https://simplecast.com Divided Argument An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps. In partnership with SCOTUSblog. Will Baude & Dan Epps en Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:45:00 +0000 Tue, 7 Apr 2026 03:28:17 +0000 https://dividedargument.com Divided Argument https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/9f48e94e-1ea8-4f54-a58c-27e99971f8cb/eee54104-48c1-4f2d-a7cd-5ba681b4656f/3000x3000/dividedargument-fotor.jpg?aid=rss_feed https://dividedargument.com episodic An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps. In partnership with SCOTUSblog. Will Baude, Dan Epps false https://feeds.simplecast.com/Xo7H6ooa supreme court of the united states, u.s. supreme court, supreme court justice, constitution, constitutional law, scotus, law, legal system, supreme court Will Baude & Dan Epps pod@dividedargument.com c7aa8730-b414-4d24-a2a4-a5876643dbd9 Backup backup backup backup argument We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long?

]]> Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:45:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/backup-backup-backup-backup-argument-YhBtVYel We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long?

]]> Backup backup backup backup argument Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:17:53 We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long? We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long? false full 13 6 5fb93540-c32f-4783-b14b-21a6bdfe4067 Jezebel Shouting We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas.

]]> Thu, 2 Apr 2026 08:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/jezebel-shouting-TTS4QjHr We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas.

]]> Jezebel Shouting Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:37:47 We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas. We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas. false full 12 6 a7420fcd-e3d2-4571-80a2-3ffb1835179e A Subversive Mission We announce an exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog and introduce the show to new listeners. We then return to the mysterious origins of the Chief Justice's "no, no, a thousand times no," debate the Court's new policy designed to maintain secrecy, and then take a close look at Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, a sovereign immunity decision in which the Court may, or may not, have paid attention to Will's amicus brief.

 

]]> Wed, 11 Mar 2026 07:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/a-subversive-mission-0Kjo45AF We announce an exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog and introduce the show to new listeners. We then return to the mysterious origins of the Chief Justice's "no, no, a thousand times no," debate the Court's new policy designed to maintain secrecy, and then take a close look at Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, a sovereign immunity decision in which the Court may, or may not, have paid attention to Will's amicus brief.

 

]]> A Subversive Mission Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:50:46 We announce an exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog and introduce the show to new listeners. We then return to the mysterious origins of the Chief Justice's "no, no, a thousand times no," debate the Court's new policy designed to maintain secrecy, and then take a close look at Galette v. NJ Transit Corporation, a sovereign immunity decision in which the Court may, or may not, have paid attention to Will's amicus brief. We announce an exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog and introduce the show to new listeners. We then return to the mysterious origins of the Chief Justice's "no, no, a thousand times no," debate the Court's new policy designed to maintain secrecy, and then take a close look at Galette v. NJ Transit Corporation, a sovereign immunity decision in which the Court may, or may not, have paid attention to Will's amicus brief. false full 11 6 0eb63fa2-fb4f-4b6a-8ddd-05410d54efb7 Cruel and Unusual and Stupid It's our live show at the University of Chicago! Hosted by the University of Chicago Federalist Society, we discuss this week's big shadow-docket rulings about gender transitions in California Schools (Mirabelli v. Bonta) and redistricting in New York (Malliotakis v. Williams), and also break down the recent merits decision about the right to counsel when a defendant is testifying (Villareal v. Texas).

]]> Fri, 6 Mar 2026 11:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/cruel-and-unusual-and-stupid-qOPJGUvR It's our live show at the University of Chicago! Hosted by the University of Chicago Federalist Society, we discuss this week's big shadow-docket rulings about gender transitions in California Schools (Mirabelli v. Bonta) and redistricting in New York (Malliotakis v. Williams), and also break down the recent merits decision about the right to counsel when a defendant is testifying (Villareal v. Texas).

]]> Cruel and Unusual and Stupid Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:47:55 It's our live show at the University of Chicago! Hosted by the University of Chicago Federalist Society, we discuss this week's big shadow-docket rulings about gender transitions in California Schools (Mirabelli v. Bonta) and redistricting in New York (Malliotakis v. Williams), and also break down the recent merits decision about the right to counsel when a defendant is testifying (Villareal v. Texas). It's our live show at the University of Chicago! Hosted by the University of Chicago Federalist Society, we discuss this week's big shadow-docket rulings about gender transitions in California Schools (Mirabelli v. Bonta) and redistricting in New York (Malliotakis v. Williams), and also break down the recent merits decision about the right to counsel when a defendant is testifying (Villareal v. Texas). false full 10 6 d9140a4a-32a9-4d03-b58a-f5067fda2d7c Betty Boop or Shakespeare With unpredictable timeliness, we have a quasi-emergency episode on the 170-page tariffs decision, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Come for the in-the-weeds legal analysis, stay for the deep dive into the origins of the phrase "no, no, a thousand times no." 

]]> Sat, 21 Feb 2026 18:17:39 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/betty-boop-or-shakespeare-6aYrfS7f With unpredictable timeliness, we have a quasi-emergency episode on the 170-page tariffs decision, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Come for the in-the-weeds legal analysis, stay for the deep dive into the origins of the phrase "no, no, a thousand times no." 

]]> Betty Boop or Shakespeare Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:26:23 We take a close look at the tariffs decision. We take a close look at the tariffs decision. false full 9 6 5c14ccb3-b9f9-492d-93fb-425b1ee197d2 Ayn Rand Graffiti We're back for another live show at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss the term's two Second Amendment arguments -- first recapping the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez, featuring Hawaii's law about getting consent to bear arms on private property; and then previewing the oral argument in United States v. Hemani, about the ban on possession of guns by drug users.

]]> Wed, 4 Feb 2026 10:30:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/ayn-rand-graffiti-q3MFjNqY We're back for another live show at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss the term's two Second Amendment arguments -- first recapping the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez, featuring Hawaii's law about getting consent to bear arms on private property; and then previewing the oral argument in United States v. Hemani, about the ban on possession of guns by drug users.

]]> Ayn Rand Graffiti Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:57:18 We're back for another live show at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss the term's two Second Amendment arguments -- first recapping the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez, featuring Hawaii's law about getting consent to bear arms on private property; and then previewing the oral argument in United States v. Hemani, about the ban on possession of guns by drug users. We're back for another live show at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss the term's two Second Amendment arguments -- first recapping the oral argument in Wolford v. Lopez, featuring Hawaii's law about getting consent to bear arms on private property; and then previewing the oral argument in United States v. Hemani, about the ban on possession of guns by drug users. false full 8 6 482b3778-642e-4065-bce1-f7a4f5f96131 Bok Choy With shocking and uncharacteristic efficiency, we manage to discuss three merits opinions and one orders list dissent in only 47 minutes. Specifically, we  revisit Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (time limits for moving to vacate void judgments) and break down Berk v. Choy (an Erie doctrine puzzle), and Ellingburg v. United States (criminal restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause), while also managing to discuss Justice Jackson's broadside against the Court's practice of "martinization." 

