What are “navigable waters of the United States”? It’s a question agency bureaucrats and property owners have battled over since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. A Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that could have cleared it up is … about as clear as mud. This term, in Sackett v. EPA, the Court may finally provide the answer.

 

In this bonus episode, the ladies are joined by two fellow SCOTUS watchers to preview the Supreme Court’s new term.

 

In 1996, someone murdered four people in a furniture store in a small town in Mississippi. A year later, Curtis Flowers was convicted of the crime, but the verdict was overturned based on prosecutorial misconduct. The state tried Mr. Flowers again, resulting in another appeal, and yet another reversal. In all, the state would try Flowers six times, with the last conviction making its way to the Supreme Court. While the majority ruled that the state had systematically excluded jurors based on the race, Justice Thomas wrote in dissent that prosecutors should be able to exclude whomever they want, for whatever reason they choose.

 

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the most highly anticipated case of the Supreme Court’s term: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Center, overruling Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion. The ladies dig into other rulings involving the Second Amendment, a praying football coach, and school choice in Maine. Plus, stay tuned for a double dose of “Name that dissent!”

 

This is the story of Tone Dougie, an aspiring rapper who posted rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife and blowing up an FBI agent. Tone Dougie says he didn’t intend to threaten anyone and was simply inspired by Eminem. But the federal government saw things differently and prosecuted him for making “true threats.” His case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where only one justice dissented. Were Tone Dougie’s posts protected speech or criminal threats? Tune in to find out!

 

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss an exciting cert grant and the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to the Double Jeopardy Clause, bingo, and Indian tribes. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

 

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was being “so wantonly and so freakishly imposed” that it was “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” But just four years later, the Court reversed course—ruling that with new procedures in place, states could continue executions without running afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote an impassioned dissent arguing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual under any circumstances. After hearing his experiences as a defense attorney in the South, it’s easy to understand why.

 

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDCKelo v. City of New LondonWickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.

 

This is the story of Bond. Carole Anne Bond. She discovered her husband and her best friend were having an affair. And her friend was pregnant. What Bond did next led to a federal conviction for using chemical weapons and two trips to the Supreme Court. While all the justices agreed Bond’s conviction could not stand, the majority declined to reach the underlying constitutional issue—leaving it to die another day. But three justices disagreed, arguing tomorrow never dies.

Thanks to our guests Amy Howe and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.

This episode concerns one of the most vociferous dissents of all times: Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing opinion in United States v. Virginia, which was aimed at none other than his close friend and writer of the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG’s reaction to Scalia’s fiery critique? Gratitude. As she put it, Justice Scalia’s dissent was instrumental in sharpening her own opinion.

There’s a lot to be learned from this case not just about equality before the law, but about searching for common ground when there appears to be none and maintaining a friendship with people who have different views than your own. This episode is not only about the case that brought down single-sex education at the Virginia Military Institute; it’s also about the importance of dissent in a society that is less tolerant of opposing viewpoints than ever.

In 1952, the Supreme Court smacked down President Truman’s attempt to seize the nation’s steel mills. The dissenters—who happened to be Truman’s poker buddies—would have given the president flexibility to deal with this purported emergency, but the majority issued a swift rebuke. And one justice’s concurrence has continued to shape the way we think about executive power and emergencies to this day.

 

Antitrust is making headlines, with figures as diverse as Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren seeking to use it as a shiny new tool to rein in big tech. But some of the policies they’re pushing were tried before in the 1960s, and they ended up penalizing perfectly competitive conduct just out of animosity for “big business.” A Supreme Court dissent that paved the way for a consumer-first antitrust standard offers lessons about why we shouldn’t be so eager to return to 1960s anti-trust policy and gives us some insight into why big isn’t always bad.

 

In the landmark ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens wrote dueling originalist opinions examining the right to keep and bear arms. They both looked to the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition to reach … opposite conclusions about its original meaning.

 

The idea of “court-packing,”⸺that is, adding seats to the court for political purposes⸺has recently gained steam for the first time in nearly 100 years. The last time we heard about court-packing, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s plan to add more justices was supposedly staved off by the infamous “switch in time that saved nine.” As the story goes, Justice Roberts (no, not THAT Roberts) strategically cast his vote in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in way that subdued popular support for FDR’s proposal. But a closer look into that case reveals that not everything is as it seems, as well as the perils that come with trying to pack the Court.

 

In 1883, a Supreme Court ruling signaled the end of federal efforts to protect newly freed slaves and ushered in the era of Jim Crow laws. One justice, later called the Great Dissenter, stood alone in dissent. Join us as we explore the once-forgotten dissent of John Marshall Harlan in the Civil Rights Cases and how it saw a rebirth nearly a century later.

 

The Political Orphanage’s Andrew Heaton joins the ladies to discuss big cases (guns, abortion, and executions, oh my!) coming up in the Supreme Court’s new term. Stay tuned for a SUPREME poetry slam.

Check out our guest’s podcast here:  https://mightyheaton.com/dissed. Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

The ladies discuss the cursing cheerleader case, Pacific Legal Foundation’s win in a property rights case, and two fractured, mind-boggling separation-of-powers cases. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

 

The ladies discuss the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to the Affordable Care Act and a dispute involving Catholic Charities, same-sex couples, and foster care. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

This is the story of the most consequential Supreme Court case in history: Dred Scott v. Sandford. It was a catalyst for Abraham Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech, which catapulted him onto the national stage.

It led a dissenting justice to resign in protest. And it plunged our nation into its darkest hour—a civil war that nearly tore us apart. Join us as we explore what it means for our country and our Constitution today.

A license to arrange flowers? Laws mandating higher prices during difficult financial times? Government lawyers defending economic regulations on the basis of possible extraterrestrial activity? Welcome to the wacky world of the constitutional right to earn a living, which since the 1930s has been relegated to the lowest level of protection by the Courts.

In this episode, the ladies discuss the origins of the “tiers of scrutiny” that apply depending on whether you’re talking about judicially favored rights, like free speech, or other rights, like the right to earn a living. In a scorching hot dissent from the 1930s, one justice seemed to predict how this lax treatment by the courts would affect entrepreneurship, innovation, and employment today.