The Supreme Court will hold a special session Feb. 8 to consider whether Colorado can keep Donald Trump off the primary ballot. Notre Dame Law School professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to explain the legal issues at play and the potential impacts of a court ruling that fails to give a definitive answer before the presidential election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices will soon hear argument on Donald Trump’s appeal to stay on the Colorado primary ballot, but another question for the court is whether the former president will attend the proceedings. Trump has done so in other court hearings of late around the country, creating unprecedented security challenges. While the Supreme Court is used to heightened security for the justices, hosting Trump for such a blockbuster case would heighten the stakes. The court won’t say what security measures are planned for Feb. 8 whether Trump shows or not. Bloomberg Law’s judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss those possibilities and how Trump’s other appearances have played out. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The conservative-led Supreme Court seems primed to nix a bedrock principle governing the relationship between administrative agencies and federal courts. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the 3 1/2-hour argument on Jan. 17 in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. From the justices different understandings of the Chevron doctrine to uncertainties over a potential replacement for deference, the latest episode gets into all the details. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Big challenges to federal agency regulatory powers at the Supreme Court could end up as a footnote to what’s shaping up to be a momentous term. Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson discuss how the court set up a historic sitting in agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s fight to stay on the 2024 primary ballot in Colorado and a second abortion case. It was already a significant term with two challenges to the so-called administrative state, which many thought would garner the most attention. Those cases will be argued next week and Sam Sankar, senior vice president for programs at Earthjustice, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how a ruling against the government could give judges the ability to strike down regulations they disagree with and shift power from agencies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court’s January sitting starts Monday and most of the focus will center on administrative law cases. But important arguments on government gamesmanship and property rights are also on tap. Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute joins Cases and Controversies to break down upcoming arguments. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Arguing at the Supreme Court is no walk in the park. The justices ask tough questions and give hypotheticals that can trip up even the most prepared advocate. As the year comes to a close, Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr look back at the most memorable moments from Supreme Court arguments so far this term since the court follows its own calendar. There were some uncomfortable, even awkward, exchanges during the free speech fight over a “Trump too small” trademark, the challenge to the $6 billion bankruptcy settlement involving opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, and the spat over the SEC’s use of in-house judges in fraud cases. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court added two high profile disputes to its docket and suggested it will fast-track a third involving former President, adding to an already consequential term. Hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr discuss the new cases on access to the abortion drug mifepristone, a challenge to Jan. 6 prosecutions, and immunity for former President Donald Trump on his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor solidified her legacy as the first female jurist to sit on the Supreme Court. One of her former clerks, Tamarra Matthews Johnson, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss her former boss as a justice and as a role model for women. She touches on O’Connor’s career hurdles and how her political experience came through in her time on the high court bench. Johnson recalls O’Connor as an active member who tried to think of things from multiple points of view—that she saw herself as someone who understood that the law meant something to people in their daily lives. Do you have feedback on this episode of On The Merits? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court appeared likely to require the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring certain enforcement actions in federal court, rather than resolve them in-house. The only question appeared to be whether the justices' ruling will ensnare other federal agencies.  Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss how the court might limit its ruling. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court’s inaugural code of conduct, issued under pressure from transparency advocates and Congress, does little to quell concern over how the justices conduct themselves on ethics, critics say. The Brennan Center’s Jennifer Ahearn joins Cases and Controversies to talk about how the lack of an enforcement method, special recusal rules, and general tone are unlikely to result in many changes—both in how the court operates and how it’s perceived. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A lopsided Supreme Court appeared ready to side with the Biden administration in a Second Amendment challenge to a federal gun ban for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders. The real issue for the justices is how to apply their new test, established in the court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, that requires courts to look for historical support for gun restrictions. Duke Center for Firearms Law Executive Director Andrew Willinger joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the old test, the new one, and possibilities for the future. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices searched for the proper line to balance free speech protections for public officials and their constituents online, in the first of several disputes involving social media this term. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's David Greene joins Cases and Controveries to explain the competing First Amendment issues at play in Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and how the cases fit in with other upcoming social media disputes. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett made news this week when she became the latest justice to back a high court ethics code, but her tale of rocking out to the turn-of-the-century hit "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the stately halls of the highest court in the land stole the show.  Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr catch up on all the justices' latest activities. They also highlight the biggest cases being argued during the court's November sitting, from guns, to social media, to the "Trump Too Small" trademark dispute. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn. But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers. Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Whether funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unlawful or not could rest with conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, one court watcher says. Brennan Center for Justice President and CEO Michael Waldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss a challenge to the Obama-era agency that was set up in the aftermath of the financial crisis to regulate mortgages, auto loans and credit cards. He says it’s unclear how the court ultimately will rule following argument Oct. 3 over the agency’s funding structure, but notes that Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Barrett, especially, merit watching. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court kicks off its 2023 term on Monday with guns, abortion, and affirmative action potentially coming back—whether the justices are ready for them or not. Advocates and lower courts are emboldened by the high court’s recent rulings in key areas and are bringing aggressive claims that the justices might not have anticipated, University of Chicago law professor David Strauss said. The “chickens are coming home to roost,” Strauss said in noting the court has unsettled law in some areas with its rulings. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Death penalty cases are often adjudicated for years, if not decades, before they reach the Supreme Court. But once they do, the justices must make life-or-death decisions in a relatively quick amount of time. Death penalty cases at the Supreme Court often come through the court's emergency, or "shadow" docket. In recent years, the court's conservatives have handed down rulings that closed off several avenues for capital defendants to get a rehearing of their case, or to even to challenge their method of execution. On this special episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take a look at what the court's rulings mean for how the death penalty works in America, and what happens at the court when an 11th hour request comes in. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

From Antonin Scalia’s sudden death, to four new justices, a leaked opinion draft, the overturning of abortion rights, and the pandemic-era introduction of live audio for oral arguments—a lot has happened at the Supreme Court in the past decade and Cases and Controversies has been there for all of it. The Bloomberg Law podcast started in very lo-fi way in a virtual closet has grown over the years as a staple of Supreme Court coverage with studio space with really good microphones, its own producer in David Schultz, and up to three hosts offering behind-the-scene takes, and insight and analysis of court happenings and all of the turbulence that’s gone along with it. Created by Tom Taylor, Bloomberg Law’s former high court correspondent and now its newsroom’s chief of staff, Cases and Controversies marks 10 years this term with a special edition. Taylor and current co-hosts Kimberly Robinson, Greg Stohr, and Lydia Wheeler offer their observations on heightened public interest in the court, what’s changed for the justices and how the court operates, and what may be in store in coming years. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Rejection of Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan suggests Supreme Court conservatives are going to be more comfortable with second-guessing federal agency determinations even when they fall within a federal statute. UCLA law professor Adam Winkler joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what he's calling the "supersized" Major Questions Doctrine, the high court-made principle that's risen in recent terms and was the reasoning behind the 6-3 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska. Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners beyond the headlines of the biggest opinions of the term. They also look ahead to the one starting in October which Winkler says is shaping up as another with blockbuster potential on guns and the SEC to start with. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Conservative justices asserted themselves in a big way in the final days of the Supreme Court term. The six Republican-appointed justices joined together in striking down affirmative action, rejecting Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, and supporting religious liberty in a setback for LGBTQ rights. While the end of this term for argued cases wasn’t as explosive as a year ago when the court handed conservatives landmark victories on abortion and guns, the final flurry of decisions still packed plenty of drama, especially tension in written opinions and readings from the bench. In the newest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners behind the scenes to break down the biggest decisions, notable moments, and update listeners on some newly granted cases for next term. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court heads into the final week of the term for argued cases with a flurry of opinions on tap, including what could be a blockbuster on affirmative action in higher education and the fate of Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan. Ten 10 cases remain with work expected to be wrapped up by June 30. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr take listeners down the homestretch and behind the scenes of what court watchers might expect and whether surprises are in store. They also break down the opinions most recently handed down. That includes Friday’s decision clearing the way for the Biden administration to shift immigration enforcement priorities to focus on people who recently crossed the border or are a threat to public safety. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

In upholding a landmark measure meant to keep adopted American-Indian children with tribal families, the Supreme Court again declined to embrace a colorblind view of federal law. The conservative argument that race should almost never be a factor in setting and interpreting federal law hasn’t fared well this term. But that could change with decisions pending in challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. In a 7-2 ruling on Thursday in Haaland v. Brackeen that kept in place the decades-old Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices dismissed race-related claims on technical grounds. And the color-blind arguments were explicitly rejected in the justices’ surprise ruling June 8 in Allen v. Milligan. The 7-2 court there said claims under the Voting Rights Act didn’t have to be “race-neutral.” But Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler explain why the outcome could be different the affirmative action cases, which the court is expected to hand down before the end of June. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court declined to make it harder to bring racial challenges to voting rules, shocking court watchers who expected the majority conservative court to make major changes to the law. Goodwin's William Jay joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the reasons why Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh refused to go along with their conservative colleagues, and what, if anything, it might signal about the upcoming affirmative action cases. Along with co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler, Jay also discusses two IP cases in front of the justices—one a trademark dispute decided by the justices Thursday and the other a case to be heard next term involving a phrase that alludes to the size of former President Trump's hands. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to draw notice on the Supreme Court, this time writing the first solo dissent from a first-term justice since Clarence Thomas in 1991. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss Jackson’s dissent in the labor case, and how she’s handled herself since joining the court in October. They’ll also analyze some of the 27 cases still outstanding with the term nearing an end, and how a few of the big ones might play out. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

· Court clips EPA authority over clean water · Chides local government on home seizure Although Supreme Court justices were unanimous in backing landowners in a Big EPA case, their reasoning in the latest check on administrative authority shows there is still deep division. Styled as a concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Sackett v. EPA on how to determine whether the agency can regulate certain bodies of water read more like a dissent. Joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh accused the five other conservatives of creating a test that is “overly narrow and inconsistent with the Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands.” The progressive-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center’s Miriam Becker-Cohen joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss that case and the other May 25 rulings. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Guest: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Constitutional Accountability Center Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

Jackson spoke significantly more than any other justice Was joined by other liberals as most talkative Ketanji Brown Jackson made her mark on US Supreme Court arguments like no other new justice in memory. Her historic confirmation as the first Black woman justice was followed by seven months of oral arguments in which she spoke almost twice as much as any other of her colleagues, according to Empirical SCOTUS’ Adam Feldman. Jackson so far has defied the norm of junior justices taking a back seat during their first few terms. Latham & Watkins’ Roman Martinez joins the podcast to look at Jackson’s first term as well as what the future might hold. Co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also breakdown the court’s most recent opinions, including a highly anticipated copyright case and a sigh of relief for social media companies. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Guest: Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The Supreme Court kicked off opinion season with five rulings, leaving 39 more to get out before the term wraps up in June. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr break down decisions covering immigration, public corruption, and state morality laws.  Supreme Court veteran Daniel Geyser, of Haynes and Boone, also joins the podcast to look back on changes to high court arguments post-pandemic, including some sessions that now go way beyond the scheduled time. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court hasn’t released an opinion in weeks, but it did add a major case on May 1 to its docket looking at the power of administrative agencies. A dispute that started over a federal rule for companies fishing for herring off the Atlantic coast could wipe out a legal doctrine that tells courts they should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation when the law they’re administering is ambiguous. Jonathan Adler, who teaches administrative and constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the court next term could narrow the Chevron doctrine without overruling it. Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr also update listeners on the latest report on Justice Clarence Thomas and ethics. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With scheduled arguments over for the term, Supreme Court justices now turn their attention to their remaining opinions, and it’s going to be a heavy lift over the next two months. The court has worked at a historically slow pace with just 15 opinions out and 75% of their cases remaining. Those include potential blockbusters on affirmative action, voting rules, and LGBT rights. Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells bookended the argument schedule, appearing on the first and last days of the term. Now with his 50th argument in the books, Katyal joins Cases and Controversies to talk about his experiences before the court, and to offer his view on what’s ahead this spring. Katyal said there are a number of potential reasons for the slow pace of opinion production, but that it’s likely not due to internal friction. “I haven’t detected any greater animosity among the justices,” he said. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr update listeners on activities off the bench, including Justice Samuel Alito’s view of who’s behind last year’s draft abortion opinion leak, and the flurry of letters between Congress and the chief justice over high court ethics. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court enters its final week of scheduled arguments, rounding out the calendar to date with a property case that plaintiffs say amounts to home equity theft by local governments. Pacific Legal Foundation’s David Deerson joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss his 94-year-old client’s challenge to a practice in a handful of states that has previously led to local governments taking homes to satisfy tax debt equivalents to a fast food burrito. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also update listeners on the abortion pill litigation, congressional pressure over Supreme Court ethics, and a high-profile death penalty case.