]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2026 18:13:20 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/bok-choy-qBlbPvPl With shocking and uncharacteristic efficiency, we manage to discuss three merits opinions and one orders list dissent in only 47 minutes. Specifically, we  revisit Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (time limits for moving to vacate void judgments) and break down Berk v. Choy (an Erie doctrine puzzle), and Ellingburg v. United States (criminal restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause), while also managing to discuss Justice Jackson's broadside against the Court's practice of "martinization." 

]]> Bok Choy Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:47:28 With shocking and uncharacteristic efficiency, we manage to discuss three merits opinions and one orders list dissent in only 47 minutes. Specifically, we revisit Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (time limits for moving to vacate void judgments) and break down Berk v. Choy (an interesting Erie doctrine puzzle), and Ellingburg v. United States (criminal restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause), while also managing to discuss Justice Jackson's broadside against the Court's practice of "martinization." With shocking and uncharacteristic efficiency, we manage to discuss three merits opinions and one orders list dissent in only 47 minutes. Specifically, we revisit Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (time limits for moving to vacate void judgments) and break down Berk v. Choy (an interesting Erie doctrine puzzle), and Ellingburg v. United States (criminal restitution and the Ex Post Facto Clause), while also managing to discuss Justice Jackson's broadside against the Court's practice of "martinization." erie, ellingburg, berk v choy, void judgments, coney island, martinization false full 7 6 97a0d01f-84c1-425a-a977-72f565b46978 Lake Shrimp We didn't get the tariffs decision this week, but we discuss two of the opinions we did get -- Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, a decision about standing and election law, and Case v. Montana, a rare Fourth Amendment case -- in a remarkably efficient episode (after a brief detour into Grok's jurisprudence and the announcement of a major gift to the Constitutional Law Institute).

]]> Fri, 16 Jan 2026 10:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/lake-shrimp-VevgJPsx We didn't get the tariffs decision this week, but we discuss two of the opinions we did get -- Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, a decision about standing and election law, and Case v. Montana, a rare Fourth Amendment case -- in a remarkably efficient episode (after a brief detour into Grok's jurisprudence and the announcement of a major gift to the Constitutional Law Institute).

]]> Lake Shrimp Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:53:36 We didn't get the tariffs decision this week, but we discuss two of the opinions we did get -- Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, a decision about standing and election law, and Case v. Montana, a rare Fourth Amendment case -- in a remarkably efficient episode (after a brief detour into Grok's jurisprudence and the announcement of a major gift to the Constitutional Law Institute). We didn't get the tariffs decision this week, but we discuss two of the opinions we did get -- Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections, a decision about standing and election law, and Case v. Montana, a rare Fourth Amendment case -- in a remarkably efficient episode (after a brief detour into Grok's jurisprudence and the announcement of a major gift to the Constitutional Law Institute). false full 6 6 904de5f3-9e24-47ed-9666-d4a20280d035 The Marshal and the Margarine We're back with the first episode of the new year, breaking down the interim docket opinion/order in Trump v. Illinois, the national guard case, after first warming up with new Erie scholarship, state criminal jurisdiction over federal officers, and some recent online discourse.

]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:30:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/the-marshal-and-the-margarine-Q0nFJtCF We're back with the first episode of the new year, breaking down the interim docket opinion/order in Trump v. Illinois, the national guard case, after first warming up with new Erie scholarship, state criminal jurisdiction over federal officers, and some recent online discourse.

]]> The Marshal and the Margarine Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:18:33 We're back with the first episode of the new year, breaking down the interim docket opinion/order in Trump v. Illinois, the national guard case, after first warming up with new Erie scholarship, state criminal jurisdiction over federal officers, and some recent online discourse. We're back with the first episode of the new year, breaking down the interim docket opinion/order in Trump v. Illinois, the national guard case, after first warming up with new Erie scholarship, state criminal jurisdiction over federal officers, and some recent online discourse. false full 5 6 2f5539c2-a6f5-43f6-a244-9eef2c8b930c Non-Cake Physical Object We're back to break down a month's worth of shadow docket activity -- three recent summary reversals, plus the stay in the Texas gerrymandering case (Abbott v. LULAC). We also discuss the launch of the SCOTUSblog "interim docket blog."

]]> Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/non-cake-physical-object-9Yo_AJUw We're back to break down a month's worth of shadow docket activity -- three recent summary reversals, plus the stay in the Texas gerrymandering case (Abbott v. LULAC). We also discuss the launch of the SCOTUSblog "interim docket blog."

]]> Non-Cake Physical Object Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:17:15 We're back to break down a month's worth of shadow docket activity -- three recent summary reversals, plus the stay in the Texas gerrymandering case (Abbott v. LULAC). We also discuss the launch of the SCOTUSblog "interim docket blog." We're back to break down a month's worth of shadow docket activity -- three recent summary reversals, plus the stay in the Texas gerrymandering case (Abbott v. LULAC). We also discuss the launch of the SCOTUSblog "interim docket blog." false full 4 6 60ebb4c3-53e7-42e9-8b69-5357e30994fb Counter-Counter-Counter-Designations Will and Dan record a rare live show in an unusual venue: the Salamander Resort in Middleburg, Virginia, at the annual attorney retreat for trial boutique Wilkinson Stekloff. Dan teaches Will some of the new lingo he's learned from the firm's trial experts before a deep dive into civil procedure. First, we dig into the recently argued Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton, which presents a seemingly easy legal question and harder questions about SCOTUS advocacy and ethics. Then we look back at last Term's LabCorp v. Davis, which the Court DIG'd but which raises some fundamental questions about class action litigation that the Court is likely to revisit down the road.  

]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/counter-counter-counter-designations-pKw__1Rl Will and Dan record a rare live show in an unusual venue: the Salamander Resort in Middleburg, Virginia, at the annual attorney retreat for trial boutique Wilkinson Stekloff. Dan teaches Will some of the new lingo he's learned from the firm's trial experts before a deep dive into civil procedure. First, we dig into the recently argued Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton, which presents a seemingly easy legal question and harder questions about SCOTUS advocacy and ethics. Then we look back at last Term's LabCorp v. Davis, which the Court DIG'd but which raises some fundamental questions about class action litigation that the Court is likely to revisit down the road.  

