OT2017 #22 "Cf. Everything"

We're live at the University of Akron School of Law to preview the Court's final—and perhaps its most important—sitting of October Term 2017. Come for our predictions on the Travel Ban case, Trump v. Hawaii. Stay for Ian's rant on interstate egg regulation, Dan's second thoughts on #GorsuchStyle, a radical proposal for habeas reform, and a whole lot more—including a recap of the Court's biggest opinion of the Term so far, Sessions v. Dimaya. We also fill you in on the Court's slightly-less-exciting opinions in United States v. Microsoft and Wilson v. Sellers, discuss some interesting relists, and take some great audience questions—including one by a Volokh Conspirator who made a surprise appearance (listen 'til the end to find out who!).

This week's episode is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus. For a free month of unlimited access to The Great Courses Plus's library of fascinating lectures about various topics, including a course about the history of the Supreme Court, go to: http://thegreatcoursesplus.com/firstmondays.

OT2017 #21: "Under the Mattress"

We're coming up on the final arguments of OT2017, and we'll get you ready with a preview of the future of online sales tax in South Dakota v. Wayfair. We'll also catch up on grants, orders, and opinions. What's with the Court and qualified immunity cases? Why is Justice Sotomayor fired up in her dissent, and why is Justice Ginsburg the only other liberal justice to back her up? Plus, with the help of a hotline call, we'll talk about what would happen if a majority of justices have to recuse themselves from a case.

And speaking of hotline calls, we got a lot of them! We'll answer your questions and praise your dedicated research skills.

OT2017 #20: "I Am The Split"

The Supreme Court's March sitting goes out like a lamb... if a lamb symbolizes a 9-0 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. But first, we're going in like a lion and naming names in the War on Arbitration-- those Biglaw firms that require summer associates to sign arbitration agreements. And as for that lamb of a sitting, we'll talk about what the Chief's opinion in Hall v. Hall means for the definition of "consolidation." And then, it's round two of partisan gerrymandering in Benisek v. Lamone. With some incisive questions from the Chief and Justices Kennedy and Kagan, we might be a little closer to understanding the potential outcomes.

OT2017 #19: "This Classroom Is Not Full"

Live from Yale Law School, it's First Mondays! We're joined by Linda Greenhouse, Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, and Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence. First, we'll discuss the orders docket-- what does it signal when the three liberal justices join Justice Breyer in a statement about denying a dealth penalty case? Then, we'll address the trickle of opinions that have come out, and speculate about what's holding back the floodwaters. We'll move on to recapping the argument in NIFLA v. Becerra-- the case about abortion and the First Amendment. Is Justice Kennedy right in that justices shouldn't use the internet to supplement the record? Finally, we'll look ahead to next week and preview Hughes v. United States and Benisek v. Lamone. For the latter, we theorize about why the Court is hearing another partisan gerrymandering case when Gill v. Whitford is still pending.

With Court business taken care of, we get some time to talk to Linda about some of her recent writing, including her view of Chief Justice Roberts' search for middle ground, and how she thinks Justice Scalia's legacy is holding up.

And since it's live, we'll close with a few audience questions! Many thanks to Yale Law School for hosting us, and to Linda Greenhouse for joining our discussion.

OT2017 #18: "Legal Faux Pas"

Leah Litman returns to the co-host chair to join Ian for a look ahead at the March sitting. We preview National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a case at the intersection of abortion and the First Amendment. We'll also talk about Sveen v. Melin, a contracts clause case that will determine what happens to life insurance after divorce.

But before we get into those, we try something new-- flagging a few interesting cert petitions that we'll watch as they make their way through the Court's discussion lists. There are also birthdays and anniversaries to celebrate, as well as some key corrections to issue.

OT2017 #17: "Elephants Rarely Hide in Pajamas"

While the Supreme Court takes a breather between sittings, we delve into the grants, orders, and opinions they've been churning out over the past few weeks. Good news-- at least some of them are interesting! We'll talk about everything from original jurisdiction, to the death penalty, to a detained immigrant's rights, with a lot more in between. Plus, we turn to Danielle D'Onfro for her expertise in one bankruptcy case-- and another case merely pretending to be a bankruptcy case.

We'll close out with a few hotline calls, including one that will speak to your inner poet.

 

OT2017 #16: "Robots in Ireland"

The February sitting is over, but the argument recaps are just beginning. We welcome back Nina Totenberg to talk about four big cases from the past two weeks: Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31Minnesota Voters Alliance v. ManskyUnited States v. Microsoft Corp.; and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach.

Next week we'll talk about orders and opinions, and we'll also answer your questions-- so call the hotline: 202-813-0839.

 

OT2017 #15: "Respected By All Sides"

We're switching it up and spending the whole episode on one case: United States v. Microsoft Corp. You know about storing stuff on the Cloud-- but what does it mean for your privacy when the cloud is technically located in another country? We'll get help understanding both sides with two special guests: Andrew Woods, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky, and Brad Smith, President and Chief Legal Officer of Microsoft.