Another Texas abortion case headed the justices’ way and a bombshell report on Clarence Thomas and his luxury vacations upended a usual quiet spring break from Supreme Court arguments and opinions. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson explains the fast-moving district and appellate rulings over the abortion drug mifepristone, a case that’s now on the high court’s doorstep. She also explains the latest controversy over Supreme Court ethics controversy drawing scrutiny in the Senate. And finally, Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic joins the podcast to discuss her latest book, “Nine Black Robes,” and how the “Trump effect” has put the spotlight on One First Street. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

An Evangelical Christian postal carrier in Pennsylvania, who says he was forced out of the job for refusing to work on Sundays, wants the US Supreme Court to do more to accommodate workers’ religious practices. Cases and Controversies explores the issues around faith in Groff v. DeJoy, which is set for argument April 18. The justices are being asked to overturn a ruling that said employers aren’t required to bear more than a “de minimus” cost in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on someone’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It’s a decision some of the court’s conservatives have been eager to revisit. Joshua Matz filed a brief on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Lambda Legal in support of the US Postal Service. He joins the podcast to discuss why the court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison should be revised. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court is set to hear a free speech case that tests when statements are considered true threats not protected by the First Amendment. The justices are being asked in Counterman v. Colorado if the government has to show at trial that the speaker knew or intended the statement to be threatening in nature to secure a conviction, or if it’s enough to show an objective “reasonable person” would view that statement as a threat of violence. At the center of the dispute scheduled to be argued on April 19 is Billy Counterman, who was charged with stalking a Colorado musician after he sent her Facebook messages over the course of two years that frightened her. Counterman claims his messages were protected speech because they weren’t true threats. Elena Cordonean of Southwestern Law School joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss why the court should adopt a dual standard that considers the context of the speech and the speaker’s intent. Special thanks to Southwestern professor Norman Garland Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal that could force prosecutors to reconsider their tactics in criminal cases. This includes what evidence to introduce and how to try multiple defendants. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson & Greg Stohr will break down the questions posed in Samia v. United States which is set for argument March 29. The murder-for-hire case focuses on the Sixth Amendment requirement that criminal defendants be allowed to “confront” witnesses against them at trial. The justices will consider what steps the government must take to protect the identity of co-defendants identified in another’s confession to avoid colliding with the Confrontation Clause. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Questions involving their family ties and associations with other powerful people are nothing new for US Supreme Court justices. But now those relationships are generating more attention and criticism, and are partly fueling calls for them to adopt an ethics code. While the Supreme Court says it follows ethics rules written for lower court judges, its reluctance over the years to embrace a standard for themselves isn’t sitting well with some in the legal community, transparency advocates, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Bloomberg Law reporter Lydia Wheeler joins Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson to discuss their story on a “new era” of scrutiny over high court ethics, and pressure for the justices to formalize their own code of conduct. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Jack Daniel’s brand is at the heart of the US Supreme Court’s latest intellectual property dispute that pits free speech protections against trademark concerns. Debevoise & Plimpton’s Megan K. Bannigan joins “Cases and Controversies” in search of a middle ground for the justices ahead of arguments March 22. The Tennessee whiskey company says pet toy maker VIP Products is tarnishing its brand with potty-themed dog toys called “Bad Spaniels.” “Jack Daniel’s loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone,” the company said in its brief. “But Jack Daniel’s likes its customers even more, and doesn’t want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop.” Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Guest: Megan K. Bannigan, Debevoise & Plimpton Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau faces a challenge to its existence in a case the US Supreme Court will take up next term. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency’s funding mechanism violates separation of powers principles because it’s paid for by the Federal Reserve, not through legislative appropriations. The Biden administration warns the ruling calls into question “every action” the CFPB has taken since its creation by Congress in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and could “inflict immense” legal and practical harm on consumers. Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute joins Cases and Controversies to explain the case and discuss the court’s recent attempts to bolster presidential power over administrative agencies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Genevieve Bonadies Torres, an associate director with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast to discuss the amicus brief she filed in a pair of cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Dept. of Education v. Brown, set for argument on Feb. 28. The loan relief plan, which is on hold due to litigation, “will eliminate or markedly reduce” payments for millions of lower-income borrowers, many of whom experienced economic hardship during the pandemic, her brief said. Without intervention, the potential consequences of default could prevent people from paying for basic needs or even threaten their employment. Those risks are “particularly heightened for borrowers of color,” Torres said. The court challenges focus on a rule known as the major questions doctrine, which directs courts to be skeptical of attempts to use narrow, often ambiguous laws to authorize sweeping, or major programs. The doctrine has recently been bolstered by the court’s new conservative 6-3 majority. But Torres’ seeks to refocus attention of the court on impacts of the Biden plan on minority borrowers. Those implications, and the questions they might prompt from the court’s liberal justices, could “play a role in the background” by pushing the Supreme Court’s middle to take a sort of off-ramp to deciding the legality of the program, she said. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Deadly terror attacks behind a pair of cases set for argument at the Supreme Court could change the legal landscape for social media and other online companies. Families of victims in the violence abroad say in separate cases that tech giants are partly liable for abetting extremists for content posted on their platforms. The claim in Gonzalez v. Google to be heard Feb. 21 contends the company’s YouTube site provided support for the Islamic State by allowing the posting of its videos and recommending those posts to users via algorithms. In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh to be argued the next day, the question is whether the social media site violated anti-terrorism laws by failing to enforce policies against pro-terrorist content. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss the broad liability protections for internet companies, particularly under Seciton 230 of the Communications Decency Act at play in the Google case. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A potential blockbuster ruling on the way states determine their voting rules could be hijacked by the North Carolina Supreme Court after the 2022 elections flipped control of the state court to Republicans. The justices heard arguments in Moore v. Harper in December, and are likely on their way to hammering out a decision. But on Feb. 2 the newly constituted North Carolina Supreme Court issued a rare rehearing order in the case, potentially depriving the justices of the opportunity to clarify the law nationwide. UCLA election expert Rick Hasen explains why it seems likely that the Republican majority will flex its muscle and reverse course, and what it could mean if the justices must wait to decide the issue in the context of a highly contested presidential election. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Although no suspect’s been identified so far in last year’s leak of a draft opinion in the Supreme Court’s blockbuster abortion case, investigators have revealed details about the inner workings of a court draped in mystique. A report on the probe released Thursday highlights technology gaps and weak security procedures. The system in this case is built “fundamentally on trust with limited safeguards to regulate and constrain access to very sensitive information,” investigators said. Cases and Controversies discusses steps that the court plans to take to try to prevent future leaks as well as their potential implications for this term and beyond. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US government’s criminal prosecution of a Turkish-owned bank stumped Supreme Court justices who were torn at argument between potentiality harmful implications for foreign affairs and executive branch authority in that area. University of Chicago law professor Curtis Bradley joins Bloomberg Law’s “Cases and Controversies” podcast to discuss outcomes available to the court, including one that could entangle courts for years in efforts to keep the US out of what Bradley called foreign relations hot water. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr also discuss a recent case granted by the justices that could further strengthen religious rights—this time in the workplace context. The case is one of eight that the justices added to their docket for the remainder of the term. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A lack of opinions and an increasingly smaller caseload stand in contrast to the hot-button issues that the Supreme Court has agreed to tackle this term. Empirical SCOTUS founder Adam Feldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the possible reasons behind why the court hasn’t issued a single opinion since arguments kicked off in October, and how lower caseloads have set a new ceiling on the high court’s docket. “While the Roberts Court will be remembered for its ideological splits and key decisions in the areas of individual rights and liberties, it will also be remembered for its slow decision making process and curtailed number of decisions each term,” Feldman wrote on his website. “This term follows the same trajectory.” Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The scope of attorney client privilege headlines a lower-profile first sitting of the new year for the Supreme Court, which returns to the bench for arguments Jan. 9. But things won’t stay quiet for long. The February argument calendar features a fast-tracked GOP-led challenge to Biden administration attempts to end pandemic-era immigration restrictions. Supreme Court correspondents Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr break down the roster of cases and other happenings at the court in 2023’s first episode of Cases and Controversies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court is off to a historically slow start having released no opinions in argued cases so far. Kimberly Robinson and Madison Alder break down possible reasons for the drought, including hearing cases early in the term that might not lend themselves to quick decisions. Meanwhile, the justices released a blockbuster February calendar that includes arguments in challenges to Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and liability protections for social media platforms. The hosts also cover the evolution of ethics issues at the court, and why they’re increasing as well as Bloomberg Law’s story about a district court in rural Louisiana that’s become popular for Republican-led states challenging Biden policies. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court heard marathon arguments over the role state courts play in setting federal election rules. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller says there was little appetite on the court during arguments Dec. 7 to cut state courts wholly out of the process. Muller joins Cases and Controversies hosts to discuss Moore v. Harper, the independent state legislature theory it implicates, and the concerns voiced by the justices. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices next week will hear two of the term’s most consequential cases—one in the ongoing clash between LGBTQ and religious rights and another that could change the rules of election law nationwide. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr explain the most pressing issues facing the justices in 303 Creative v. Elenis and Moore v. Harper. In the first, the justices will consider whether a Colorado web designer can refuse to make custom wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her religious beliefs. In the other, the court will consider the validity of a legal theory meant to cement the power of state legislatures over federal elections. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A Supreme Court immigration case is center stage for a familiar showdown between Republican-led states suing Democratic administrations to rein in executive policies they say go too far. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr talk with University at Austin law professor Stephen Vladeck, who’s filed a friend-of-the court brief ahead of Nov. 29 arguments in United States v. Texas. Vladeck says Texas has filed more than two dozen challenges to Biden administration policies, which he says is abusing the court system to “facilitate partisan political agendas.” This episode looks at the state’s strategic forum shopping, which Vladeck says Blue states did as well during the Trump administration. Texas told the justices that “it should come as no surprise” that states are increasingly suing to curb executive policies “as the scope of the federal government has expanded to reach nearly every aspect of daily life.” Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court could continue to pull back on places where companies can be sued in a jurisdictional case that’s gotten little notice despite its importance to business. Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down Tuesday’s high-court back and forth in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies podcast. The court in recent terms has limited where companies can be hauled into court to cut down on forum shopping and to increase predictability for corporations. The justices at the Mallory argument seemed likely to go further with regard to laws mandating that companies not based in a particular state consent to being sued, or submit to general jurisdiction, as a condition of doing business there. Norfolk Southern Railway, the defendant in Mallory, says the Pennsylvania law it’s fighting amounts to coercion. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

High profile shadow docket disputes from Donald Trump and others keep hitting the US Supreme Court as the justices gear up to hear an array of arguments during midterm-election week. Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies. The hosts give an update on those shadow-docket disputes plus a sneak peek of the cases being argued the week of Nov. 7, involving federal agency structure, rules for suing businesses and bringing civil-rights claims, and the contentious appeal over the fate of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Affirmative action is making headlines as a Supreme Court blockbuster, but there’s a closely watched financial reporting case and two others dealing with criminal matters on tap as well in the November sitting that actually kicks off on Halloween. Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies. The two affirmative action challenges out of Harvard and the University of North Carolina are set for argument on Monday. The justices will follow up with argument in coming days on cases dealing with the Bank Secrecy Act and technical habeas issues. The episode will also breakdown what’s been happening outside of the courtroom. This includes two emergency requests stemming from the 2020 presidential election, new comments from Justice Samuel Alito on last term’s draft opinion leak, and the next Supreme Court postage stamp. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is gearing up for its next argument sitting that will feature closely watched disputes about race and identity. While most attention may be on the affirmative action cases set for argument Oct. 31, the Nov. 9 hearing over the Indian Child Welfare Act is also consequential. Cherokee Nation deputy attorney general Chrissi Ross Nimmo joins the latest Cases and Controversies to preview the case and explain its importance to American Indian tribes and families. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court just wrapped up its October argument session, hearing disputes on voting, the environment, copyright, and more. The Legal Defense Fund’s Samuel Spital joins the latest Cases and Controversies to help hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down some of those cases. Spital, LDF’s director of litigation, discusses two appeals that the civil-rights group worked on, involving voting rights and DNA testing, as well as an LDF death-penalty petition that the justices recently declined to hear over dissent. Race issues are present in all three cases, even if it’s not squarely before the court in the DNA-testing appeal of Rodney Reed, a Black man convicted by a white jury of killing a white woman with whom he said he had an affair. Texas says Reed, who maintains his innocence, waited too long to bring a federal civil-rights suit challenging his state-court denial of testing. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A dispute over a California animal-cruelty law and the potential impact on other cultural and social issues tops Week 2 of the new Supreme Court term. The case to be argued on Oct. 11, National Pork Producers v. Ross, centers on Proposition 12, a voter-approved measure requiring a certain amount of movement space for pigs bred for pork production. Because California produces little of its own commercial pork, trade groups say compliance costs will disproportionately hurt out-of-state farmers and violate a constitutional provision aimed at protecting against discrimination in commerce. Beyond pork production and sales, the outcome of the Supreme Court case could impact laws aimed at a number of hot-button issues from abortion to LGBTQ rights to religion. Over two days of arguments, the justices will also hear three other disputes, including a showdown between the Andy Warhol Foundation and a photographer whose Prince photos are at the heart of what counts as “fair use.” Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The First Monday in October kicks off Supreme Court arguments in a short week featuring disputes over the future of voting rights and environmental regulation. Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action on the latest Cases and Controversies. Hearing cases Monday and Tuesday with a holiday on Wednesday, the court will also consider a clash between Delaware and a host of states over unclaimed Money Gram financial instruments, as well as an appeal from a disabled military veteran seeking benefits. The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, will hear her first cases as the court struggles with its public standing following a blockbuster term topped by the conservative majority’s decision to end the constitutional right to abortion. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With the new US Supreme Court term set to start Oct. 3, Cases and Controversies returns with a deep dive episode on a big copyright dispute over Andy Warhol images of Prince. Orrick partner Mel Bostwick joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to discuss Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which is set to be argued Oct. 12. The dispute centers on whether Warhol prints of a Prince photo changed original work’s meaning. Bostwick, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, says this is an opportunity for the justices to “put some more meat on the bones” of the test courts should use when determining whether permission is needed to reproduce copyrighted material. For more on the case, check out Bloomberg Law’s video: Andy Warhol, Prince, and Fair Use at the Supreme Court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