]]> Counter-Counter-Counter-Designations Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:55:24 Will and Dan record a rare live show in an unusual venue: the Salamander Resort in Middleburg, Virginia, at the annual attorney retreat for trial boutique Wilkinson Stekloff. Dan teaches Will some of the new lingo he's learned from the firm's trial experts before a deep dive into civil procedure. First, we dig into the recently argued Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton, which presents a seemingly easy legal question and harder questions about SCOTUS advocacy and ethics. Then we look back at last Term's LabCorp v. Davis, which the Court DIG'd but which raises some fundamental questions about class action litigation that the Court is likely to revisit down the road. Will and Dan record a rare live show in an unusual venue: the Salamander Resort in Middleburg, Virginia, at the annual attorney retreat for trial boutique Wilkinson Stekloff. Dan teaches Will some of the new lingo he's learned from the firm's trial experts before a deep dive into civil procedure. First, we dig into the recently argued Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton, which presents a seemingly easy legal question and harder questions about SCOTUS advocacy and ethics. Then we look back at last Term's LabCorp v. Davis, which the Court DIG'd but which raises some fundamental questions about class action litigation that the Court is likely to revisit down the road. false full 3 6 8ba0d3b6-4af9-4aa7-ad8f-343748154b66 Proximity Mines in the Facility After a predictably unpredictable set of detours through Latin grammar, parenting philosophies, and 90s video games, we catch up on the latest shadow (interim?) docket activity and recap the oral argument in the tariffs cases. 

]]> Sat, 15 Nov 2025 13:06:42 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/proximity-mines-in-the-facility-2lmcIpQd After a predictably unpredictable set of detours through Latin grammar, parenting philosophies, and 90s video games, we catch up on the latest shadow (interim?) docket activity and recap the oral argument in the tariffs cases. 

]]> Proximity Mines in the Facility Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:18:29 After a predictably unpredictable set of detours through Latin grammar, parenting philosophies, and 90s video games, we catch up on the latest shadow (interim?) docket activity and recap the oral argument in the tariffs cases. After a predictably unpredictable set of detours through Latin grammar, parenting philosophies, and 90s video games, we catch up on the latest shadow (interim?) docket activity and recap the oral argument in the tariffs cases. false full 2 6 44dfc8c0-5203-41a9-a96e-8ebf5185d80f Crazy Half-Drunk Unreliable Research Assistant Divided Argument is in its sixth season! Our first episode of the term focuses, of course, on the latest developments on the shadow docket. These include several grants of interim relief to the Trump administration, as well as some dissents from the denial of certiorari. But first, an update on Dan's travel schedule and ChatGPT usage, and an important correction to our previous episode.

]]> Fri, 31 Oct 2025 09:45:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/crazy-half-drunk-unreliable-research-assistant-aZOEw2ke Divided Argument is in its sixth season! Our first episode of the term focuses, of course, on the latest developments on the shadow docket. These include several grants of interim relief to the Trump administration, as well as some dissents from the denial of certiorari. But first, an update on Dan's travel schedule and ChatGPT usage, and an important correction to our previous episode.

]]> Crazy Half-Drunk Unreliable Research Assistant Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:03:41 Divided Argument is in its sixth season! Our first episode of the term focuses, of course, on the latest developments on the shadow docket. These include several grants of interim relief to the Trump administration, as well as some dissents from the denial of certiorari. But first, an update on Dan's travel schedule and ChatGPT usage, and an important correction to our previous episode. Divided Argument is in its sixth season! Our first episode of the term focuses, of course, on the latest developments on the shadow docket. These include several grants of interim relief to the Trump administration, as well as some dissents from the denial of certiorari. But first, an update on Dan's travel schedule and ChatGPT usage, and an important correction to our previous episode. false full 1 6 66a3b9d5-5ec8-49bc-b2f8-e7408436f2cd Proust or Plato For the season finale, we're joined by Yale law professor Justin Driver to talk about his new book, "The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education." We discuss the conservative cases for and against affirmative action, the post-SFFA world of university admissions, the promise and limits of colorblindness, and the effects of admissions policies on students' sense of belonging.

]]> Fri, 3 Oct 2025 11:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/proust-or-plato-jaCFbZwQ For the season finale, we're joined by Yale law professor Justin Driver to talk about his new book, "The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education." We discuss the conservative cases for and against affirmative action, the post-SFFA world of university admissions, the promise and limits of colorblindness, and the effects of admissions policies on students' sense of belonging.

]]> Proust or Plato Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:52:35 For the season finale, we're joined by Yale law professor Justin Driver to talk about his new book, "The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education." We discuss the conservative cases for and against affirmative action, the post-SFFA world of university admissions, the promise and limits of colorblindness, and the effects of admissions policies on students' sense of belonging. For the season finale, we're joined by Yale law professor Justin Driver to talk about his new book, "The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education." We discuss the conservative cases for and against affirmative action, the post-SFFA world of university admissions, the promise and limits of colorblindness, and the effects of admissions policies on students' sense of belonging. false full 28 5 9d44fbf5-06bf-452e-9dbc-92aa13ddc5e7 Byzantine Wall We extend our record-breaking run with a discussion of the Court's two big recent emergency docket rulings: Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo and NIH v. American Public Health Association.

]]> Thu, 11 Sep 2025 09:30:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/byzantine-wall-A__IhAtK We extend our record-breaking run with a discussion of the Court's two big recent emergency docket rulings: Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo and NIH v. American Public Health Association.

]]> Byzantine Wall Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:16:51 We extend our record-breaking run with a discussion of the Court's two big recent emergency docket rulings: Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo and NIH v. American Public Health Association. We extend our record-breaking run with a discussion of the Court's two big recent emergency docket rulings: Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo and NIH v. American Public Health Association. false full 27 5 a7d5d962-2e07-4729-a1f5-23248398f2e7 Bedrock Con Law 101 We're joined by Michigan law professor Richard Primus to talk about his new book, "The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumerated and Federal Power." Richard describes one of the the most widespread beliefs about constitutional law -- that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers -- and why he thinks it is actually wrong. Along the way, we discuss methods of constitutional interpretation, the relationship between the official story of the law and legal practice, and wrestle with the surprisingly hard question of how many congressional powers are listed in the Constitution.

]]> Fri, 29 Aug 2025 19:09:59 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/bedrock-con-law-101-sMa1GdrP We're joined by Michigan law professor Richard Primus to talk about his new book, "The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumerated and Federal Power." Richard describes one of the the most widespread beliefs about constitutional law -- that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers -- and why he thinks it is actually wrong. Along the way, we discuss methods of constitutional interpretation, the relationship between the official story of the law and legal practice, and wrestle with the surprisingly hard question of how many congressional powers are listed in the Constitution.

