101 First Street #1: "Ser-shee-or-RARE-eye"

How does the Supreme Court actually work? How does the Court decide what cases to hear? How do you pronounce "certiorari?" What's the difference between a relist and a reschedule? Why are some briefs grey? In this inaugural episode of 101 First Street, the First Mondays crew answers all these questions—and more.

Enjoying the podcast? Subscribe! We're on iTunes and Stitcher, and you can even ask Alexa to play First Mondays for the whole family. And we always love to hear from Firsties, so get in touch with questions for future installments of 101 First Street!

OT2016 #8: "Don't Think It's Going To Be 9-0"

The Slants have released a new song, the Supreme Court has released opinions, and Justice Breyer has got an idea for an innovative gold heist. This week, we welcome back Danielle D'Onfro (of Washington University) to discuss the bankruptcy arguments in Jevic. But before we do, we break down the Court's opinions in Salman, RigsbySamsung, and Shaw, as well as Justice Breyer's dissent from the denial of certiorari in Sireci, a death penalty case from Florida. We also take a look at the arguments in Bethune-Hill and McCrory, the election-law cases, with a close study of just what makes Paul Clement such an effective advocate.

If you're enjoying First Mondays, don't forget to rate and subscribe on your podcast directory of choice! We're on iTunes, Stitcher, and even TuneIn—so you can, and should, command your Amazon Echo to play First Mondays any time. More information is available on the Subscribe page.

 

OT2016 #7: "Do We Even Really Know the Name?"

The holiday season is in full swing—with the first opinion announcement of the year. This week on First Mondays, we recap the Court's decision in Bravo-Fernandez and the slew of new grants out of the most recent conference. We also have Danielle D'Onfro, Lecturer in Law at Washington University, to discuss Jevic, a major bankruptcy case that the Court will hear this week. But before we do, we've got a special dispatch from the Beckles oral argument from Professor Leah Litman, some very special fan mail from the Court-appointed amicus in Beckles, and a look at ways the Court might get to five in Jennings, about the indefinite detention of immigrants. We also preview the arguments this week in the Court's Virginia and North Carolina election cases, argued by former General Counsel of the Hillary for America team, Marc Elias.

And don't forget! First Mondays is hiring a producer, and we'll begin interviewing applicants very soon. If you're interested in the Supreme Court and are interested in getting in on the ground floor of a burgeoning media empire, get in touch with us by Twitter (@FirstMondaysFM) or by email: isamuel@law.harvard.edu and epps@wustl.edu

OT2016 #6: "Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword"

It's a jam-packed holiday episode of First Mondays! In this episode, we begin with thoughts on the election and—even more consequentially—the Court's DIG in Visa v. Osborn. We also recap the last of the November cases, and use our juridical clairvoyance to predict the November assignments. Joining us to preview the December calendar is Professor Leah Litman, who discusses Beckles v. United States, and we also discuss Jennings v. Rodriguez, about when you can detain people without bond who might be in the United States lawfully (the government's surprising answer: more often than you'd think).

First Mondays is also hiring! We're looking for someone (probably a smart law student, but not necessarily) to work with us a couple of hours a week, as a podcast editor and producer, as the First Mondays media empire grows. If you enjoy the work of the Supreme Court, think it would be fun to work with Dan and Ian, and have some basic familiarity with audio editing software, drop us an email (isamuel@law.harvard.edu and epps@wustl.edu) or get in touch via Twitter (@FirstMondaysFM).

Correction: This episode suggested that the Hogan Lovells team of attorneys that worked on Visa v. Osborn and Dietz v. Bouldin were identical. While there was substantial overlap between the two teams, Leila Mongan and Daniel J.T. Schuker worked on Dietz but not Visa, and Benjamin Fleming and Eugene Sokoloff worked on Visa but not Dietz.

OT2016 #5: "Why Do We Wear Robes?"

Justice Breyer's got theories about fashion, and the First Mondays team is on it. This week, we begin with the special meeting of the Supreme Court's bar to honor Justice Scalia, and the Chief Justice's courtesy vote to stay an execution. We also discuss last week's arguments on the False Claims Act, cheerleading uniforms, and laches, and look ahead to this week, when the Court will hear arguments in major cases concerning children born abroad to citizen parents and the scope of the President's ability to temporarily fill vacancies in the government.

OT2016 #4: "Federal Circuit, Never Change"

The November sitting has begun! This week, we begin with Judge Posner's low opinion of the Supreme Court, and the new grants concerning gender identity, free speech for sex offenders, and the consequences of California's statutory-rape law for immigrants who are convicted of violating it. We also look ahead to next week's False Claims Act argument in Rigsby, the copyrightability of cheerleading uniforms in Star Athletica, and a case about laches and patents, SCA Hygiene Products—which seems oddly familiar, in more ways than one.

OT2016 #3: "Dumb and Disrespectful"

Justice Ginsburg has got views on Colin Kaepernick—or does she? We discuss Justice Ginsburg's engagement with the media, and then talk about the new grants, Hernandez and Turkmen, along with the Court's first official opinion of OT 2016, Bosse. We also bring down the curtain on the October sitting: who had the best oral argument of the week? Who will win in Pena-Rodriguez and Samsung v. Apple? Who's going to write these opinions once they're out? And where, exactly, is the December calendar?

Links for this episode:

OT2016 #2: "The Worst Part About Being a Supreme Court Justice"

This week on First Mondays, Ian and Dan dive right into Justice Breyer's exotic theories about Kim Kardashian. We also review the music of The Slants, who will be featured in the upcoming Lee v. Tam (4:00), and discuss the potential for Missouri to switch sides in the major Establishment Clause case, Trinity Lutheran (6:30).

We then recap the oral arguments in the insider-trading case Salman v. United States (13:20), the bank-fraud case Shaw v. United States (23:00), and the Double Jeopardy brain-teaser Bravo-Fernandez (36:00). We then look ahead to this week's Sixth Amendment case involving allegations of racial bias by a juror, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado (41:00), and the design-patent showdown in Samsung v. Apple (56:00). Finally, we discuss the Term's first after-lunch argument, Manrique v. United States (1:08:00) and—more importantly—our views on the Supreme Court's cafeteria.

Enjoying the show? Don't forget to rate us on iTunes and subscribe!

Links: 

OT2016 #1: "The Satisfaction of Giving a Gift"

In this inaugural episode of First Mondays, Ian Samuel and Dan Epps raise the curtain on October Term 2016 at the Supreme Court. Topics include the most exciting grants from the Long Conference, the low pace of grants and mysterious delay in scheduling major cases for argument. We also preview the most exciting cases set for argument this week: Shaw v. United StatesSalman v. United StatesBuck v. Davis, and Bravo-Fernandez v. United States—and give the signature First Mondays prediction for each.