From shifts in the law to public reaction to its rulings, the US Supreme Court’s just-concluded term appears to be a blockbuster like no other. Since the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “I don’t think we’ve seen any term that comes close to the one we just saw,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia and a former clerk to Justice Hugo Black. During the term that wrapped up June 30, the court overturned the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and broadened the reach of the Second Amendment for the first time in over a decade. The justices also continued to establish a robust right to religious freedom at the expense of other priorities, and set up severe limits on the so-called administrative state. Howard Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to put in prospective how the term fits with the court’s more than 230-year history. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is finished with its blockbuster term but the focus is already shifting to the next one, with Ketanji Brown Jackson now sworn-in as the first Black woman justice. Jackson comes aboard following a tumultuous nine months that included her confirmation to replace the now-retired Stephen Breyer. Controversies flared over the court's independence with the conservative majority making transformative changes to abortion, guns, religion. Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr joins Cases and Controversies to recap the momentous developments and preview what's ahead starting in October. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court justices finally issued their ruling in the Mississippi abortion case, with the conservative majority striking down the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and guest-host Lydia Wheeler explain the reasoning behind Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion. They also look at Chief Justice John Roberts’ failed bid to find middle ground and the dissent by the court’s three liberals decrying the effect on women’s rights and the court’s legitimacy. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court made up a lot of ground fast on issuing decisions, and appears to be in good position to finish the term on its customary timeline. The justices handed down 11 opinions in recent days, and have 18 more to go by the end of the month or early July. More decisions are expected on Tuesday with blockbuster rulings on abortion, guns, and religion outstanding. On this episode of Cases and Controversies, host Kimberly Robinson highlighted a flurry of decisions on June 13 and 15. An immigration case, Arizona v. San Francisco, suggests the justices might look for off-ramps to complex issues as the term winds down. In an administrative law case, American Hospital Association v. Becerra, the justices made changes to the bedrock Chevron doctrine on judicial respect for federal agency rules, without saying the word “Chevron.” And a pair cases about tribal sovereignty, Denezpi v. US and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, suggest tribes might have a friend in Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court again chipped away at the ability of those alleging constitutional violations by federal law enforcement to sue, effectively immunizing Border Patrol agents from being hauled into court. Athul Acharya, of the public interest law firm Public Accountability, says the June 8 ruling in Egbert v. Boule is one of several judge-made barriers to suing government officials. There are many stages “in the gauntlet that civil rights plaintiffs have to run before they can have their claim heard on the merits,” Acharya said, noting there are jurisdictional and other technical barriers, questions about who can be sued, and then immunity doctrines. The latest ruling limiting so-called Bivens claims, isn’t a surprise. The fortified conservative-majority court has questioned the authority of judges to permit suits against federal officials in instances where Congress hasn’t. In “all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 6-3 Boule ruling that split the court along ideological lines. Acharya explains that another barrier to suits against law enforcement—qualified immunity—is subject to the same criticism. The doctrine, which often shields officers from being sued for all but the most obvious constitutional violations, has come under fire recently by groups on the right and the left. But qualified immunity is still considered by courts to be “good law,” despite being a judge-made rule. It’s an open question “why atextual doctrines like qualified immunity are OK” with the justices, while Bivens claims aren’t, Acharya said. Cases dealing with qualified immunity are constantly pending before the justices. Cope v. Cogdill, alleging that jail officials failed to prevent a detainee’s suicide, has been considered at their private conferences 10 times. But the justices haven’t seemed eager to address the doctrine in that case or any other. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Though the justices took the unusual step of not issuing orders during the first week of June, there was still plenty going on at One First Street. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and producer David Schultz discuss the latest shadow docket developments, and how the handling of emergency orders highlight a broader divide between conservative and liberal justices. And news on the court’s ongoing investigation into the draft abortion opinion leak last month suggests the atmosphere inside the building may be as divisive as the reaction to its rulings outside of it. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

With all eyes on abortion and guns, the US Supreme Court still has potentially major opinions to issue in the coming weeks on other big issues such as administrative law, religion, and immigration. Goodwin partner Jaime Santos joins Cases and Controversies to remind listeners of the cases that in any other term would be the headlining cases, but which have taken a backseat in this headline-grabbing year. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court’s latest decision chipping away at campaign finance reform was a victory for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who challenged a limit on how much candidates can expect to recoup when loaning their campaigns money. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to review the May 16 decision striking down another provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Muller explains how the issue of campaign finance splits the justices along ideological lines and what future challenges might come before the conservative-majority court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court’s public approval ratings have taken a hit since a leaked draft opinion signaled that the conservative majority is poised to strike down the Roe v Wade abortion precedent. Gabe Roth of the watchdog group Fix the Court joins host Kimberly Robinson of Cases and Controversies to discuss what the court could do to boost public confidence, and whether Congress has legal authority to rein in what he calls the “most powerful, least accountable” branch of government. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The possibility of American life without federal abortion rights puts a spotlight on state prosecutors. “These elected prosecutors are going to become the last line of defense,” Miriam Krinsky said of a potential post-Roe world. Krinsky, head of reform group Fair and Just Prosecution, discussed the issue on the latest Cases and Controversies episode with Bloomberg Law’s Jordan Rubin. “This is simply a draft,” Krinsky emphasized, referring to Justice Samuel Alito’s proposed opinion circulated within the court earlier this year and published this week by Politico. But if the draft becomes law and states turn their attention toward criminalizing people involved in abortions, then prosecutors will have the discretion not to pursue charges, Krinsky said. She and other former prosecutors and law enforcement leaders filed an amicus brief supporting the clinic in the Mississippi appeal whose opinion was leaked, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. “The notion of limited criminal-justice resources being used for these kinds of investigations and arrests and prosecutions, this should horrify any prosecutor or law enforcement leader that this is what we want to be spending our time on,” Krinsky said on the podcast. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

We got a window into the inner workings of the usually secretive Supreme Court with a leaked draft opinion in a landmark abortion case. As surprising, even shocking, as this leak was, it could be the beginning of a new era at the court in which the justices' private deliberations are no longer sacrosanct and leaks become more common. On this special breaking news edition of Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk about what this might mean for the future of the court and about how the leaked opinion itself could affect women seeking abortions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Biden administration from the start has sought to unwind a Trump-era policy known as “Remain in Mexico.” It requires would-be immigrants to stay outside the U.S. while their cases are reviewed. That issue reached the Supreme Court on April 26, as the justices wrestled with what presidents must do to change course from their predecessors. Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and guest host Lydia Wheeler go live on Twitter to try to break down this “messy” case with professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s final scheduled arguments of the term—Justice Stephen Breyer’s last ever—features the dispute over whether President Joe Biden can end Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy. During the April 25-27 session, the court also will hear appeals over public-school prayer at football games, habeas corpus, method-of-execution litigation, and a follow-on case to the landmark 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma decision on criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the action and give an update on efforts by law firms to increase attorney diversity at the lectern. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices are taking the bench for their last batch of oral arguments after Justice Clarence Thomas was photographed at the court with Georgia Republican Senate candidate and former football star Herschel Walker. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the April sitting’s first week of arguments, including one on the famed Miranda warnings. All eyes also are on Thomas, who’s been called on to recuse from 2020 election-related cases over his wife’s texts to the White House, and was seen posing with GOP Senate hopeful and former football star Herschel Walker at a private event at the court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is set to hear its next big religion case with a First Amendment dispute over prayer at school football games. The justices will consider the limits on such prayer at argument April 25 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. A lawyer for Bremerton, Bradley Girard of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, joins Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies to discuss the case with host Jordan Rubin. Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Madison Alder also joins to talk about Ketanji Brown Jackson’s historic high-court confirmation and what’s next for Joe Biden’s judicial appointments in the lower courts. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Death-row inmates may have an easier time getting religious accommodations at executions after the Supreme Court rejected Texas’ attempt to block a pastor from laying hands on and praying aloud for an inmate in the chamber. Ramirez v. Collier was an unusual case in a number of ways, including because the inmate won. John Ramirez’s lawyer Seth Kretzer joins Cases and Controversies to talk about his experience arguing the novel dispute on an expedited timeline. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also break down the latest on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s likely confirmation next week, as well as the most recent developments in the world of Justice Clarence Thomas. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

On the eve of confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court disclosed that Justice Clarence Thomas had been hospitalized two days earlier with an infection. Following the close of those hearings on Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Thomas’ wife, Ginni, had encouraged the White House to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election in text message to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Cases and Controversies details the controversy swirling around the longest-serving justice as well as developments in the Jackson hearings and what happens next. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings kick off March 21 as her potential future colleagues continue to hear oral arguments. Former Senate Judiciary counsel Nick Xenakis joins Cases and Controversies to give an inside look at the process and what to expect in Jackson’s hearings. The hosts also give a sneak peek of the arguments that will be heard while Senate Judiciary Committee members question the nominee, including two arbitration disputes. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices will consider a dispute over congressional powers to authorize discrimination suits against states brought by service members injured abroad. Cases and Controversies discusses former Texas State Trooper Le Roy Torres' suit against the state Department of Public Safety for employment accommodations. He says he suffered lung damage due to exposure to burn pits while deployed in Iraq as an Army reservist. His attorney, Brian Lawler, explains how Texas and a handful of states say the federal government can't authorize such suits against states, even though they can be brought against local governments. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

It's been a week since President Biden announced he would be nominating Kejanji Brown Jackson to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Since then, there have been few if any signs that Democrats will have trouble confirming her. Cases and Controversies recaps the latest on the Jackson nomination and looks into what, if anything, Republicans can do to stop it. Guest host David Schultz also examines this week's oral argument in West Virginia v. EPA, in which the justices appeared less hostile than expected to the executive branch's attempts to tackle climate change. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

We finally have an answer: President Biden has picked federal judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as his pick to replace the outgoing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. We have instant reaction from hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson along with a preview of next week's arguments. The Supreme Court kicks off the argument week with a potential blockbuster over the executive branch's ability to tackle climate change. Although consequential on its own, the challenge to EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases could reverberate across administrative law by demanding more from Congress when it wants agencies to regulate "major questions." Cases discussed in this episode West Virginia v. EPA -- 8:59 Ruan v. US -- 10:58 Marietta Memorial Hospital v. Davita -- 12:24 Egbert v. Boule -- 13:04 Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices are set for a short week of arguments while the country awaits Joe Biden’s decision on his choice to replace Justice Stephen Breyer. An announcement is expected by month’s end. With the Presidents Day holiday on Monday, the justices are hearing two cases on Tuesday over tribal gaming and double jeopardy for American Indians. A procedural argument follows Wednesday over the Trump-era public-charge rule that blocked green cards for noncitizens needing public benefits. Cases and Controversies gives a sneak peek as the justices return from their mid-winter break.