]]> Bedrock Con Law 101 Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:07:00 We're joined by Michigan law professor Richard Primus to talk about his new book, "The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumerated and Federal Power." Richard describes one of the the most widespread beliefs about constitutional law -- that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers -- and why he thinks it is actually wrong. Along the way, we discuss methods of constitutional interpretation, the relationship between the official story of the law and legal practice, and wrestle with the surprisingly hard question of how many congressional powers are listed in the Constitution. We're joined by Michigan law professor Richard Primus to talk about his new book, "The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumerated and Federal Power." Richard describes one of the the most widespread beliefs about constitutional law -- that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers -- and why he thinks it is actually wrong. Along the way, we discuss methods of constitutional interpretation, the relationship between the official story of the law and legal practice, and wrestle with the surprisingly hard question of how many congressional powers are listed in the Constitution. false full 26 5 591bbc9b-7778-4cbd-9761-19f1f6404502 Originalism Hulk Continuing our long slog through the end-of-Term opinion dump, it's fraud day! We dig into Kousisis v. United States and Thompson v. United States, two interesting federal criminal law puzzles. 

]]> Sat, 9 Aug 2025 13:13:03 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/originalism-hulk-_2X55pd3 Continuing our long slog through the end-of-Term opinion dump, it's fraud day! We dig into Kousisis v. United States and Thompson v. United States, two interesting federal criminal law puzzles. 

]]> Originalism Hulk Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:26:44 Continuing our long slog through the end-of-Term opinion dump, it's fraud day! We dig into Kousisis v. United States and Thompson v. United States, two interesting federal criminal law puzzles. Continuing our long slog through the end-of-Term opinion dump, it's fraud day! We dig into Kousisis v. United States and Thompson v. United States, two interesting federal criminal law puzzles. false full 25 5 c84c3efd-c30e-4c09-8467-30be5351aef0 The Country of the Future We finally circle back to the two big structural constitutional law cases from the last day of the term. First is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, which upheld the appointment structure of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force under the Affordable Care Act. Then is FCC v. Consumers' Research, which upheld the universal-service contribution scheme against a pair of non-delegation challenges. Our second-longest episode of the season.

]]> Mon, 28 Jul 2025 16:31:23 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/the-country-of-the-future-svuL0ffa We finally circle back to the two big structural constitutional law cases from the last day of the term. First is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, which upheld the appointment structure of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force under the Affordable Care Act. Then is FCC v. Consumers' Research, which upheld the universal-service contribution scheme against a pair of non-delegation challenges. Our second-longest episode of the season.

]]> The Country of the Future Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:30:32 We finally circle back to the two big structural constitutional law cases from the last day of the term. First is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, which upheld the appointment structure of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force under the Affordable Care Act. Then is FCC v. Consumers' Research, which upheld the universal-service contribution scheme against a pair of non-delegation challenges. Our second-longest episode of the season. We finally circle back to the two big structural constitutional law cases from the last day of the term. First is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, which upheld the appointment structure of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force under the Affordable Care Act. Then is FCC v. Consumers' Research, which upheld the universal-service contribution scheme against a pair of non-delegation challenges. Our second-longest episode of the season. false full 24 5 d16b501b-19ba-4c3a-8f96-b4876633bd5a The Thunder Docket Acting with unpredictable alacrity and unpredictable brevity, we break down the Supreme Court's recent interim order in Trump v. Boyle, and discuss what it means for the unitary executive, and for the shadow docket. We also debate the best name for the Court's emergency/interim orders docket.

]]> Fri, 25 Jul 2025 17:25:56 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/the-thunder-docket-dwL1vskA Acting with unpredictable alacrity and unpredictable brevity, we break down the Supreme Court's recent interim order in Trump v. Boyle, and discuss what it means for the unitary executive, and for the shadow docket. We also debate the best name for the Court's emergency/interim orders docket.

]]> The Thunder Docket Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:30:50 Acting with unpredictable alacrity and unpredictable brevity, we break down the Supreme Court's recent interim order in Trump v. Boyle, and discuss what it means for the unitary executive, and for the shadow docket. We also debate the best name for the Court's emergency/interim orders docket. Acting with unpredictable alacrity and unpredictable brevity, we break down the Supreme Court's recent interim order in Trump v. Boyle, and discuss what it means for the unitary executive, and for the shadow docket. We also debate the best name for the Court's emergency/interim orders docket. false full 23 5 5d9d188a-1dfb-4338-8e7e-1c7ea54ee223 Snake-Charmer-Specific Moving with shockingly unpredictable efficiency, we respond to feedback, debate which of us is more composting-friendly, catch up on the emergency docket, and chip away at our end-of-Term backlog by digging into Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA.

]]> Sat, 19 Jul 2025 14:06:16 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/snake-charmer-specific-hjEy4JDS Moving with shockingly unpredictable efficiency, we respond to feedback, debate which of us is more composting-friendly, catch up on the emergency docket, and chip away at our end-of-Term backlog by digging into Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA.

]]> Snake-Charmer-Specific Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:03:55 Moving with shockingly unpredictable efficiency, we respond to feedback, debate which of us is more composting-friendly, catch up on the emergency docket, and chip away at our end-of-Term backlog by digging into Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA. Moving with shockingly unpredictable efficiency, we respond to feedback, debate which of us is more composting-friendly, catch up on the emergency docket, and chip away at our end-of-Term backlog by digging into Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA. false full 22 5 4c2670fd-49b5-42f4-aec7-415d3b3210ba Didactic and Inculcatory We look at the final orders list before summer break, and then continue to work through last month's opinions, this time with an extended analysis of two decisions about children and culture wars -- Mahmoud v. Taylor (religious objections to LGBTQ+-inclusive books) and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (age verification for accessing online pornography).

]]> Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/didactic-and-inculcatory-Rg79QhIh We look at the final orders list before summer break, and then continue to work through last month's opinions, this time with an extended analysis of two decisions about children and culture wars -- Mahmoud v. Taylor (religious objections to LGBTQ+-inclusive books) and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (age verification for accessing online pornography).