OT2017 #14: "Justice for Stormy"

The Supreme Court's long break is over and we're here to preview some of the most interesting cases from the February sitting. We take a deep dive into Janus v. AFSCME, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Currier v. Virginia, and Ohio v. American Express. We also speculate about who Justice Ginsburg threw some recent shade at, and we wrap things up with some hotline calls. 

OT2017 #13: "Poker Face"

In the bleak midwinter, the Supreme Court gave us three opinions to mull over while we wait for the next argument session. We'll talk about the outcomes-- and how they line up with our predictions-- in District of Columbia v. Wesby and Artis v. District of Columbia. And for good measure, we'll toss in about 30 seconds on National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense.

We'll also talk about the justices' presence at the State of the Union, the advent of #GorsuchStyle, and a redistricting move in Pennsylvania. Plus, we'll clean out our hotline inbox to answer some of your questions.

OT2017 #12: "False Idol"

It's a federal courts feast this week, and the main course is a conversation with Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law, who argued for the petitioner in Dalmazzi v. United States. He'll give us the answers to three very important questions:

1) At 6'8" tall, did he crank up the podium in the courtroom before addressing the justices?
2) What is the Golden CAAF award?
3) How on earth do you answer Justice Kennedy's question about one of the most important cases in Supreme Court history?

For appetizers, we'll provide a party platter of the grants that came out immediately after we finished recording last week's episode. And for dessert, we'll dish out a double scoop of hotline calls.

OT2017 #11: "Numbing Effect"

This week, we start with some bad news and some good news. The bad news? The Supreme Court has a mouse problem. The good news? Serial Supreme Court litigant Fane Lozman is on Twitter, and he’s a Friend of the Show. We also have some follow-up about Hargan v. Garza, the case about undocumented minors who want abortions. It turns out this situation is a lot more common than we appreciated, and we talk about why. 

The Court handed down Tharpe v. Sellers last week, a death penalty habeas case with a fairly shocking juror affidavit (to give you a sense: it both uses the n-word and invokes O.J. Simpson). So we’re joined by official First Mondays Habeas Wizard (and part-time host) Leah Litman to break it down and try to answer this question: How does a guy on death row get 72 hours from being executed when he’s got an affidavit from a juror admitting that race played a role in him getting the death penalty? Later, we’ll discuss McCoy v. Louisiana, another death-penalty case, presenting a different unsettling question: Can a lawyer for the defendant admit that he committed the murder, even over the defendant’s express objection? 

In terms of recaps, we talk about Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. Husted is an interesting case about the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which both requires states to make reasonable efforts to take people off the voting rolls when they’ve moved, and also forbids taking them off because they haven’t voted. Ohio uses non-voting to send people letters asking them to confirm that they haven’t moved; if they don’t reply, and keep not voting, they’re taken off the lists. Legit? Listen and learn. 

But that’s not all! We discuss the Solicitor General’s cert. petition in Trump v. Hawai’i, a.k.a. The Travel Ban case; the unusual pro per amicus argument coming up next week in Dalmazzi v. United States; and more. 

If you’re enjoying the show, don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. We’re @isamuel@danepps, and @LeahLitman—and our beloved producer is @MelodyRowell. You can also check us out on Patreon for exclusive content like bonus episodes, livestreams, and access to the Amici Slack. 

OT2017 #10: "Under the Heat Lamp"

The justices are coming out of their long winter's nap to give us some cases to talk about. We'll start off with some grants, an update on our favorite Floridian Fane Lozman, and some news about Hargan v. Garza, the ultimate hot-button case concerning abortion and immigration. Then, we'll get you ready for Car Day at the Supreme Court.  We'll preview Byrd v. United States and Collins v. Virginia. Both Fourth Amendment cases, both involving vehicle searches, both subject to Official First Mondays Predictions.

This episode is sponsored by Helix Sleep, a company that will build you a custom mattress at a great price that will the best thing you’ve ever slept on. To take Helix Sleep’s 100-day risk-free trial, and to get $50 off, go to http://www.helixsleep.com/firstmondays.

Amici #10 [UNLOCKED]: “Rotten Fruit Juice”

Merry Christmas! This year, we at First Mondays have gotten you all the gift we know you’ve been wishing for most ardently: an unlocked bonus episode that was previously released exclusively to our Patreon backers. This summer, many of the Justices were off “teaching” in Europe where they were, no doubt, drinking some delicious wine. So we sat down with wine expert (and Lecturer in Italian Studies at Berkeley) Dr. Danielle Callegari, for a discussion about the history of wine in America and about the effects of the Court’s decision in Granholm v. Heald on the wine business. (You don’t think we’d omit the jurisdictional hook, do you?)

For more about the “three-tier” system we discuss on this episode, you can check out Dr. Caellgari’s latest blog post. And to learn more about Dr. Callegari and The Cabinet, go to her website or check out her Instagram.

OT2017 #9: "Peak SG"

The exciting December sitting may be over, but we’re still here to let you know what you missed. We catch you up on the oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop, everybody’s favorite cake-flavored battle between religious liberty and gay rights. We’ll answer your burning questions: Did Justice Kennedy tip his hand as to which side he’s on? Does Justice Kagan think there’s a constitutional difference between cake artists and makeup artists? Can the Chief Justice figure out a way to let the cake shop win without undermining protections against racial discrimination? Most importantly, does Justice Breyer realize that mole and guacamole aren’t the same thing?