The Supreme Court appears ready to continue reining in the so-called administrative state in an EPA climate case set for argument this month. On the latest Cases and Controversies podcast, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the next chance for the 6-3 conservative majority to flex its muscles in this blockbuster term. The hosts are joined by Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler to explain the upcoming challenge to EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and how it fits with high court rulings striking down the Biden administration’s attempts to deal with the pandemic. Cases discussed in this episode: Merrill v. Milligan--0:39 West Virginia v. EPA--6:43 Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement announcement gives President Joe Biden the chance to put the first Black woman on the high court and prevent Democrats from losing another seat to Republicans. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down Breyer’s impending departure, his legacy, his potential replacements, and what that replacement means—and doesn’t mean—for the future of the court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justice Stephen Breyer is known for letting his flamboyant intellect shine on the bench. And, according to those who clerked for him, Breyer's personality outside of the courtroom was no different. It was reported earlier today that this will be the 27-year veteran of the Supreme Court's final term. To learn more about who Breyer is, we spoke with some of the attorneys who clerked for the Justice over the years. Breyer was described as someone with an insatiable, extroverted mind, who thrived on conversation—sometimes to a fault. Andrew Crespo, a former clerk and current Harvard Law School professor, said going to lunch with the Justice required finding a restaurant with lots of space "so that, when we're sitting down and he's telling us all these stories about the Court, that we weren't accidentally sitting next to a reporter." In this special episode of our Cases & Controversies podcast, former Breyer clerks share stories from their time at the Court and about the man they describe as a "happy warrior," who remained optimistic despite a tenure spent, for the most part, in the Court's ideological minority. In this episode we hear from: Danielle Gray, global chief legal officer for Walgreens Boots Alliance Pratik Shah, a partner at the firm Akin Gump Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center Andrew Crespo, a professor at Harvard Law School Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court had a short but busy week, issuing orders on the Texas abortion law and Donald Trump’s attempt to keep records from the Jan. 6 commission, while hearing arguments and also issuing rare public statements on mask-wearing at the high court. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the “Maskgate” controversy that stemmed from an NPR report on Justice Gorsuch's alleged refusal to wear a mask during oral arguments. They also talk to Josh McDaniel, director of Harvard Law’s religious freedom clinic. The clinic filed a brief supporting the prisoner seeking resentencing in Concepcion v. United States, argued Jan. 19. Topics discussed in this episode: Masks & the justices--00:40 In re Whole Woman's Health--9:41 Trump v. Thompson--16:20 Concepcion v. U.S.--19:30 Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court issued its anticipated rulings on the Biden administration’s vaccine rules affecting millions of Americans, as the justices continue to hear cases in the first oral-argument sessions of 2022. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the vaccine opinions and give a sneak peek of upcoming arguments on Jan. 18 and 19. Those hearings include disputes over religion in Boston, Nazi-looted art in Spain, campaign finance in the Ted Cruz campaign, and criminal sentencing under the Trump-signed First Step Act of 2018. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court starts 2022 with an ultra-rare Friday argument session over President Joe Biden’s vaccine policies as the country continues to struggle with Covid-19. The justices will hear back-to-back arguments Friday over the employer and healthcare-worker mandates, an unusual step for the sort of emergency litigation that the court generally decides with briefs alone. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action and also preview the arguments coming up the week of Jan. 10, featuring disputes over Medicaid payments, immigrant detention, and whether tax courts can forgive late legal filings.

The Supreme Court opened up its doors once again, returning to in-person arguments in October 2021. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the biggest moments from this consequential year—from reproductive rights, to the justices’ roadshows, to a covid diagnosis.

The Supreme Court effectively kept the Texas abortion ban in place, with a decision coming later this term in the Mississippi case that could decide the future of abortion rights nationwide. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the Texas S.B. 8 decision on Friday and, with guest Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, recap the Dec. 1 argument in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. They also talk about the school-funding case, Carson v. Makin, argued Dec. 8, and what to watch at the court with arguments done for the year.

Fresh off the contentious argument over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and the future of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court turns toward its final hearings of 2021. They include cases on religious-school funding, immigration, ERISA, and criminal procedure, including an ineffective assistance of counsel case that could lead to an innocent person being executed. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap Dec. 1’s abortion argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization before previewing the cases that’ll be argued the week of Dec. 6. Have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is in the spotlight again Dec. 1, this time hearing a challenge to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban. Joining Cases and Controversies to discuss what's at stake in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is Kathryn Kolbert, who argued the landmark abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the viability line being challenged in the Mississippi case. She said the climate leading up to that 1992 ruling was similar to today's in that she fully expected that there would be at least five votes to overturn Roe v. Wade.  And while the outcome in Casey was a "compromised opinion" that ended up preserving the heart of Roe, Kolbert said she's not expecting the current court to rule the same way. "This court is much more ideological" that the court at the time of Casey, she said, noting that several Republican-appointed justices ultimately came down on the side abortion advocates. Kolbert is also joined by Julie F. Kay, who says that while abortion has been on the minds of court watchers lately—namely in the procedural challenge to Texas's six-week abortion ban—Dobbs is the case to watch. "I think of the Texas case as the toddler that bursts into the room and has a tantrum and gets everybody's attention," Kay said. "When in reality, it’s the Mississippi case that's the biggest threat to abortion rights."

The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to New York's strict concealed-carry law that's primed to set a precedent which could shape the future of guns in the U.S. Gun-rights supporters want the court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to bless more permissive public carry. Gun control advocates worry about the implications of doing so. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin have spent months reporting on Bruen. And in this special edition, they explore the Nov. 3 argument and the signals the justices sent. This episode takes listeners into the courtroom and breaks down essential points. Attorneys, scholars, and others working on the case talk about what's at stake if the challengers prevail, as expected. First, a primer. Previous 5-4 rulings said the Second Amendment grants an individual right to have a gun in the home for self-defense, regardless of militia service. The amendment says, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Bruen raises the question of the scope of the right outside the home. At the argument, the justices probed the limits of their eventual ruling expected by July. "Can they say you cannot carry your gun at any place where alcohol is served?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked the challengers' lawyer, Paul Clement. "What about a football stadium?" Roberts pressed. While gun-rights advocates see fewer restrictions as vindicating the Second Amendment, gun control advocates worry about the consequences of more guns on the street. "If we were to now flood our cities with even more guns, I'm afraid that shooting rate will go up, that murder rate will go up, and we don't know what will happen to the everyday fights that take place in densely populated cities like New York if people are armed," said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates for universal background checks and gun-safety measures, is backed by Michael Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent company Bloomberg LP. The group filed a brief at the Supreme Court supporting the New York restrictions.

It's another big week of arguments at the Supreme Court as the justices will hear cases involving national security and religious rights of death-row inmates. Cases and Controversies podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin take a look in the latest sneak peek episode at the five cases on the court's docket next week. They also recap the blockbuster Nov. 1 arguments over the Texas abortion law, known as S.B. 8., in which numerous justices seemed skeptical that the should evade judicial review. Coming up next week, the podcast will take a deep dive into the Second Amendment. The hosts will explore the dispute heard Nov. 3. over a concealed carry restriction in New York and discuss concerns raised by the justices. They'll also look at how the case could impact gun restrictions across the country.

The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments over controversial abortion and gun laws in a jam-packed week at the high court. The court will scrutinize Texas’ abortion law, S.B. 8, that effectively bans the procedure, in back-to-back arguments on Nov. 1 that will feature Elizabeth Prelogar’s first appearance for the federal government since being confirmed solicitor general Oct. 28. Two days later, the justices will hear the biggest Second Amendment case in a decade in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court will probe the state’s strict concealed-carry regime and, more broadly, how the gun right identified in prior precedents applies outside the home. In between those arguments, on Nov. 2, the court will hear First Amendment and arbitration cases.

The Texas abortion law will be front and center at the Supreme Court Nov. 1 after the justices agreed to hear argument on an expedited basis over whether the Justice Department can sue despite the law's unusual enforcement mechanism. The justices on Friday agreed to hear two challenges to the Texas measure in short order, while allowing the abortion-blocking law to stay in place in the meantime over Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent. Curiously, while the justices agreed to grant cert on this issue, they did not vote to place the law on hold until they issue an opinion in this case. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin go behind the headlines and the vote count to analyze what the court will consider when advocates step up to the lectern, and what it all might mean for abortion rights. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court’s first oral argument sitting of the new term is in the books as the nine-case docket included disputes over state secrets and the Boston Marathon bombing. The MacArthur Justice Center’s Amir Ali joins Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast to talk about what it was like to argue in the high court’s new hybrid, in-person format. Ali represented the petitioner in Thompson v. Clark, a case about federal civil rights lawsuits that led Justice Samuel Alito to pose a hypothetical question about a half man/half horse with a nicotine addiction. Seriously.

The Supreme Court will hear heavy arguments in a short week including disputes over the Boston Marathon bombing and abortion litigation. On top of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death-penalty case stemming from the 2013 bombing, the justices will also consider whether Kentucky’s Republican attorney general can defend the state’s abortion law after the Democratic governor declined. The high court will also hear a case about the rules for suing police, plus a dispute over civil-service pensions under the Social Security Act. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek at those upcoming arguments on Oct. 12 and 13.

In-person arguments will resume at the U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 4 after the courthouse was shuttered for the past year and a half due to Covid-19. Attendance in the courtroom is limited to staff, arguing attorneys, and a handful of journalists, so the court will continue to livestream the proceedings to the public.  For this episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin run down the five cases the justices will hear during their first week, including a battle between states over water rights and the federal government's attempt to block "state secrets" from being handed over to litigants.

When Supreme Court justices return to the courtroom for the new term in October, they’ll consider the government’s quest to reinstate Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentences. The court will hear arguments on Oct. 13 about pretrial publicity and mitigating evidence, as the justices decide whether to reverse an appeals court ruling that vacated Tsarnaev’s sentences for the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured hundreds more. Attorney General Merrick Garland imposed an execution moratorium this past summer, raising the question of how that will play into the case, if at all. To help break down the issues, “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are joined by Goodwin’s William Jay, who filed an amicus brief supporting the government on behalf of the National Fraternal Order of Police. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin Guest: William Jay Producer: David Schultz Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast | Via Spotify

The Supreme Court is typically thought to be out most of the summer. But it issued a momentous opinion on abortion rights that came from the court's so-called "shadow docket." For this special episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson discuss where this opinion came from and why it came outside of the court's normal operating procedures. They also talk about how the justices came down in this case and what this ruling means for the liberal justices' prospects moving forward.

The Supreme Court handed down the final two opinions of the term in argued cases, in contentious disputes involving voting rights and charity-donor disclosure. Progressives largely bemoaned both rulings, which fell 6-3 along ideological lines in the conservative-majority court. But the ACLU’s David Cole explained that, in his view, only the voting-rights ruling was wrong. Cole, the group’s national director who argued and won a school-speech case this term on behalf of a cursing cheerleader, joined Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to review the 2020-21 term. He expressed optimism at the court’s rulings that crossed ideological lines in a handful of cases, though it remains to be seen whether that continues next term, which starts in October. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court enters what is likely the final week of its term with a handful of cases remaining, including a closely watched one on Arizona ballot restrictions. All eyes, too, will be on Justice Stephen Breyer sometime after the last opinion is delivered to see if he retires, as progressives are pressuring him to do. Cases and Controversies dives into what's ahead and what the court did this past week in siding with student free speech and NCAA athletes in two big decisions. In Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L., the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of high-school cheerleader Brandi Levy, saying her school went too far when it suspended her for her Snapchat rant after failing to make the varsity team. And the court unanimously ruled in favor of college athletes in NCAA v. Alston, saying schools can't conspire to deny students education-related compensation in the name of preserving "amateurism."  Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin provide the details on decisions and look at what's coming up.

After weeks of low-profile rulings in technical cases, the justices dropped two of the most anticipated cases of the term on the same day this week. The court handed progressives a 7-2 win by once again upholding Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, while pleasing conservatives with a unanimous win for a religious group in the latest clash between LGBT rights and religious freedom. And although there appears to be broad agreement among the justices, the vote count masks significant disagreement among the nine. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the rulings, implications for future cases, and even a few conspiracy theories. Have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court rejected a petition challenging the military’s male-only draft, but a statement accompanying the denial from an interesting lineup of justices suggests the issue could come back to the court if Congress doesn’t act. Hogan Lovells partner Cate Stetson, who co-counseling with the ACLU brought the challenge, joins the latest Cases and Controversies to break down the issue and look at where it’s headed. She also talks with hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin about the justices’ seemingly-unusual alignments and how they show the court’s complexity. And the hosts recap the latest battle between Justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh in a case that limited the scope of a repeat-offender gun law.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit on immigration and criminal justice, adding to the San Francisco-based appeals court’s string of high court losses. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those cases along with a third on a computer-hacking law that featured unusual alignments in the majority and dissent. Federal Indian law expert Mary Kathryn Nagle joins the podcast to explain the Ninth Circuit criminal case, United States v. Cooley, where the court affirmed tribal sovereignty and authority over non-Indians driving through reservations.

The Supreme Court issued three more opinions before the Memorial Day holiday, leaving the justices with 26 to go before wrapping things up for the term at the end of June. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the court's latest decisions and action on the "shadow docket." They're joined by MacArthur Justice Center's Easha Anand to talk about the court's decision to once again decline to hear a case involving police accountability.

The right to abortion enshrined in Roe v. Wade is in the crosshairs after the Supreme Court said it would take up a Mississippi case next term dealing with the issue. The high court’s grant kicked off a busy week that also saw several opinions, including a contentious criminal ruling over the right to unanimous jury verdicts that may foreshadow precedent fights to come. It was also one in which Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh got into a very heated judicial exchange. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down all of that and more on this week’s episode as the justices continue to issue the final rulings of the term. They’re joined by Skadden’s Shay Dvoretzky and Emily Kennedy, who won a unanimous ruling in another criminal case this week that bolstered search and seizure protections for homes.

The Supreme Court heard its last argument of the term—and perhaps the last of Justice Stephen Breyer’s tenure—in a crack-cocaine sentencing case May 4. D.C. Solicitor General Loren Alikhan, who filed a brief supporting the defense, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the dispute in Terry v. United States over whether low-level crack offenders can get relief under the First Step Act. Judging from the argument, it sounds like the court will say no, even though the Justice Department switched positions after the 2020 election to side with the defendant, Tarahrick Terry. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also speculate about the latest in Breyer Watch—will he retire? when?—and give some statistics on when other justices have announced their plans to step down.