]]> Didactic and Inculcatory Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:29:16 We look at the final orders list before summer break, and then continue to work through last month's opinions, this time with an extended analysis of two decisions about children and culture wars -- Mahmoud v. Taylor (religious objections to LGBTQ+-inclusive books) and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (age verification for accessing online pornography). We look at the final orders list before summer break, and then continue to work through last month's opinions, this time with an extended analysis of two decisions about children and culture wars -- Mahmoud v. Taylor (religious objections to LGBTQ+-inclusive books) and Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (age verification for accessing online pornography). false full 21 5 647439e2-c805-407d-8623-d1c68b075b61 Schrödinger's Innocence Right We talk a bit more about Trump v. CASA, revisit the usage of "general," answer some voicemails, and then turn to Gutierrez v. Saenz, a procedural tangle about whether a death row inmate can sue a state prosecutor over access to DNA testing.

]]> Wed, 2 Jul 2025 20:24:12 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/schrodingers-innocence-right-f1ZZgOBw We talk a bit more about Trump v. CASA, revisit the usage of "general," answer some voicemails, and then turn to Gutierrez v. Saenz, a procedural tangle about whether a death row inmate can sue a state prosecutor over access to DNA testing.

]]> Schrödinger's Innocence Right Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:16:41 We talk a bit more about Trump v. CASA, revisit the usage of "general," answer some voicemails, and then turn to Gutierrez v. Saenz, a procedural tangle about whether a death row inmate can sue a state prosecutor over access to DNA testing. We talk a bit more about Trump v. CASA, revisit the usage of "general," answer some voicemails, and then turn to Gutierrez v. Saenz, a procedural tangle about whether a death row inmate can sue a state prosecutor over access to DNA testing. false full 20 5 75ef123e-f7a2-48bd-a5a3-9ebfb3a88660 Why Are We Here? We celebrate the 100th episode of the podcast with a special cross-over episode with Sarah Isgur at Advisory Opinions! Sarah, Will, and Dan break down today's blockbuster decision in Trump v. CASA, forbidding universal injunctions (and not saying much about birthright citizenship).

]]> Fri, 27 Jun 2025 23:13:13 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/why-are-we-here-A0LPy_l_ We celebrate the 100th episode of the podcast with a special cross-over episode with Sarah Isgur at Advisory Opinions! Sarah, Will, and Dan break down today's blockbuster decision in Trump v. CASA, forbidding universal injunctions (and not saying much about birthright citizenship).

]]> Why Are We Here? Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:12:23 We celebrate the 100th episode of the podcast with a special cross-over episode with Sarah Isgur at Advisory Opinions! Sarah, Will, and Dan break down today's blockbuster decision in Trump v. CASA, forbidding universal injunctions (and not saying much about birthright citizenship). We celebrate the 100th episode of the podcast with a special cross-over episode with Sarah Isgur at Advisory Opinions! Sarah, Will, and Dan break down today's blockbuster decision in Trump v. CASA, forbidding universal injunctions (and not saying much about birthright citizenship). false full 19 5 ffe0e66a-6176-4bea-af85-f077634820b8 Loose Signification We're joined by a special guest, Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs, to talk about Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Fuld is last week's big personal jurisdiction case, where the Court upheld federal laws extending jurisdiction to the PLO and PA for antiterrorism lawsuits. The author of several important articles on these issues and an amicus brief in Fuld, Steve gives us his take on the relationship between personal jurisdiction, international law and due process, and helps us evaluate the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence.

]]> Thu, 26 Jun 2025 11:25:03 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/loose-signification-6zvLu13h We're joined by a special guest, Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs, to talk about Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Fuld is last week's big personal jurisdiction case, where the Court upheld federal laws extending jurisdiction to the PLO and PA for antiterrorism lawsuits. The author of several important articles on these issues and an amicus brief in Fuld, Steve gives us his take on the relationship between personal jurisdiction, international law and due process, and helps us evaluate the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence.

]]> Loose Signification Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:02:05 We're joined by a special guest, Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs, to talk about Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Fuld is last week's big personal jurisdiction case, where the Court upheld federal laws extending jurisdiction to the PLO and PA for antiterrorism lawsuits. The author of several important articles on these issues and an amicus brief in Fuld, Steve gives us his take on the relationship between personal jurisdiction, international law and due process, and helps us evaluate the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence. We're joined by a special guest, Harvard Law Professor Stephen Sachs, to talk about Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. Fuld is last week's big personal jurisdiction case, where the Court upheld federal laws extending jurisdiction to the PLO and PA for antiterrorism lawsuits. The author of several important articles on these issues and an amicus brief in Fuld, Steve gives us his take on the relationship between personal jurisdiction, international law and due process, and helps us evaluate the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence. false full 18 5 8350fff0-e3f7-4a62-b0d8-7182fc2a776e Caesar's Face After some feedback and further thoughts on our Skrmetti episode and a shocking revelation about "LabCorp," we circle back to an earlier June opinion about religious distinctions, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. Dan keeps Will up past his bedtime.

]]> Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:15:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/caesars-face-uN4mdCak After some feedback and further thoughts on our Skrmetti episode and a shocking revelation about "LabCorp," we circle back to an earlier June opinion about religious distinctions, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. Dan keeps Will up past his bedtime.

]]> Caesar's Face Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:04:02 After some feedback and further thoughts on our Skrmetti episode and a shocking revelation about "LabCorp," we circle back to an earlier June opinion about religious distinctions, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. Dan keeps Will up past his bedtime. After some feedback and further thoughts on our Skrmetti episode and a shocking revelation about "LabCorp," we circle back to an earlier June opinion about religious distinctions, Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission. Dan keeps Will up past his bedtime. false full 17 5 4b73d18b-6957-4c6c-bcc5-c94151962407 Low Horse Without much introductory ado, we interrupt Will's vacation to give you a thorough breakdown of United States v. Skrmetti, the trans health care case that is one of the most-watched cases of the term.

]]> Sat, 21 Jun 2025 11:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/low-horse-fdoqSgQA Without much introductory ado, we interrupt Will's vacation to give you a thorough breakdown of United States v. Skrmetti, the trans health care case that is one of the most-watched cases of the term.

]]> Low Horse Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:13:26 Without much introductory ado, we interrupt Will's vacation to give you a thorough breakdown of United States v. Skrmetti, the trans health care case that is one of the most-watched cases of the term. Without much introductory ado, we interrupt Will's vacation to give you a thorough breakdown of United States v. Skrmetti, the trans health care case that is one of the most-watched cases of the term. false full 16 5 fd27eac7-06ae-4f7d-9d96-024b319af728 Truth and Reconciliation We start out by debating who's responsible for Dan's audio snafus last time before digging into a various odds and ends, such as the Chief Justice's toast at the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner and President Trump's renunciation of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. We then try to make sense of the DIG in Labcorp v. Davis and see whether our predictions about Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos panned out. 

