Voting Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart interviews civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill about the history of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the effect of the recent Court decision in the case of Louisiana v. Callais which for all purposes removed the last protections of the Act. Ifill provides a very clear presentation of the history of black voting. Stewart is funny at times, but does a good job of asking the right questions. 20 min. subtitles available.
AI and Supreme Court Advocacy
Bloomberg Law has posted a video about whether AI (artificial intelligence) can argue a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. One Supreme Court advocate thinks there's a lot to be said for AI. 7min. 38 sec. Subtitles available.
Bloomberg Law has many other interesting videos on YouTube.
More about the U.S. Supreme Court Term
NPR's Ari Shapiro on All Things Considered hosted a discussion about what the Court ruled this term. Discussing were Nina Totenberg of NPR, Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Centre and Sarah Isgur of SCOTUSblog. 8 min. 13 sec., transcript available.
U.S. Supreme Court End of Term
PBS News has a good summary here of several of the last big cases handed down by the Supreme Court on Friday June 27, with interviews with two Court experts. 10 min., transcript available.
SCOTUS and Gender-affirming Medical Care
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for minors under 18. The Court must decide if the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. PBS News reports on this case here. 9 min. 25 sec. video, transcript available.
Interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently released a video of a conversation with Justice Elena Kagan who answered questions for an hour about decisions and events in the Court over the last year. She spoke clearly and candidly. Interestingly, she revealed that she tries to avoid adjectives when writing dissents.
SCOTUS on Presidential Immunity
On the last day of this term (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark opinion (6-3) expanding presidential immunity. The dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor is fiery.
NPR's coverage includes a 4 minute episode on All Things Considered by Nina Totenberg - transcript available, a 10 minute one on Morning Edition - transcript available and a 16 minute one on Consider This.
PBS NewsHour has an interview with historian Heather Cox Richardson who explains what a revolution this decision is in American law. 6 min. transcript available.
End of Term for SCOTUS
This term the U.S. Supreme Court has decided several landmark cases. The most important one so far overturned what is known as the doctrine of Chevron deference. The courts now, not regulatory agencies, will have the final word interpreting federal laws. NPR's Nina Totenberg explains here the history of the question and what a revolution this decision is. Totenberg also presents another decision about one of the laws applied to some January 6, 2021 insurrectionists. 7 min., transcript available.
More about the criminal law case (January 6th) can be found here. 3 min., transcript available.
More about the case overruling the Chevron doctrine can be found here. 4 min. 43 sec. transcript available.
Coming on Monday, the decisions about presidential immunity and social media.
More U.S. Supreme Court - Abortion News
The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on March 26 about restrictions on the use of mifepristone, the medication that accounts for almost 2/3 of all U.S. abortions.
PBS Newshour has an interview with law professor Mary Ziegler about the role executive branch agencies can play in the availability of medication abortions, highlighting the potential consequences of the 2024 election for reproductive rights. 6 min. 34 sec., transcript available.
U.S. Supreme Court Ethics
The main story on John Oliver's Last Week Tonight program on February 25 was the U.S. Supreme Court and its ethics. Funny, with a spectacular end - "how is this legal?". 30 min. no transcript.
Trump in the Ballot?
NPR's program Consider This has an interview with University of Chicago law professor Aziz Huq about the case before the U.S. Supreme Court deciding if section three of the 14th Amendment applies to
Donald Trump.
The case will be argued before the Court Thursday February 8. The Court has said the oral arguments will be live-streamed. 12 min. 53 sec., transcript available.
To prepare yourself for listening to the oral argument, you can see a presentation of how this one will take place as part of an article in Politico - Meet the Lawyers Arguing the Trump Ballot Case...(the second video).
History of Gun Control for the U.S. Supreme Court
The February 3 report on NPR's Weekend Edition examining the importance of history in the interpretation of 2nd Amendment gun rights can be found here. 5 min., transcript available.
Donald Trump on the Ballot?
NPR's Geoff Bennett interviews election law expert Professor Rick Hasen about the application of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to the candidacy of former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election. 6 min., transcript available.