The U.S. Supreme Court confronted how to update its landmark student free speech ruling to accommodate social media and its ubiquitous use among students. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District said schools can't punish on-campus speech unless it could cause a substantial disruption at the school. The question at argument April 28 in the case of a student who didn't make varsity cheer and expressed her displeasure on Snapchat was whether the 1969 standard applies to off-campus speech directed at the school on social media. Joining Bloomberg Law's "Cases and Controversies" podcast to talk about issues around Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L. are activists Charlie Mirsky, of March for Our Lives, and Maya Green, of Student Voice. They describe the importance of social media to student political activities and the kinds of speech at risk in this case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss the court's newest Second Amendment case asking if there is a right to possess a gun outside of the home for self protection. It's a question left open by the landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller and one that's baffled the lower courts. Finally, the podcast will dip into the court's latest 6-3 vote in an immigration case that didn't break down along the usual ideological lines.

The Supreme Court wraps up its April sitting with another full week of arguments ranging from free speech to environmental law to immigration. A student's right to express herself on social media about her high school while on her own time and away from campus, and a California requirement that charities disclose top donors are at the heart of the court's free speech cases. Both garnered amicus support from across the ideological spectrum. But environmental cases also take center stage this week, with arguments on Superfund cleanups, renewable fuel standards, and the PennEast pipeline. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the action. They'll also recap the latest opinions and take a look at Justice Amy Coney Barrett's $2 million book advance and some of the criticisms surrounding the deal.

The U.S. Supreme Court enters the term's last full argument sitting as the political fate of the court hangs in the balance with debates over court packing, term limits, and other reforms sweeping the nation. Starting April 19, the justices will hear arguments over CARES Act relief for Indian tribes, immigration, gun convictions, appellate procedure, and patents. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action to come and recap the latest high court happenings.

Groups representing the spectrum of political ideologies have teamed up to challenge a California law that requires tax-exempt charities to disclose major donors. The state says this information is already required by the federal government and that it's needed to police the misuse of dollars donated by California residents. The charities and their "friends of the court" don't see it that way. The libertarian Goldwater Institute's Timothy Sandefur joins Cases and Controversies to explain why progressive groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have joined forces against the law. They say it will chill charitable donations and open up donors to harassment. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also explain the court's ruling in the Google v. Oracle blockbuster copyright case, Justice Clarence Thomas' thoughts on big tech, and the latest on the Stephen Breyer retirement watch.

The Supreme Court heard argument in the NCAA’s highly-anticipated antitrust appeal over student-athlete compensation on March 31. The court had tough questions for WilmerHale’s Seth Waxman, who represented the NCAA and attempted to defend the unique amateurism status of college sports against allegations of exploitation. On the other hand, the justices worried about the limits of a ruling for the students. Tillman Breckenridge, who filed an amicus brief supporting the students on behalf of African American Antitrust Lawyers, joins Cases and Controversies to break down the case. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap recent high court action, including a new grant in a case that both is and isn’t about abortion, as well as three unanimous decisions on water rights, media consolidation, and robocalls.

A day after the NCAA wraps up basketball's Elite Eight, the Supreme Court team of nine will consider whether collegiate athletes can receive compensation. The justices will hear argument March 31 in an antitrust case where the Ninth Circuit invalidated limits on education-related compensation for college athletes, but preserved the NCAA’s ban on outright pay. That argument, which will conclude the March sitting, will be preceded by two other class action cases. These include efforts to limit securities actions and the damages available to class members. Check out the pregame action with Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin in the latest "Sneak Peek" edition of the Cases and Controversies.

The Supreme Court hears argument in three cases the week of March 22, two dealing with searches and seizures, and a third dealing with property rights in the labor context. The justices will consider Fifth Amendment protections for employers trying to keep union organizers away, the scope of tribal police officers’ authority to detain and search non-Indians, and whether law enforcement can enter a home and seize property under the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

Supreme Court justices will hear argument in their latest Fourth Amendment case on March 24 over warrantless law enforcement action. The high court will examine whether the so-called "community caretaking" doctrine permits warrantless searches and seizures of homes. The court previously allowed such searches of vehicles. The Constitutional Accountability Center’s David Gans, who filed an amicus brief against the government, joins Cases and Controversies to explain why he thinks the answer is a resounding no. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also break down the latest Supreme Court news, including the first solo dissent in an argued case by Chief Justice John Roberts, and a new grant on civil suits against police.

With more proposals at statehouses to restrict voting following the 2020 election, the Supreme Court is considering a case that could make it harder to challenge such laws in federal court. In a just-argued case challenging out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting prohibitions in Arizona, the justices will decide how to measure whether voting restrictions unconstitutionally discriminate against minorities or are simply the "ordinary burdens" of voting. University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to discusses the importance of the case beyond the battleground Grand Canyon State.

The Supreme Court wraps up its February sitting with arguments exploring the independence and accountability of federal agencies and the fate of Arizona voting restrictions and their potential wider impact. Cases and Controversies dives into the separation of powers dispute involving medical device company Arthex Inc. and the patent office and another centered on challenges to Social Security Administration judicial appointments. The Arizona case looks at the limit on who can return early ballots on behalf of third parties and the state’s out-of-precinct voting policy. The outcome could provide guidance for future voting rights challenges following the court's landmark ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. The 2013 decision struck down part of the Voting Rights Act. Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also discuss disputes the justices finally cleared from their docket. They include challenges to the 2020 presidential election and the look into Donald Trump's financial dealings.

The Supreme Court returns from its winter break to hear arguments in three cases dealing with water rights, immigration, and the Fourth Amendment. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the disputes that will be argued each day starting Feb. 22. The justices will hear arguments—still remotely due to the pandemic—about water apportionment between Florida and Georgia, the credibility of asylum seekers, and home search and seizure protections against police investigating misdemeanors.

The Supreme Court is coming back from its winter break and the first argument on its docket is a fight over water rights between Florida and Georgia. Jennifer Kay, Bloomberg Law’s Florida correspondent, says this dispute is so contentious that, if Florida and Georgia were sovereign countries instead of states within the U.S., warfare may be the only way to resolve it. The heart of the conflict is a river that runs through both states. Florida says Georgia is withdrawing far too much of the river’s water, to the point that it’s merely a trickle by the time it reaches the state line. Georgia, meanwhile, denies this and says a ruling against it would kneecap its thriving agriculture industry. We hear from the people living in these states who will be most affected by the court’s ruling. And Jennifer speaks to Cases and Controversies producer David Schultz about how we got to this point in the first place.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions, but recently its biggest decisions have been ones where the justices have refused to weigh in. From the Chief Justice's refusal to preside over a second impeachment trial to the justices' dismissal of the "emoluments" litigation, Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin explain the consequences of the court's inaction.

Lisa Montgomery was executed Jan. 13 by the lame-duck Trump administration despite her lawyers’ best efforts to save her. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, veteran public defender Kelley Henry gives an inside look at those efforts, which, for Henry, led to contracting Covid-19 while working on the case. Henry talks about the “last-minute” litigation and her frustration at the government’s and the court system’s treatment of Montgomery. She explains what it was like, as an attorney, to endure rejection from the high court—without explanation—as the majority sided with the Justice Department, like it did in every case to come before the court during the Trump administration’s unprecedented run of executions. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap the justices’ bit role in the presidential inauguration, as well as news of President Biden’s top lawyer at the court—for now, anyway.

The Supreme Court will hear just two arguments to wrap up the January sitting. But it has been busy—and divided— as it issued orders on executions and medication abortion access during the Covid-19 pandemic. The justices will hear arguments over FCC media ownership rules and climate litigation on Jan. 19 in a work week shortened by the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and presidential inauguration. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview those arguments and recap a week of divided shadow docket orders on federal executions and abortion-pill restrictions.

Supreme Court justices kick off the New Year with three arguments that they’ll hear remotely, continuing Covid-19 pandemic precautions. The court will hear disputes related to immigration, speech and religion, and the Federal Trade Commission the week of Jan. 11. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview these cases and discuss the latest rejected Republican election challenge against the backdrop of the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. They also note some pressure on Justice Stephen Breyer to retire with Democrats set to control the White House and Senate.

From impeachment to historic pandemic-driven change to losing a justice to gaining a new one—it’s been an extraordinary year for the U.S. Supreme Court. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin round up the biggest moments in their year-end podcast.

In a special Cases and Controversies episode, top Supreme Court lawyer Kannon Shanmugam talks about running a high court practice during a pandemic.  Shanmugam gives hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin an inside look at what it's been like running the practice at Paul, Weiss, a role he took on last year having no idea what Covid-19 had in store. The former Antonin Scalia clerk talks about arguing remotely at the high court, notching a staggering success-rate when it comes to cert. petitions, mentoring younger lawyers, juggling family life, and, in one of the episode's lighter moments, what it's like being compared to pop star Britney Spears—when it comes to headsets, anyway.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its arguments for 2020, but there's still work to do before ringing in the new year. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin detail Texas's last-ditch effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, historic lame duck federal executions, and the court's first opinions in argued cases this term. And Goldstein and Russell's Sarah Harrington joins Cases and Controversies to discuss her latest—remote—argument in a bid to reclaim Jewish property taken during the Nazi era.

The Supreme Court will hear its final arguments of 2020, starting with a pair of cases seeking to reclaim Nazi-looted art. In those cases—Germany v. Philipp and Hungary v. Simon—the justices will consider whether Holocaust survivors and their families can sue former Axis countries in the U.S. or whether they must press their claims oversees. It's déjà vu for the remainder of the week, as the justices will consider issues—and in one instance, a case—that they've recently tackled in previous terms. In Facebook v. Duguid, the court will once again consider what counts as a prohibited "robocall" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The arbitration case Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. comes back to the court for a second time. This time the justices will consider when an arbitrator—not a court—gets to decide whether claims should go to arbitration or should they go to the judiciary in the first instance. Finally, the court considers another separation of powers challenge to a federal agency—this time the Federal Housing Finance Agency—in Collins v. Mnuchin.

Despite decades of work to educate more Black lawyers, the percentage of Black associates and partners in firms across the U.S. remain very low, and well below those of other professional careers. Big Law firms across the board are ramping up social justice efforts as the nation engages in a renewed dialogue on race and equality. But some have accused firms of using minorities as “diversity props” to impress clients and misrepresent their inclusiveness to potential employees. So what are law firms doing to fix their lack of diversity? Hosts Adam Allington and Lisa Helem, along with reporters Ayanna Alexander, Ruiqi Chen, and Meghan Tribe, interviewed lawyers across the industry, from corporate general counsels to top Am Law 200 lawyers to current law students, each sharing their experience navigating the legal space as a person of color. We try to answer what law firms are doing to recruit more diverse classes of lawyers, and how they are addressing barriers to entry for Black lawyers.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on a range of issues the week of Nov. 30, starting with a dispute over President Donald Trump’s attempt to keep non-citizens off the Census. The week will end with the latest appeal over non-unanimous jury verdicts. In between, the justices will hear an array of arguments over the scope of an anti-hacking law, the ability to sue the IRS to prevent enforcement, and corporate immunity from suits involving overseas atrocities. Bloomberg Law breaks down these cases in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies podcast.

The Supreme Court still has high-profile cases involving President Donald Trump on its docket as his tenure comes to a close, including disputes involving the Mueller Report and the Census. On the latest Cases and Controversies episode, Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk about how that Mueller case could be wiped from the docket. They also discuss the latest Census case, Trump v. New York, which deals with the administration’s attempt not to count non-citizens. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s Mahogane Reed joins the hosts to break down the case and explain LDF’s support for New York’s position. Kimberly and Jordan also discuss the latest religion cases at the court involving challenges to Covid-prompted gathering restrictions, and how the justices may choose to avoid issuing sweeping rulings in both this and the Census case.

The justices wrapped up their remote November sitting with one of the most anticipated cases before the justices this term—the challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Akin Gump’s Pratik A. Shah joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to game out the likely outcomes that include the justices leaving most of the law intact. The case, California v. Texas, derives from a 2017 amendment to the landmark law known as Obamacare that zeroed out the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, known as the individual mandate. GOP-led states and the federal government say the mandate was so integral to Obamacare that the rest of the law can’t stand without it. Shah, who filed an amicus brief in the case, explains why that’s unlikely to happen and why eyes should be on Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments over the fate of the Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare—on Nov. 10. It's a short argument week that also includes disputes over immigration and barriers to suing law enforcement. All ears will be on Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her second phone argument week as the justices remotely hear a Republican challenge to the healthcare law that dominated discussion during her confirmation hearings. On Nov. 9, the court will hear arguments on time rules surrounding immigration removal proceedings and whether federal law blocks a man’s suit against federal task force officers who beat him up.

In the latest episode of Cases and Controversies, Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin bring listeners up to speed on one of the next cases to be heard remotely by phone, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This will be one of the first cases new Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett will hear. Also this week, the court will likely continue fielding emergency requests ahead of and after Election Day to sort out mail-in ballot and other disputes in the states over voting security and pandemic safety.