]]> Sat, 7 Jun 2025 21:27:12 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/truth-and-reconciliation-tvm6KJGF We start out by debating who's responsible for Dan's audio snafus last time before digging into a various odds and ends, such as the Chief Justice's toast at the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner and President Trump's renunciation of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. We then try to make sense of the DIG in Labcorp v. Davis and see whether our predictions about Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos panned out. 

]]> Truth and Reconciliation Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:57:26 We start out by debating who's responsible for Dan's audio snafus last time before digging into a various odds and ends, such as the Chief Justice's toast at the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner and President Trump's renunciation of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. We then try to make sense of the DIG in Labcorp v. Davis and see whether our predictions about Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos panned out. We start out by debating who's responsible for Dan's audio snafus last time before digging into a various odds and ends, such as the Chief Justice's toast at the Supreme Court Historical Society dinner and President Trump's renunciation of Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society. We then try to make sense of the DIG in Labcorp v. Davis and see whether our predictions about Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos panned out. false full 15 5 bec15fa1-4284-471c-aff4-d51f006a4816 Delete This. Call Me. With apologies for Dan's horrendous audio quality: we catch up on the latest emergency-docket happenings and debate whether Trump v. Wilcox is a big deal or small potatoes. We also catch up on listener feedback and, for the first time in a long time, play a couple of messages received on our voicemail line (314-649-3790 for anyone else who wants to chime in). 

]]> Mon, 2 Jun 2025 20:24:18 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/delete-this-call-me-qkDg7abm With apologies for Dan's horrendous audio quality: we catch up on the latest emergency-docket happenings and debate whether Trump v. Wilcox is a big deal or small potatoes. We also catch up on listener feedback and, for the first time in a long time, play a couple of messages received on our voicemail line (314-649-3790 for anyone else who wants to chime in). 

]]> Delete This. Call Me. Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:19:04 With apologies for Dan's horrendous audio quality: we catch up on the latest emergency-docket happenings and debate whether Trump v. Wilcox is a big deal or small potatoes. We also catch up on listener feedback and, for the first time in a long time, play a couple of messages received on our voicemail line (314-649-3790 for anyone else who wants to chime in). With apologies for Dan's horrendous audio quality: we catch up on the latest emergency-docket happenings and debate whether Trump v. Wilcox is a big deal or small potatoes. We also catch up on listener feedback and, for the first time in a long time, play a couple of messages received on our voicemail line (314-649-3790 for anyone else who wants to chime in). false full 14 5 ed108097-ded2-45be-ad4c-d104c29da2ca Gorsuch Genie We're joined by NYU law professor Rachel Barkow to talk about her new book Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration. Listen to learn about five (or six) Supreme Court cases that arguably ignored the original meaning of the Constitution to enable our current policing and punishment practices. Along the way, a hypothetical genie offers Professor Barkow a very tough tradeoff.

]]> Thu, 22 May 2025 20:47:58 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Rachel Barkow) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/gorsuch-genie-p1ScZUcU We're joined by NYU law professor Rachel Barkow to talk about her new book Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration. Listen to learn about five (or six) Supreme Court cases that arguably ignored the original meaning of the Constitution to enable our current policing and punishment practices. Along the way, a hypothetical genie offers Professor Barkow a very tough tradeoff.

]]> Gorsuch Genie Rachel Barkow 01:06:54 We're joined by NYU law professor Rachel Barkow to talk about her new book, "Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration." Listen to learn about five (or six) Supreme Court cases that arguably ignored the original meaning of the Constitution to enable our current policing and punishment practices. Along the way, a hypothetical genie offers Professor Barkow a very tough tradeoff. We're joined by NYU law professor Rachel Barkow to talk about her new book, "Justice Abandoned: How the Supreme Court Ignored the Constitution and Enabled Mass Incarceration." Listen to learn about five (or six) Supreme Court cases that arguably ignored the original meaning of the Constitution to enable our current policing and punishment practices. Along the way, a hypothetical genie offers Professor Barkow a very tough tradeoff. false full 13 5 4e299e3d-40a8-450f-b3c7-ade5ffa59403 Friends with Oprah Winfrey We're back with another unexpectedly short and timely episode, focusing on last Friday's emergency docket decision in AARP v. Trump. We also spend a few minutes on a few other orders: the administration's partial victory in Noem v. National TPS Alliance and a puzzling mass recusal. 

]]> Tue, 20 May 2025 21:01:06 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/friends-with-oprah-winfrey-f6rWUgGv We're back with another unexpectedly short and timely episode, focusing on last Friday's emergency docket decision in AARP v. Trump. We also spend a few minutes on a few other orders: the administration's partial victory in Noem v. National TPS Alliance and a puzzling mass recusal. 

]]> Friends with Oprah Winfrey Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:49:01 We're back with another unexpectedly short and timely episode, focusing on last Friday's emergency docket decision in AARP v. Trump. We also spend a few minutes on a few other orders: the administration's partial victory in Noem v. National TPS Alliance and a puzzling mass recusal. We're back with another unexpectedly short and timely episode, focusing on last Friday's emergency docket decision in AARP v. Trump. We also spend a few minutes on a few other orders: the administration's partial victory in Noem v. National TPS Alliance and a puzzling mass recusal. true full 12 5 9431f91d-a1cb-48ea-8d82-bbebb0cb7a6d A Trees Guy in a Forest Court We reflect on the death of Justice Souter and sort out some loose ends from the last episode. We then dig into the Court's only opinion from Thursday, Barnes v. Felix, which we previewed with friend of the show Orin Kerr back in February at Stanford. Along the way we make a short detour into generative AI and its potential for SCOTUS research. Most importantly, we react to the oral argument in Trump v. Casa, the shadow docket case that's about (or, isn't about?) President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. 

]]> Fri, 16 May 2025 23:12:40 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/a-trees-guy-in-a-forest-court-qusHSqB8 We reflect on the death of Justice Souter and sort out some loose ends from the last episode. We then dig into the Court's only opinion from Thursday, Barnes v. Felix, which we previewed with friend of the show Orin Kerr back in February at Stanford. Along the way we make a short detour into generative AI and its potential for SCOTUS research. Most importantly, we react to the oral argument in Trump v. Casa, the shadow docket case that's about (or, isn't about?) President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. 

