argument
60 min listen
Provocative Subtitle: We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough. by Divided Argument
54 min listen
Creator of the Stars of Night by Divided Argument
72 min listen
Best Suits: We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions -- Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States and Reed v. Goertz. by Divided Argument
50 min listen
A Chanting of Morrison v. Olson: We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe and Donziger v. United States -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized. by Divided Argument
61 min listen

Related podcast episodes

Skip carousel

Beyond The Pale by Divided Argument
56 min listen
Volts podcast: Jay Duffy on the Supreme Court's EPA decision by Volts
56 min listen
Big June Energy: This week's episode gets the big cases out of the way early, as the Court dropped California v. Texas (holding that ACA survives another challenge for lack of standing) and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (holding a Philadelphia law restricting... by The Citizen's Guide to the Supreme Court
60 min listen
Volts podcast: Jack Lienke & Kirti Datla on the ridiculous (but extremely important) EPA case before the Supreme Court by Volts
82 min listen
Max Rodriguez | Unpacking West Virginia v. EPA: Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA ruled that the Clean Air Act does not authorize the EPA to require a systematic shift to cleaner sources of electricity generation. Many fear this decision will be devastating to the agency’s and the executive branch’s ability to move the U.S. away from carbon-intensive energy sources and toward cleaner resources to address climate change in the accelerated timeline necessary to avoid its worst impacts. So, in this episode, Chad Reed sits down with Max Rodriguez, an attorney with Pollock Cohen and the primary author of an amicus curiae brief on behalf of 192 Members of Congress supporting the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. Max discusses in depth the history and justiciability of the case, the major questions doctrine underpinning it, the potentially far-reaching implications of the decision and the related non-delegation doctrine for by Climate Positive
43 min listen

Discover this podcast and so much more

First in Flight

First in Flight

Description

Titles in the series (73)

More Episodes from Divided Argument

Related podcast episodes