The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear a heated dispute pitting religious rights against LGBTQ rights the day after the election, in what could be an early test for Amy Coney Barrett. William Haun with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty  joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin on this deep dive episode to break down Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Haun’s group represents Sharonell Fulton, Toni Lynn Simms-Busch, and Catholic Social Services, which says the city is wrongly barring them from working in its foster care system because CSS won’t place children with same-sex couples. The hosts also catch up on Barrett’s almost certain confirmation, as well as the contentious voting cases that continue to divide the justices on their “shadow docket,” and some new appeals they agreed to hear argued later this term.

The Supreme Court’s first argument session of the October 2020 term is in the books and two of the lawyers who argued in it join the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to share their virtual experiences. Ramzi Kassem of CUNY law school and Sean Marotta of Hogan Lovells recount everything ranging from missing Justice Ginsburg to technical issues to what to eat for breakfast ahead of a pandemic-era remote argument. And Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Madison Alder joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down the latest in the high court confirmation process for Amy Coney Barrett, which appears secure for Republicans before the Nov. 3 elections are decided.

The Supreme Court continues to hear remote arguments in the second week of the term as confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett are set to begin. Barrett’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings kick off Monday, a federal holiday. But in the second and final week of the October argument session, the justices will hear disputes in cases involving military justice, bankruptcy, Fourth Amendment civil suits against law enforcement, and immigration.

The Supreme Court term kicks off Monday after a shorter-than-usual summer break with only eight justices set to hear 10 cases this month. As in May, all arguments for the sitting will be conducted by phone due to social distancing demands of the coronavirus. A live audio feed will be provided by C-Span and other news outlets. This will be the first term in nearly three decades that the court will be without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18, and the second time in the past three terms the court starts work with a prospective colleague in the confirmation process.

President Donald Trump nominated Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Sept. 26 to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Sept. 18. It's a move that could reshape the high court and the law for generations. On this special episode of Cases and Controversies, Bloomberg Law’s Kimberly Robinson, Jordan Rubin, and Madison Alder break down the nomination and what to expect in the weeks ahead. Republicans are pushing to seat Barrett before a winner is declared in the Nov. 3 election, raising questions of what Democrats can do to stop them, and, perhaps more importantly, what Democrats will do next if Republicans are successful.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has raised the Supreme Court’s profile as a confirmation fight over her successor and the presidential campaign converge. Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin look at the future of the court, both in the near- and long-term, in this term preview episode featuring two guests. Weil’s Zack Tripp, a former Ginsburg clerk, joins the show to recount his experience at her memorial and share some of his memories clerking for the Notorious RBG. Then, the Pacific Legal Foundation’s Anastasia Boden talks about what Ginsburg meant to her and helps the hosts break down where the high court is headed.

Goodwin Liu, a California Supreme Court Justice, and former law clerk to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, remembers the late Supreme Court Justice on this special episode of Cases & Controversies. Liu talks about Ginsburg’s voracious editing style, and her most memorable opinions.

President Donald Trump announced 20 more potential Supreme Court justices for his "short" list, putting new attention on the high court as the 2020 election approaches. In the latest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the list, which includes notable names in Republican political circles, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.  The hosts also bring on the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro, who has a new book coming out on the contentious Supreme Court confirmation process.

Challenges to election laws have poured into the Supreme Court and more are likely as the 2020 election season really heats up after Labor Day. Election law expert Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices will approach these questions and what it may mean for voters. And check out this Bloomberg Law video on election safety with Hasen.

The Supreme Court keeps generating news despite it being in the thick of what should be a summer vacation. Some of that news involves yet more divided shadow docket orders related to Covid-19. On this episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin talk with Alliance Defending Freedom’s John Bursch. He’s one of the lawyers representing Calvary Chapel against the state of Nevada in one of the latest emergency cases that resulted in a 5-4 ruling. The church argues the state is unlawfully letting casinos operate at greater capacity than houses of worship during the pandemic. The hosts also run through the gamut of high court news, including some Supreme scoops, another Covid-related emergency order, Justice Ginsburg being back in the hospital, and Justice Stephen Breyer becoming an epic meme.

After a wild term, the Supreme Court is finally starting to settle down a bit, so the hosts of “Cases and Controversies” are going to the movies! On the latest episode, they interview ACLU attorneys starring in the forthcoming documentary “The Fight,” out July 31, which tracks several high-profile legal battles against the Trump administration over the last few years. The guests talk about their cases, their favorite film moments, and their thoughts on the just-completed high court term. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also recap Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest health scare and the justices’ divergent—and unexplained—orders in the aftermath of the Trump financial subpoena litigation.

If you were excited about the new five-justice conservative majority, this just-completed term of the Supreme Court might have left you disappointed. But law professor Stephen Vladeck says that's not the full picture. A look at the so-called "shadow docket"—the work the court does without oral argument—suggests it was a much better term for conservatives and the Trump administration than it might seem. On the latest episode of Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin lift the veil on some of these consequential yet enigmatic actions. This includes green-lighting President Trump's border wall and refusing to revisit the doctrine of qualified immunity.

The Supreme Court wrapped up its term after issuing decisions in July for the first time in more than two decades. Chief Justice John Roberts continued to dominate the direction of the court he leads, authoring landmark opinions on presidential power in the cases over subpoenas for President Trump’s financial records. He was also in the majority for two big cases handing victories to religious employers seeking to avoid compliance with discrimination laws and provide contraception coverage to their employees. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin in the latest episode of Cases and Controversies break down the final week of the term, which also included a consequential ruling about American Indian land in Oklahoma. They also discuss Supreme Court retirement and health care news—but not the kind court watchers were bracing for.

For the first time since Chief Justice John Roberts took the helm in 2005, the Supreme Court is going into overtime—that is, going beyond the final week in June to issue all of its decisions in argued cases. The justices were able to clear their decks of five cases this week, in which the chief justice took a starring role. From his swing vote in a Louisiana abortion case to his vote in favor of a unitary executive, Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those cases and the chief's pivotal role in this episode of our podcast, Cases & Controversies. And later in the episode, Hogan Lovells' Cate Stetson joins the podcast to discuss Roberts' not-so-surprising votes and what it means for the future of the court.

The Supreme Court issued just two opinions this week heading into the final days of June, with 13 argued cases still undecided as we near what is usually the end of the term. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those two divided decisions, on SEC enforcement and the rights of immigrants facing expedited removal. They also talk about what the rest of the term looks like, including how the Roberts Court will likely break new ground by not issuing its final decisions until July. Also, Bloomberg Law’s judiciary reporter, Madison Alder, joins the podcast to discuss President Trump’s twin milestones this week: appointing his 200th federal judge while failing to put any Black judges on the appeals courts.

It was a historic week for the Supreme Court as the justices split among themselves while delivering victories for LGBT and immigrant rights, not to mention major defeats for the Trump administration. Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts faced backlash from Republicans for siding with Democratic appointees in the closely-watched employment discrimination and DACA disputes, both of which will have immediate impacts for millions of Americans. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down these momentous decisions, joined by guests Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown and Omar Gonzalez-Pagan of Lambda Legal, who filed briefs in the LGBT discrimination cases. The hosts also highlight some important appeals the high court chose not to take up, as well as some notable instances of tempers flaring in dissent.

With just one opinion and one grant coming out of the Supreme Court this week, Bloomberg Law takes a step back to look at how the term has shaped up and what to expect in the final weeks. The court's newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, has quickly become the median justice. He's the only one to be in the majority in 100% of the argued cases that he's participated in this term. Chief Justice John Roberts is close behind. Kavanaugh also has authored three of the court's six split decisions that were decided by just one vote. Such contentious issues typically get assigned to more senior justices. All that's likely to change with the end of the term fast approaching and the court handing down its most consequential decisions. Look for insight on how things might change in this latest episode of Cases and Controversies with Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.

The Supreme Court issued five opinions in a range of cases on June 1, including the much-anticipated decision over the fate of Puerto Rico’s financial oversight and management board. This week’s Cases and Controversies episode breaks down that ruling as well as decisions on immigration, arbitration, and more. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also look at what’s ahead and note that the term’s most contentious opinions could come soon. Among the 20 cases remaining are ones on discrimination protections for LGBT workers and the Obama-era DACA program that shields hundreds of thousands of immigrants from deportation. The hosts also update the situation on pending petitions over qualified immunity, which was discussed in the May 22 episode. The legal doctrine that shields law enforcement from liability, even in the face of egregious allegations of civil rights violations, is taking on new significance following George Floyd’s death at the hands of Minneapolis police.

It's time for the justices to buckle down, with approximately two dozen cases outstanding and the end of the term approaching. Lyle Denniston has covered the court for nearly six decades, and he joins Cases and Controversies to review the big pending cases and the pandemic's implications for the future of the Supreme Court. He'll also disclose what he's been up to during his third shot at "retirement." Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin will also get listeners up to date with the latest filings and court happenings. These include two likely new cases and emergency requests related to the pandemic.

Supreme Court justices are hammering out their final opinions of the term, fielding emergency litigation, and contemplating which new cases to add to their docket for next term. The latest Cases and Controversies episode highlights an issue that’s been piling up on the high court’s docket: qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields law enforcement from liability even after the most egregious allegations of civil rights violations. The Cato Institute’s Jay Schweikert has been fighting against the doctrine at the court and he joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to explain why, in his view, it puts plaintiffs in a hopeless “Catch-22" when trying to vindicate their rights, and why the time has come for the justices to take another look at immunity. The hosts also discuss a variety of high court action, including litigation over the release of the full Mueller Report, as well as the court’s most recent opinion, in a suit over the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa more than two decades ago. Producers: David Schultz and Josh Block

The Supreme Court finished up its first livestreamed arguments with blockbuster cases involving subpoenas for the president's financial information and so-called "rogue" members of the electoral college. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the historic sitting, from an all-female lineup to taciturn Justice Clarence Thomas's multiplicity of questions to, once again, The Flush. And attorney Jason Harrow, who made his high court debut remotely, joins to chat about his case and his unusual argument experience. Listen to find out why Harrow really should have brushed up on his Tolkien before calling in to SCOTUS.

Supreme Court justices survived their first week of livestreamed arguments mostly unscathed, and now they’re ready to bring it home with the final week of phone arguments in this special May session. Headlining this upcoming week are the May 12 arguments over congressional and prosecutorial efforts to get President Trump’s private financial records from third-party banks and accounting firms. In another dispute with 2020 presidential election implications, the justices will hear arguments May 13 over whether "faithless" Electoral College electors’ can vote their own way. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview those highly anticipated disputes, as well as back-to-back arguments May 11 over American Indian reservation status and religious employers’ First Amendment claims. The hosts also highlight some of the more noteworthy moments from the high court’s historic first week on the phone.

The Supreme Court is going to kick off its historic May argument sitting by hearing four cases the week of May 4. Two female advocates will kick off the first one, which is being argued over by phone and livestreamed to the public—both a first for the famously technophobic court. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin breakdown that case as well as the three others being argued during the week, from IP to free speech to religious freedom. And they'll highlight some of the technical issues facing the justices and the advocates.

The Supreme Court issued six opinions the week of April 20, including one that got at the issue of precedent. It's a hot topic for court watchers, especially with an abortion rights case from Louisiana still to be decided. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin unpack the ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana. It was a stare decisis throwdown in which Justice Elena Kagan joined some of her Republican-appointed colleagues in dissent, prompting speculation about why she did so. The hosts also recap the other opinions that included interesting vote lineups among the justices. And Kimberly and Jordan speak with Riyaz Kanji, who next month will argue for his clients, the Creek Nation, in a telephonic oral argument in the case of McGirt v. Oklahoma. That dispute calls into question the status of tribal reservations in the eastern half of the Sooner state. Kanji explains why he believes claims by Oklahoma officials of a crisis if the justices side with the Creek Nation are overblown.

The Supreme Court continued to adapt to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, allowing media outlets to live-stream arguments for the first time in its 230-year history. In another first, the court also said it will hear those arguments over the phone. Among the case to be argued is the subpoena fight for President Trump's financial records, which will be argued May 12. Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal joins Cases and Controversies' hosts Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson to put the court's moves in perspective. "This is an extraordinary thing," Katyal explains. Watch Justice Breyer's census PSA here.

The Supreme Court’s first coronavirus-related ruling sparked a contentious 5-4 split, with the high court’s five Republican-appointed justices siding with Republicans over dissent form the four Democratic-appointees who sided with Democrats. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the heated dispute and all of the latest Supreme Court news, coronavirus-related and otherwise. They’re joined by Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt (R), whose office’s win in a recent Fourth Amendment case marked a clean sweep of all three of the state’s cases argued at the high court this term. Schmidt talks to the hosts about all three disputes, his oral argument preparation, how coronavirus is impacting both the high court and his home state, and what might be the next Kansas dispute to come to the court.

U.S. Supreme Court justices worked for the second straight week without taking the bench. But this time, there was a technological hitch. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap the snafu and how the coronavirus is changing the way the justices themselves stay in shape. They’re joined by the lawyer who won the court’s latest decision, SCOTUSblog’s Tom Goldstein. The Goldstein & Russell partner breaks down the implications of the maritime decision in CITGO v. Frescati, whose issuance was delayed by problems with the court’s website. He also talks about how the justices might handle, or not handle, the spring arguments in this era of social distancing. Kimberly and Jordan also preview a new case that the court will hear next term involving mistaken identity and suing law enforcement. Producer: David Schultz.