]]> A Trees Guy in a Forest Court Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:00:54 We reflect on the death of Justice Souter and sort out some loose ends from the last episode. We then dig into the Court's only opinion from Thursday, Barnes v. Felix, which we previewed with friend of the show Orin Kerr back in February at Stanford. Along the way we make a short detour into generative AI and its potential for SCOTUS research. Most importantly, we react to the oral argument in Trump v. Casa, the shadow docket case about (or, not about?) President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. We reflect on the death of Justice Souter and sort out some loose ends from the last episode. We then dig into the Court's only opinion from Thursday, Barnes v. Felix, which we previewed with friend of the show Orin Kerr back in February at Stanford. Along the way we make a short detour into generative AI and its potential for SCOTUS research. Most importantly, we react to the oral argument in Trump v. Casa, the shadow docket case about (or, not about?) President Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. false full 11 5 b86c13d5-392d-4fb7-93d6-33ec138189d0 Moot, Wrong, and Irrelevant The shadow docket strikes once again! We break down the Court's unusual immigration ruling in AARP v. Trump (no, not that AARP!), and then briefly discuss the much-heralded ERISA case (Cunningham v. Cornell). But first we discuss some blog news, some SCOTUS news, and some SCOTUSblog news. 

]]> Fri, 25 Apr 2025 10:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/moot-wrong-and-irrelevant-bvSUwMan The shadow docket strikes once again! We break down the Court's unusual immigration ruling in AARP v. Trump (no, not that AARP!), and then briefly discuss the much-heralded ERISA case (Cunningham v. Cornell). But first we discuss some blog news, some SCOTUS news, and some SCOTUSblog news. 

]]> Moot, Wrong, and Irrelevant Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:09:33 The shadow docket strikes once again! We break down the Court's unusual immigration ruling in AARP v. Trump (no, not that AARP!), and then briefly discuss the much-heralded ERISA case (Cunningham v. Cornell). But first we discuss some blog news, some SCOTUS news, and some SCOTUSblog news. The shadow docket strikes once again! We break down the Court's unusual immigration ruling in AARP v. Trump (no, not that AARP!), and then briefly discuss the much-heralded ERISA case (Cunningham v. Cornell). But first we discuss some blog news, some SCOTUS news, and some SCOTUSblog news. false full 10 5 eaeb529e-b09b-4e25-afdd-3e2026801070 Vaxxed and Relaxed We have another short administrative law episode, analyzing the Supreme Court's decision about e-cigarettes in FDA v. Wages and White Lion. But first we field some listener pushback about facial challenges in administrative law, and discuss the shadow docket ruling, and ensuing fallout, in Noem v. Abrego Garcia.

]]> Wed, 16 Apr 2025 10:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/vaxxed-and-relaxed-TLj_OkxJ We have another short administrative law episode, analyzing the Supreme Court's decision about e-cigarettes in FDA v. Wages and White Lion. But first we field some listener pushback about facial challenges in administrative law, and discuss the shadow docket ruling, and ensuing fallout, in Noem v. Abrego Garcia.

]]> Vaxxed and Relaxed Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:56:14 We have another short administrative law episode, analyzing the Supreme Court's decision about e-cigarettes in FDA v. Wages and White Lion. But first we field some listener pushback about facial challenges in administrative law, and discuss the shadow docket ruling, and ensuing fallout, in Noem v. Abrego Garcia. We have another short administrative law episode, analyzing the Supreme Court's decision about e-cigarettes in FDA v. Wages and White Lion. But first we field some listener pushback about facial challenges in administrative law, and discuss the shadow docket ruling, and ensuing fallout, in Noem v. Abrego Garcia. false full 9 5 078a32bc-b0ab-46c2-bef3-a01867eaaf07 In Whack ASAP Thanks to the Harvard Law Review, we recorded a live episode in the famed Austin Hall at Harvard Law School. While we hoped to discuss merits cases, the Court gave us far too much shadow docket activity to break down. 

]]> Fri, 11 Apr 2025 15:51:35 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/in-whack-asap-9ElZYxHR Thanks to the Harvard Law Review, we recorded a live episode in the famed Austin Hall at Harvard Law School. While we hoped to discuss merits cases, the Court gave us far too much shadow docket activity to break down. 

]]> In Whack ASAP Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:59:01 Thanks to the Harvard Law Review, we recorded a live episode in the famed Austin Hall at Harvard Law School. While we hoped to discuss merits cases, the Court gave us far too much shadow docket activity to break down. Thanks to the Harvard Law Review, we recorded a live episode in the famed Austin Hall at Harvard Law School. While we hoped to discuss merits cases, the Court gave us far too much shadow docket activity to break down. false full 8 5 589439b0-1521-44af-b4d2-5ab50124f6f8 Sufficiently IKEA-like We are back with an unexpectedly concise episode focused on last week's "ghost guns" decision, Bondi v. Vanderstok. But first we talk about the calls to reconsider the Court's Confrontation Clause doctrine and also return to the number of votes needed to call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG).

]]> Wed, 2 Apr 2025 03:49:32 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/sufficiently-ikea-like-V6sxUTRb We are back with an unexpectedly concise episode focused on last week's "ghost guns" decision, Bondi v. Vanderstok. But first we talk about the calls to reconsider the Court's Confrontation Clause doctrine and also return to the number of votes needed to call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG).

]]> Sufficiently IKEA-like Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:48:17 We are back with an unexpectedly concise episode focused on last week's "ghost guns" decision, Bondi v. Vanderstok. But first we talk about the calls to reconsider the Court's Confrontation Clause doctrine and also return to the number of votes needed to call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG). We are back with an unexpectedly concise episode focused on last week's "ghost guns" decision, Bondi v. Vanderstok. But first we talk about the calls to reconsider the Court's Confrontation Clause doctrine and also return to the number of votes needed to call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG). false full 7 5 45da17c0-ec6e-4d8e-8a29-c0e369a5c147 Stunned But Respectful We announce the new Divided Argument blog! After discussing the blog and some listener feedback, we break down two recent 5-4 decisions -- the shadow docket fight over USAID funding in Department of State v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Section 1983 exhaustion decision in Williams v. Reed (or should we say Rev. Stat. 1979?).

]]> Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:57:09 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/stunned-but-respectful-RJpN8dk4 We announce the new Divided Argument blog! After discussing the blog and some listener feedback, we break down two recent 5-4 decisions -- the shadow docket fight over USAID funding in Department of State v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Section 1983 exhaustion decision in Williams v. Reed (or should we say Rev. Stat. 1979?).

]]> Stunned But Respectful Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:06:00 We announce the new Divided Argument blog! After discussing the blog and some listener feedback, we break down two recent 5-4 decisions -- the shadow docket fight over USAID funding in Department of State v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Section 1983 exhaustion decision in Williams v. Reed (or should we say Rev. Stat. 1979?). We announce the new Divided Argument blog! After discussing the blog and some listener feedback, we break down two recent 5-4 decisions -- the shadow docket fight over USAID funding in Department of State v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Section 1983 exhaustion decision in Williams v. Reed (or should we say Rev. Stat. 1979?). false full 6 5 899506ab-51ce-4cd5-8b29-55c41c1b107f Natural Side Effect Back in the studio after a couple of fun live shows, we discover that the Court has finally given us too much to talk about. We discuss the new Trump Administration's first shadow docket adventure, a number of interesting solo opinions from the orders list, the decline in summary reversals, and the overall quality of oral advocacy before the Court. We then take a deep dive into the Court's opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital case with many factual, jurisdictional, and remedial complexities. 

