This week, news that all of the Justices have received COVID-19 vaccines sparked a debate among advocates and law professors about remote vs in-person arguments. Zack fairly discusses both sides, while GianCarlo stakes out an aggressive position early on. GianCarlo also unpacks the one opinion this week, which answers the question: If the government violates your civil rights and you only ask for nominal damages, can you sue? The hosts jointly interview their new colleague, Sarah Parshall Perry, about the ripple effects of the Bostock decision. Lastly, the hosts play trivia and the theme is “Where in the world is Justice Carmen Sandiego?”

You can read two of Sarah’s recent pieces on the topics of our interview here and here.


Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @scotus101 and send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to


Don’t forget to leave a 5-star rating!


Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug.


See for privacy and opt-out information.

Subscribe to SCOTUS101 in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

There is 1 comment.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. colleenb Member

    Am I crazy or did Ms. Perry sound like she was all over the map on Bostock, etc. I couldn’t tell if she liked the ruling, didn’t like the ruling, thought it applied, thought it didn’t apply. Frankly she makes a little worried about the Heritage Foundation.

    • #1
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.