The U.S. Supreme Court building is closed to the public and the March arguments are postponed indefinitely. But, as they say, the show must go on. The court issued four opinions Monday March 23, including a closely watched racial discrimination case that could make it harder to bring such suits. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin also give an update on the latest coronavirus news out of the high court.

The U.S. Supreme Court's two-week argument sitting scheduled for March 23 is postponed indefinitely over the coronavirus threat. But the announcement leaves more questions than answers. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the impact of the pandemic on the court's business and what cases are up in the air. Supreme Court watchdog Gabe Roth of Fix the Court highlights routes the justices could take if the outbreak causes further delay. And with courts around the country facing similar questions, Bloomberg Law's Madison Alder explains what lower federal courts are doing to keep their doors open—electronically, if needed.

Investigations into President Donald Trump will be front and center at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 31, when the justices are scheduled to hear arguments over whether Congressional committees and Manhattan prosecutors can get their hands on the president’s financial records—including his tax returns. The much-anticipated dispute comes to the high court as coronavirus concerns sweep the nation, prompting uncertainty over how the notoriously old-fashioned institution—which doesn’t livestream arguments and has multiple members in their 80s—will handle the proceedings. On March 12, the court closed to the public until further notice “out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees.” However, the building “will remain open for official business,” the court added. It’s unclear at this point whether health concerns will affect arguments scheduled for the two-week session starting March 23. For now, anyway, the court’s official business includes oral arguments in multiple cases—Trump v. Mazars, Trump v. Deutsche Bank, and Trump v. Vance—stemming from several Trump-related subpoenas. To break down the historic, politically-charged issue, Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are joined by Supreme Court litigators who filed amicus briefs in these cases: Virginia Solicitor General Toby Heytens and Weil, Gotshal & Manges partner Zack Tripp.

The Supreme Court justices just wrapped up the latest action-packed argument session which featured heated disputes on the fate of both abortion access and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The two-week session included arguments over challenges to a Louisiana law requiring hospital admitting privileges for abortion providers and a challenge to the structure of the bureau that’s long been a target of conservatives. The Constitutional Accountability Center’s Brian Frazelle, who filed a brief supporting the consumer protection bureau, joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down the crucial case that could impact a wide range of government agencies. The hosts also break down the latest 5-4 opinions, court line-standing controversies, and Chief Justice John Roberts’ latest rare public statement defending judicial independence.

This week will be action packed at the Supreme Court, with cases on abortion access and the fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau taking center stage. The justices will also hear immigration disputes, continuing a theme of the term where such cases have dominated the docket. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview these hot-button arguments in this latest “Sneak Peek” episode.

Could a grandma go to prison for urging her grandson to overstay his visa? The Trump administration says that hypothetical is far-fetched, but it'll be on the justices' minds this week as they take on a law that punishes encouraging illegal immigration at oral argument Feb. 25. It's just one of the disputes up for argument at the U.S. Supreme Court over the next few days, and "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin are here to get you up to speed on all of them, including an environmental case involving a multi-billion-dollar pipeline, prisoner litigation claims, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in a terrorism case. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: David Schultz.

Two energy companies, Dominion and Duke, want to build a pipeline underneath the famed Appalachian Trail, but environmentalists want them to go take a hike. On this episode of Cases and Controversies, we head out to the trail with Bloomberg Environment's Ellen M. Gilmer and find out what this dispute is about and why it's heading all the way to the Supreme Court.

This week, we're sharing an episode of the newest weekly podcast from Bloomberg Industry Group, Downballot Counts. It's a podcast about the 2020 U.S. House and Senate elections and the fight to control Congress. The series is hosted by Bloomberg Government Senior Elections Reporter Greg Giroux and Elections Team Leader Kyle Trygstad. Subscribe to Downballot Counts wherever you get your podcasts.

'Bridgegate' and Electors: SCOTUS Deep Dive The U.S. Supreme Court kicked off 2020 with blockbuster grants and notable oral arguments, and Chief Justice John Roberts presided over an impeachment trial. In this deep dive episode of "Cases and Controversies," Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin get you current with the latest Obamacare case and the challenge to "faithless electors." They also highlight star-powered arguments that featured tense rebuttals and even millennial slang. George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason also explains why there wasn't "a lot of love" for the prosecution of "Bridgegate" figures Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin Guest: George Washington University Law Professor Randall Eliason Producer: RJ Jewell

The Supreme Court will hear two days of arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday morning. Chief Justice John Roberts will be there, but then he crosses the street in the afternoon to preside over President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down Roberts' role in Trump's trial as well as three argued cases: disputes over career criminal sentencing, arbitration, and the closely-watched case over funding religious schools.  Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: RJ Jewell.

The justices return to the high court bench Monday for their first oral arguments of 2020.  Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the cases, including the fallout from 2013's "Bridgegate" scandal and an age discrimination suit that could have reverberations beyond employment discrimination.   Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: RJ Jewell.

It's time to count down everything from the best songs to the best memes to the best mince pies for the holidays. We want to do our part at Bloomberg Law. So we present this special "Supremely Funny" episode on the funniest high court moments of 2019.  From Ruth Bader Ginsburg's damning admission that she doesn't read her cumbersome financial documents to Samuel Alito's late-night observations on the D.C. Metro, there's something for all court watchers.

The last Supreme Court oral arguments of 2019 are in the books, the first opinion of the term is out, and litigation over subpoenas investigating President Trump is knocking at the high court's door. In this deep dive recap of the December session, Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Elaine Goldenberg joins "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to break down some of the session's biggest arguments—on the Second Amendment and Obamacare—and the first opinion of the term in a debt collection case that could have implications in other areas of the law. They also take on the denial of the closely-watched petition in the Adnan Syed "Serial" case, as well as high-profile litigation over subpoenas into Trump's financial information and the high court's blocking of his administration's attempt to resume federal executions—for now, anyway.

In this bonus Cases and Controversies episode, Bloomberg Tax reporter Aysha Bagchi sits down with former acting U.S. solicitor general and Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal. Aysha spoke to Neal a few days before a recent argument in a tax case for an interview that hits on a bunch of topics of interest to Supreme Court watchers—and listeners—including the issue of creating opportunities for associates as an important step to making the pool of lawyers who argue at the Supreme Court. 

The U.S. Supreme Court hears the last arguments of 2019 the week of Dec. 9, with an eclectic set of issues before the justices ranging from capital punishment to the latest Obamacare-related tussle. They'll hear a dispute at the intersection of criminal law and immigration, a case that could impact patent litigation, and a complaint from health insurance companies that the government still owes them—big time, to the tune of $12 billion. Also up for argument are cases from Arizona death row, a technical sentencing puzzle, and an international child custody dispute.

In this bonus episode, Parts Per Billion, the Bloomberg Environment podcast, does a deep dive into the Atlantic Richfield case that was argued at the Supreme Court today (December 3rd). A central issue in the case: how far must businesses go to clean up their pollution? In this episode, we hear from residents of the tiny Montana town where the lawsuit originated.

The first Second Amendment argument in nearly a decade headlines the December oral argument session. This Cases and Controversies sneak peek episode previews that case and the other five disputes lawyers need to know about heading into the week of Dec. 2. In addition to arguments over a strict New York City gun provision—which is no longer in force, thus potentially mooting the issue—the justices will also take on a diverse array of disputes on copyright, the environment, and ERISA, among others.

The Supreme Court's first gun rights case in nearly a decade is scheduled to be argued Dec. 2, but the case could go away before they justices can rule. In this Deep Dive episode, constitutional law professor Josh Blackman discusses the Second Amendment's second-class status as well as how the fight over a procedural issue—mootness—has drawn the ire of liberal senators. He'll also chat about the terrible process of SCOTUS line standing.

The U.S. Supreme Court's packed November argument session is wrapped up, and "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break it down on this Deep Dive recap episode. They'll look at the closely watched arguments over the fate of the Obama-era DACA program, which protects individuals brought to the country illegally when they were children. The program may well be in jeopardy. Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro joins them to discuss. They also recap cases on cross-border shooting liability, race discrimination, and traffic stops, as well as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's conspicuous absence from arguments Nov. 13.

Arguments over the fate of President Barack Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which the Trump administration wants to undo, will unfold at the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 12. On this latest Sneak Peek episode, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin preview the DACA argument as well as other important ones that might be flying under the radar. These include a case dealing with race discrimination and another on a shooting at the Mexican border that's making its second appearance before the justices. The high court will hear a bankruptcy case, too.  For past episodes this season taking a deeper look at the DACA issue, check out the interview with attorney and DACA recipient Jose Magaña-Salgado, and the term preview episode with Goldstein & Russell partner Sarah Harrington.

The first week of the U.S. Supreme Court's November oral argument session features an array of important disputes, ranging from the Fourth Amendment to the Clean Water Act and others in between, including immigration and a copyright case stemming from the pirate Blackbeard's flagship the Queen Anne's Revenge.

The Obama-era program for Dreamers will finally have its day in the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 12, when we may get a better sense of whether President Trump's efforts to undo the program will survive high court scrutiny.  On this Deep Dive episode of "Cases and Controversies," Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the legal saga surrounding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program that's granted temporary protections to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. Kimberly and Jordan also interview a lawyer—himself a DACA recipient— who signed onto a brief challenging the Trump administration's move to undo Barack Obama's executive action.

The U.S. Supreme Court's first oral argument session of the 2019 term is in the books, and Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break it down on this Deep Dive recap episode.  The hosts dive into the contentious arguments on whether federal employment discrimination law bars discrimination against LGBT employees, a closely-watched dispute where Justice Neil Gorsuch could hold the deciding vote.  They also interview a first-time advocate, Jessica E. Méndez Colberg, a Ponce, Puerto Rico attorney who represented labor interests at the 80-minute, star-packed argument featuring two former U.S. solicitors general over the fate of the island's oversight board.  Kimberly and Jordan also examine the court's new "two-minute rule," where the justices—in theory, at least—are supposed to allow lawyers to speak uninterrupted at the beginning of their arguments.  Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Guest: Jessica E. Méndez Colberg

The second week of the Supreme Court's October sitting, like the first, features two days of argument, consolidated consideration of a closely-watched issue, and another rare afternoon session. In this SCOTUS Sneak Peek episode, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down upcoming arguments over the constitutionality of Puerto Rico's Financial Oversight and Management Board, the latest juvenile sentencing test involving the D.C. sniper rampage, and the first of several disputes this term at the intersection of immigration and criminal law. The episode also features a cameo from Bloomberg Law intern Heather Saltz, who previews a case about debt collection litigation. Guest: Heather Saltz Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

The first Monday in October is finally here, and the justices will kick off the term with blockbuster arguments over the extent of protections for LGBT workers. In this SCOTUS Sneak Peek episode, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin will also highlight arguments on states' ability to eliminate the insanity defense, available fees in patent cases against the federal government, and whether the Bill of Rights' requirement of unanimous juries for criminal convictions applies to the states. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

The U.S. Supreme Court is gearing up to take on a host of pressing and controversial issues—including sex discrimination, gun control, and the Obama-era immigration program known as DACA that the Trump administration wants to dismantle. Supreme Court veteran advocate Sarah Harrington joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin on this deep dive term preview. Harrington is a partner at Goldstein & Russell, a former assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, and she's argued twenty cases at the high court. The podcast will break down the biggest issues facing the court, including a Fourth Amendment dispute that Harrington's arguing in November. Harrington gives an insider's look at preparation for a Supreme Court argument. Guest: Sarah Harrington. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast |Via Spotify

With the Supreme Court's latest term all wrapped up, Bloomberg Law reporters take a look at an ongoing issue at the high court: A lack of gender diversity among advocates. This term, only 17% of Supreme Court cases were argued by women, a statistic that's gone largely unchanged in recent history. The numbers are even worse in BigLaw. While men from large law firms argued 51 times at the high court last term, female BigLaw lawyers argued just eight. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Guests: Goodwin Procter's Jaime Santos and Bloomberg Law intern Jake Holland. Producers: RJ Jewell and Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its 2018-19 term with a bang on June 27, handing down divided decisions in the hotly-anticipated census and partisan gerrymandering disputes. Bloomberg Law's Supreme Court team jumped into the studio that day to break down these cases and to recap some of the other biggest decisions and themes of the term. Kimberly and Jordan were joined in this end-of-term roundtable by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe and Goodwin's William Jay, as they look at where the high court is and where it's going.  Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: RJ Jewell

The justices kicked off their last full week with four opinions and an array of vote lineups ranging from the usual 5-4 suspects to some unexpected combinations. Bloomberg Law's Supreme Court team recaps the action in cases about double jeopardy, redistricting, uranium, and the First Amendment featuring parings like Gorsuch and Ginsburg in one case and a 3-3-3 vote breakdown in another. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast|Via Spotify