The Mandatory Repatriation Tax - Unconstitutional?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the legality of the mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, which imposes a one-time tax on offshore investment income. The tax applies regardless of whether the earnings were distributed to shareholders or whether the shareholders owned the shares when the corporation made the earnings on which they are being taxed. NPR's Nina Totenberg has two pieces about this case which is getting a lot of attention because of the implications a decision will have on many more important parts of the tax code. Totenberg's first presentation, before the case was argued before the Court, presents the facts of the case and explains what the legal questions are. 6 min. 56 sec. transcript available.
The second reports on what happened during the oral arguments. 3 min. 48 sec. transcript available. One mistake in this transcript is found near the end when transcribing the Solicitor General's remarks. The transcript presents the SG's words as saying that a realization requirement is "inaccurate, profoundly historical and consistent with the text of the 16th Amendment...". In fact she characterised the requirement as "ahistorical, inconsistent with the text of the 16th Amendment". Quite a difference!
The 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution before the Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the legality of the mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, which imposes a one-time tax on offshore investment income.
NPR's Nina Totenberg has two pieces about this case which is noteworthy because of the implications a decision will have on many more important parts of the system of federal taxation made possible by the 16th Amendment of the Constitution. Totenberg's first presentation, before the case was argued before the Court, presents the facts of the case and explains what the legal questions are. 6 min. 56 sec. transcript available. Her second reports on what happened during oral arguments. 3 min. 48 sec. transcript available.
A serious mistake in the transcript is found at the end when transcribing the Solicitor General's remarks. The transcript has her saying said that a realization requirement is "inaccurate, profoundly historical and consistent with the text of the 16th Amendment...". In fact she characterised the requirement as "ahistorical, inconsistent with the text of the 16th Amendment". Quite a difference!
U.S. Supreme Court and Laws Restricting Gun Ownership
During oral arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to find a federal gun law restricting the right of anyone covered by a domestic violence court order to own a gun an acceptable limitation of the right to bear arms. NPR's Nina Totenberg has the story here. 5 min. 04, transcript available.
Bankruptcy and Opiods
U.S. Supreme Court Ends Its Term
The U.S. Supreme Court ended its 2022-2023 term on Friday. Three "blockbuster" decisions involving affirmative action, student loan relief and services to same-sex couples were handed down in the final days of the term. NPR reports on these developments. The longest report, 12+ minutes, presents the affirmative action case.
It has two separate pieces about the same-sex wedding website case, a general presentation (5 min. 41 sec.) of the ruling and another concentrating on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's blistering dissent (4 min. 35 sec.)
Student loan relief problems might be hard for non-Americans to understand, but over 40 million Americans carry student loans. NPR has a piece about what this decision means for borrowers (4 min. 57 sec.). NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg's analysis of the legal arguments, with no audio, can be found here.
Other important decisions were also handed down this week. Totenberg explains one involving who has the last word on organising federal elections (5 min. 17 sec.).
More from NPR on SCOTUS here (11 min. 48 sec., transcript available).
Jack Daniel's whisky manufacturers are not happy with a dog toy company that produced something called Bad Spaniels that, it says, infringes on their trademark with a similar name and shape. NPR's Nina Totenberg has the story here. 4 min., transcript available.
Social Media before the U.S. Supreme Court
Can online platforms be held liable for algorithmically recommending harmful third-party content to users?
The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases this week that challenge the federal law regulating internet companies. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects web platforms from liability for third-party content in basically the same way that telephone companies are protected.
The first case, Gonzalez v. Google, argued February 21, was brought by the family of a young woman who was killed in the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015. Her family claims social media companies aided and abetted terrorism by recommending ISIS videos to those who might be interested in order to get more viewers and increase ad revenue. The second, Twitter v. Taamneh, argued February 22, was filed by the family of Nawras Alassaf, a Jordanian citizen who was killed in the January 2017 ISIS attack at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul. His family contends that Twitter and the other tech companies knew that their platforms played an important role in ISIS’s terrorism efforts but, despite extensive press coverage and government pressure, did not act aggressively to keep ISIS content off those platforms.
NPR's Nina Totenberg presents the legal questions here. 6 min. 55 sec. transcript available.
Posts