We’re also joined by recurring guest contributor Nina Totenberg of NPR, who tells us what she noticed in the courtroom these past two weeks—and what she talked about with Governor Chris Christie, who was in the audience for Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. And if that’s not enough, we also discuss the ACLU’s response to the Government’s controversial cert. petition in Hargan v. Garza, the heated abortion-plus-undocumented-immigration dispute in which the SG asked the Court to consider imposing sanctions on opposing counsel. And as always, we answer some calls from the Hotline. It’s an action-packed episode worthy of an action-packed sitting of the Court!

OT2017 #8: "Bespoke but Blank"

Is cake speech? It’s time to find out. This week, we preview Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the Court will decide whether a baker may be compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. But before we do, we recap the argument in Carpenter v. United States, the warrantless-location-tracking case, and conclude that the ACLU is in a good position—though not for the reasons in their brief. And we bring you news of the latest incident of mistaken identity at the Supreme Court, Elon Musk’s chance to appear at the podium, and the nature of Congress’ true powers over Indian law (for the Ablavsky piece we mention, go here).

This episode is sponsored by Helix Sleep, a company that will build you a custom mattress at a great price that will the best thing you’ve ever slept on. To take Helix Sleep’s 100-day risk-free trial, and to get $50 off, go to http://www.helixsleep.com/firstmondays.

OT2017 #7: "Keys to a Valet"

It’s finally here: Carpenter v. United States. For months, we’ve been eagerly awaiting the argument in this hugely important case about whether the Fourth Amendment restricts the government’s ability to get location information from cellphone service providers. (Ian has been waiting even longer, as he wrote about the legal issue in his student note nearly a decade ago). To help us think through the issues, we’re joined by leading expert Professor Orin Kerr, who submitted a fascinating amicus brief arguing that the government should win.

But that’s not all! We also discuss Justice Kagan’s surprisingly late recusal in Jennings v. Rodriguez; catch you up on the Court’s latest certiorari grants, all three of which raise interesting First Amendment issues; provide some backstory on a particularly colorful litigant in one of those cases who is taking his second trip to the Supreme Court; praise the Court’s newly implemented electronic filing system; preview the January Calendar; and give you the latest developments in the Supreme Court in the litigation challenging the President’s newest entry ban. It’s an action-packed episode that kicks off the action-packed December sitting.

This episode is sponsored by Helix Sleep, a company that will build you a custom mattress at a great price that will the best thing you’ve ever slept on. To take Helix Sleep’s 100-day risk-free trial, and to get $50 off, go to http://www.helixsleep.com/firstmondays.

OT2017 #6: "Year of Munsingwear"

The November sitting might be finished, but we’re still going. Ian returns to recap last week’s arguments with Dan. But first, there’s the matter of a very unusual certiorari petition that the Department of Justice filed in a hot-button case that involves both abortion and undocumented immigrants. Even more exciting, we review the first opinions of the still young Term. We then stumble blindly through the argument recap in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting without the help of our bankruptcy expert. We also recap the argument in the fascinating separation-of-powers case Patchak v. Zinke, learning along the way that Chief Justice Roberts does occasionally have use for law professors. As always, we offer our fearless First Mondays forecasts.

First Mondays is brought to you this week by Ironclad—our favorite software suite for corporate legal teams, which streamlines contract creation, signing, and tracking. Check them out at https://ironcladapp.com/.

OT2017 #5: "Oglethorpe's Second Cousin"

We’re halfway through the November sitting, and and while the Court didn’t grant any new cases last week, it gave us plenty of other things to talk about. Topics of discussion: Why does Chief Justice Roberts think one of his predecessors is underrated due to his corpulence? How can the Supreme Court bar increase the representation of women in oral arguments? And what forms of body art are most appropriate for honoring the Justices?

We also recap last week’s arguments in Wilson v. Sellers and Artis v. District of Columbia, revisiting—and defending—our earlier predictions. And then we preview this week’s argument in Patchak v. Zinke, and debate why the Court cares about the separation-of-powers issue in the case. Finally, stay tuned through the hotline calls to hear about Leah’s battlefield promotion. 

First Mondays is brought to you this week by Ironclad—our favorite software suite for corporate legal teams, which streamlines contract creation, signing, and tracking. Check them out at https://ironcladapp.com/.

OT2017 #4: "Wind, Diabetes, & Voluntary Retirements"

For the first-ever First Mondays live show, we traveled to the University of Michigan—go Blue—and are joined by alumna Leah Litman. From Ann Arbor, we ring in the November sitting. But before we do, we discuss the important stuff: expensive sandwichesfactual errors by the Supreme Court, and the travel ban. We then take a deep dive into a couple of cases from the first week of the November sitting: Artis v. District of Columbia, a fun case about time limits (trust us), and Wilson v. Sellers, about … well, it’s complicated. We’ve also got some great hotline calls from the Firsties, at least one of whom is probably sober.