But Bloomberg Law’s Supreme Court team will break down the action in opinions that were released on Monday, including decisions on career criminals, patents, and offshore rig workers. The justices also granted review for next term in five cases and rejected a notable one challenging indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay. Countdown: There have been 45 cases decided so far this term with 24 more to go. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast|Via Spotify

The justices issued four new opinions in argued cases June 3, including yet another 5-4 decision with an nontraditional lineup. Last week, it was Clarence Thomas crossing over to join the liberals in a 5-4 class action decision. The week before that, it was Neil Gorsuch in a tribal matter. And the week before that, Brett Kavanaugh handed the liberals a victory in a divided antitrust suit. This week, it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg's turn. Bloomberg Law breaks down the 5-4 sentencing case in which she joined four of her conservative colleges, as well as the other three cases. Countdown: There have been 42 cases decided so far this term with 27 more to go. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

Last week, Justice Gorsuch cast the tie-breaking vote to join his more liberal colleagues in an American Indian treaty case. The week before, it was Justice Kavanaugh crossing over on antitrust. This week, the latest contestant on Join-the-Liberals is the ever-idiosyncratic Justice Thomas, casting the tie-breaking vote against Home Depot in a class action case. But he made waves once again on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, with a separate opinion in a case over an Indiana abortion law in which he dueled with Justice Ginsburg, alleging her dissent in the case “makes little sense.” Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down those opinions as well as others on retaliatory arrests and Social Security benefits. They also highlight the latest case added to the high court’s already-charged docket for next term involving a cross-border shooting. With 38 decisions in argued cases down and 31 to go, stay tuned for more “Cases and Controversies.” Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast|Via Spotify

Last week, Justice Kavanaugh cast the tie-breaking vote to join the liberals in an antitrust case. But this week, it’s the other Trump appointee crossing over. Justice Gorsuch sided with American Indian treaty rights for the second time this term. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down the 5-4 decision in Herrera v. Wyoming, along with the other two opinions from Monday. Those involved pharmaceutical litigation and a mix of bankruptcy and trademark law. They also try to figure out what’s happening on the “shadow docket” with RBG and Justice Thomas. With 35 decisions in argued cases down and 34 to go, stay tuned for more “Cases and Controversies.” Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts |Via Stitcher |Via Overcast|Via Spotify

As the U.S. Supreme Court enters the "flood season"—that time of the year when the justices try to get out all the outstanding opinions before wrapping up the term at the end of June—Cases and Controversies will bring you weekly updates of the latest happenings at One First Street. This week, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the three cases the justices handed down, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh's first solo cross-over vote to give the liberal justices a victory in a 5-4 antitrust case. They also discuss the growing chasm between the court's conservative and liberal blocs over the death penalty, which was exposed this week in unusual dueling opinions in a previously decided matter. With 32 decisions down and 37 left to go, stay tuned for more Cases and Controversies. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. Listen and subscribe to Cases and Controversies from your mobile device: Via Apple Podcasts | Via Stitcher | Via Overcast | Via Spotify

The U.S. Supreme Court heard its last batch of oral arguments for the 2018 term-- including the highly anticipated census dispute in which congressional apportionment and hundreds of billions of dollars hang in the balance.  Law professor Leah Litman joins "Cases and Controversies" to chat about that and other happenings at the court's April sitting.  Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.  Guest: Leah Litman, University of California, Irvine.  Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. 

This is the “Cases and Controversies” SCOTUS Sneak Peek podcast for the week of April 22—the last week of arguments for the court's 2018 term. The justices have a stacked schedule, with seven cases set for argument during the three-day session. On Tuesday the court will tackle one of the biggest issues of the term: Whether the Department of Commerce can add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Check out our Deep Dive episode for more on that dispute.

It’s time for the Cases and Controversies SCOTUS Sneak Peek podcast for the week of April 15.  The justices kick off the last sitting of the term with arguments in six cases this week, including ones on "scandalous" trademarks, securities suits, and a law used to prosecute violent crime that defendants say is too vague.  Hosts: Jordan Rubin and special guest host, Bloomberg News' Greg Stohr. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

The justices will hear arguments on April 23 from lawyers from the Trump administration and New York State on the hot-button issue of whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was within his rights to add a question for the 2020 census asking whether people are U.S. citizens. It follows last term's controversial decision in the travel ban case, where a majority of the court deferred to Trump's executive judgment, looking past arguments of racial animus.  Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin get you up to speed on the census case and discuss, among other things, whether it will turn into a "Travel Ban, Part Two."  They also talk to Oklahoma Solicitor General Mithun Mansinghani, who filed an amicus brief supporting the federal government on behalf of a coalition of conservative states. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.  Guest: Mithun Mansinghani. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

This week's episode features former Assistant to the Solicitor General Elaine Goldenberg, who is now in the D.C. office of Munger, Tolles & Olson. Goldenberg and co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin break down arguments over partisan gerrymandering, administrative power, and race in the criminal justice system—and explain how Supreme Court advocacy can cause you to hear voices in your head. And, of course, they discuss the biggest news of the sitting: Justice Thomas speaks! Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Guest: Elaine Goldenberg. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

It’s time for the Cases and Controversies SCOTUS Sneak Peek for the week of March 25. The justices will hear arguments in five cases this week, including two of the biggest disputes of the term: partisan gerrymandering and government agency deference. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. 

It’s time for the Cases and Controversies SCOTUS Sneak Peek for the week of March 18. The justices will hear four cases this week, including disputes over racial gerrymandering, whistleblower lawsuits, and racial discrimination in jury selection. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

On this edition of SCOTUS Deep Dive, we’ll take a look at the partisan gerrymandering challenges out of North Carolina and Maryland that the court will hear in back-to-back arguments March 26. Partisan gerrymandering has confounded the Supreme Court for decades, as the justices have struggled to find a neutral, manageable way to root out extreme partisanship. The justices considered the question just last term in cases out of Wisconsin and the same case from Maryland. But they putted those on procedural grounds. The issue, however, has once again bubbled back up to the court. Paul Smith and Misha Tseytlin—who faced off last term in Wisconsin case—describe the differences this time around, as well as the potentially huge stakes in play. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin.Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

It's time for the SCOTUS Sneak Peek for the week of Feb. 25. The justices will hear four cases this week, including a dispute over a cross-shaped WWI monument in Maryland. It's one of the most high-profile disputes of this term. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch. 

This is your SCOTUS Sneak Peek of the cases in front of the justices the week of Feb. 19. They return from their winter break to take on a whopping two cases: one on patents and the other on bankruptcy and trademarks. Will the Notorious RBG re-join her colleagues on the bench after her absence last sitting? Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

This is your SCOTUS Sneak Peek of the cases in front of the justices the week of Jan. 14. For now, the high court is still open, and it will tackle cases about immunity on the Tennessee River, the government taking your property, and states regulating liquor sales. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

The U.S. Supreme Court kicks off 2019 with five arguments ranging from FDA preemption to foreclosures to tribal rights. Bloomberg Law summarizes those arguments, and gets you up to speed on the latest SCOTUS three-peat to hit the high court. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

A Texas district attorney says a convicted murderer shouldn't be executed, due to his intellectual disability. But the Texas state court disagreed, and now the case of Bobby James Moore is back at the U.S. Supreme Court after he already won a case there in 2017. The justices will discuss whether to take up his latest case at their Jan. 4 conference. Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin unpack the twists and turns in the fascinating case on the latest episode of Cases and Controversies. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

What makes Justice Sonia Sotomayor's mind run wild? Is Justice Stephen Breyer just making it up as he goes along? And what's the essence of a brownie? These are just a few of the questions the justices tackled this year during some of lighter moments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Bloomberg Law counts down the top 10 funniest moments in this Supremely Funny podcast. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

President Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General has prompted a “constitutional crisis,” says Tom Goldstein, the veteran U.S. Supreme Court lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog, who is challenging Whitaker's appointment at the high court in an unusual motion. Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin speak to Goldstein and Steve Vladeck, the constitutional scholar at the University of Texas who argues the temporary appointment was legal. They discuss Goldstein’s motion, other pending challenges percolating in the courts, and the effect of Trump's Dec. 7 nomination of William Barr to take over Whitaker's role full-time. Goldstein maintains that, even if Barr is confirmed by the Senate, Whitaker's appointment will still have had disastrous consequences, including for law enforcement and national security. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

This is your SCOTUS Sneak Peek of the cases in front of the justices the week of December 3, featuring taxes, patents, and whether a big double jeopardy case could be a boon to convicts in President Trump's orbit. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

This is your SCOTUS Sneak Peek of the cases in front of the court the week of November 26, where the justices will take on questions about iPhones, Land Rovers, and whether half of Oklahoma is sitting on an American Indian reservation. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch

The U.S. Supreme Court just wrapped up its November sitting. Bloomberg Law discusses the female justices’ approach to arguments, surprising questions from new-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and how one advocate survived two high court arguments over a 48-hour period. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

This is your SCOTUS Sneak Peek of the cases in front of the justices the week of November 5, which will touch on federalism, executions, and, a high court favorite, hovercrafts. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Class actions, criminal appeals, and cougars dominate the first week of arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming "November sitting." In the inaugural episode of Cases and Controversies SCOTUS Sneak Peek, Bloomberg Law's legal reporters break down what to expect in the six cases set for argument the week of Oct. 29. Perry Cooper, Kimberly Robinson, and Jordan Rubin preview the action in the latest cases involving the Federal Arbitration Act, sovereign immunity, and more. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch

After a bitter confirmation battle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh finally took the Supreme Court bench for oral arguments. Bloomberg Law recaps how he got there, discusses his demeanor during arguments, and highlights relationships to watch. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

The extraordinary opening statement by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh at the Sept. 27 hearing was forceful at times, tearful at others. But Kavanaugh also condemned Democratic senators for their attacks on him, saying he was the target of a "political hit." Where does the Supreme Court, an institution that strives to be seen as above politics, go from here? Listen to this Bloomberg Law podcast for some answers. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch

The makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is suddenly in doubt after Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were teens. Now the question is whether she’ll testify against him before the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee and whether they’ll care if she does. Bloomberg Law’s Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss what’s next for Kavanaugh and they also preview a couple of interesting cases the justices could take up for review for the term starting Oct. 1, regardless whether Kavanaugh makes it onto the bench. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin. Producer: Nicholas Anzalotta-Kynoch.

Four days of confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh kick off Sept. 4. Bloomberg Law's Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin discuss the likely focal points as the now-Judge gets grilled by Republican and Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee. Expect to hear tough questions on abortion, presidential powers, and Kavanaugh's earlier testimony—made during his confirmation hearings for the D.C. Circuit—regarding enemy combatants.

President Donald Trump has floated the idea of aiding farmers with a $12 billion package amid the recent barrage of U.S. tariffs — a clear anticipation of the tariffs’ impact on U.S. jobs. Agricultural groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation have criticized the surge in U.S. tariffs, saying Chinese retaliatory tariffs will likely hurt U.S. farmers. Automobile companies are also caught in the crosshairs: foreign companies with operations in the U.S., such as Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and Kia Motors Corporation, said the added tariffs pose a risk to U.S. workers, according to the Association of Global Automakers. Will the Trump administration’s tariff actions live up to Trump’s campaign promises? For this episode of Cases & Controversies, Bloomberg Law international trade reporter Dave Sebastian speaks with Celeste Drake, a trade and globalization specialist at AFL-CIO, and William Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Follow Dave on Twitter: @depsebastian.

We know Donald Trump's presidency has been unconventional. That's true for his clemency grants, too. Trump's gotten a quicker start on that score than his recent predecessors. And he's also bucked the norm of waiting for recommendations from the Justice Department's pardon attorney before granting pardons and commutations. The president also has generated controversy not just with his pardon process—or lack thereof—but with who's received them. Recipients include lawbreaking ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio and conservative provocateur Dinesh D'Souza. In the latest episode of Cases and Controversies, Bloomberg Law's Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson break down Trump's clemency practices.

Just last week, the Trump administration broke the record for the most circuit court judges confirmed. Bloomberg Government Congressional reporter Nancy Ognanovich and Bloomberg Law legal editor Patrick Gregory join this Cases and Controversies podcast to discuss the administration's successes, its failures, and what's next for Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Enjoy!

The Supreme Court wrapped up its 2017 term on June 27, handing down a string of 5-4 decisions. Although the court won't be back in session until October, there's sure to be a lot of Supreme Court news, as the President and Senate move to fill the vacancy left by retiring longtime Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Bloomberg Law's Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Robinson and criminal law reporter Jordan Rubin discuss this term's divisive nature, and what's likely to come next in the fight over Kennedy's seat in this Cases and Controversies podcast.

Bloomberg Law’s Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson break down the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest big—but, yes, narrow!—decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. They’re joined by the ACLU’s David Cole, who represented the same-sex couple turned away from the shop, and Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the baker. Cole and Campbell explain how the decision will affect future cases, including the impending Supreme Court ruling on President Trump’s travel ban.

Power up your cellular telephones, grab some carrots, and pop in your favorite French comedy as Bloomberg Law’s Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson break down the funniest moments from the Supreme Court’s 2017 term. And be sure to vote for your favorite funny moment at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QFL6GX9.