]]> Thu, 27 Feb 2025 20:07:44 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/natural-side-effect-bI_R4grt Back in the studio after a couple of fun live shows, we discover that the Court has finally given us too much to talk about. We discuss the new Trump Administration's first shadow docket adventure, a number of interesting solo opinions from the orders list, the decline in summary reversals, and the overall quality of oral advocacy before the Court. We then take a deep dive into the Court's opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital case with many factual, jurisdictional, and remedial complexities. 

]]> Natural Side Effect Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:20:10 Back in the studio after a couple of fun live shows, we discover that the Court has finally given us too much to talk about. We discuss the new Trump Administration's first shadow docket adventure, a number of interesting solo opinions from the orders list, the decline in summary reversals, and the overall quality of oral advocacy before the Court. We then take a deep dive into the Court's opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital case with many factual, jurisdictional, and remedial complexities. Back in the studio after a couple of fun live shows, we discover that the Court has finally given us too much to talk about. We discuss the new Trump Administration's first shadow docket adventure, a number of interesting solo opinions from the orders list, the decline in summary reversals, and the overall quality of oral advocacy before the Court. We then take a deep dive into the Court's opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital case with many factual, jurisdictional, and remedial complexities. false full 5 5 34c659cd-98ab-45f0-be27-f7833099f78a Hypothetical Unicorn Divided Argument is live from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss whether we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis, the coming demise of Humphrey's Executor, and various shadow docket developments. Then we preview the issues at stake in next month's oral argument about firearms liability, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

]]> Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:14:12 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/hypothetical-unicorn-q7SLoZDY Divided Argument is live from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss whether we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis, the coming demise of Humphrey's Executor, and various shadow docket developments. Then we preview the issues at stake in next month's oral argument about firearms liability, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

]]> Hypothetical Unicorn Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:04:21 Divided Argument is live from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss whether we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis, the coming demise of Humphrey's Executor, and various shadow docket developments. Then we preview the issues at stake in next month's oral argument about firearms liability, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Divided Argument is live from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss whether we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis, the coming demise of Humphrey's Executor, and various shadow docket developments. Then we preview the issues at stake in next month's oral argument about firearms liability, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. false full 4 5 fffb831b-ff4d-4b06-b3bf-746ee4a52e2c Double Negatives Divided Argument is live from Stanford Law School, hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center! We review an unusual summary reversal in a capital habeas case and the latest universal injunction developments, and discuss some of the implications of the change in administration. After that, we are joined by a very special guest to discuss the recent arguments in the excessive force case of Barnes v. Felix.

]]> Thu, 30 Jan 2025 16:40:17 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/double-negatives-DMLRbVn0 Divided Argument is live from Stanford Law School, hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center! We review an unusual summary reversal in a capital habeas case and the latest universal injunction developments, and discuss some of the implications of the change in administration. After that, we are joined by a very special guest to discuss the recent arguments in the excessive force case of Barnes v. Felix.

]]> Double Negatives Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:07:17 Divided Argument is live from Stanford Law School, hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center! We review an unusual summary reversal in a capital habeas case and the latest universal injunction developments, and discuss some of the implications of the change in administration. After that, we are joined by a very special guest to discuss the recent arguments in the excessive force case of Barnes v. Felix. Divided Argument is live from Stanford Law School, hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center! We review an unusual summary reversal in a capital habeas case and the latest universal injunction developments, and discuss some of the implications of the change in administration. After that, we are joined by a very special guest to discuss the recent arguments in the excessive force case of Barnes v. Felix. false full 3 5 81e49e34-2b3b-4314-8446-b0a254cf3d7b Reference Check In unpredictable fashion, we record a shockingly timely episode to reflect on the Court's hasty per curiam in the TikTok case. Along the way, we catch up on the shadow docket happenings, manage not to get derailed by an ethics discussion, discover a surprising opinion revision in real time, and break down the Court's opinion  in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most importantly, Dan—with help from loyal listeners—collects on a bet Will unwisely made years ago. 

]]> Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:43:01 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/reference-check-pPZmtwIm In unpredictable fashion, we record a shockingly timely episode to reflect on the Court's hasty per curiam in the TikTok case. Along the way, we catch up on the shadow docket happenings, manage not to get derailed by an ethics discussion, discover a surprising opinion revision in real time, and break down the Court's opinion  in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most importantly, Dan—with help from loyal listeners—collects on a bet Will unwisely made years ago. 

]]> Reference Check Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:05:33 In unpredictable fashion, we record a shockingly timely episode to reflect on the Court's hasty per curiam in the TikTok case. Along the way, we catch up on the shadow docket happenings, manage not to get derailed by an ethics discussion, discover a surprising opinion revision in real time, and break down the Court's opinion in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most importantly, Dan—with help from loyal listeners—collects on a bet Will unwisely made years ago. In unpredictable fashion, we record a shockingly timely episode to reflect on the Court's hasty per curiam in the TikTok case. Along the way, we catch up on the shadow docket happenings, manage not to get derailed by an ethics discussion, discover a surprising opinion revision in real time, and break down the Court's opinion in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most importantly, Dan—with help from loyal listeners—collects on a bet Will unwisely made years ago. true full 2 5 8db8b978-af0e-41b5-84c7-d3b79bb9d3f4 Aide-de-camp After an unpredictably long hiatus, we're back to break down what we missed. We debate the off-the-rails FedSoc panel Dan was on, work through some shadow docket happenings and the Court's two recent DIGs, ponder the implications of the election on the Court, and briefly discuss the first merits opinion of the Term, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas.

]]> Tue, 17 Dec 2024 19:51:51 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/aide-de-camp-J_deiVe1 After an unpredictably long hiatus, we're back to break down what we missed. We debate the off-the-rails FedSoc panel Dan was on, work through some shadow docket happenings and the Court's two recent DIGs, ponder the implications of the election on the Court, and briefly discuss the first merits opinion of the Term, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas.

]]> Aide-de-camp Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:10:52 After an unpredictably long hiatus, we're back to talk about what we missed. We debate the off-the-rails FedSoc panel Dan was on, work through some shadow docket happenings and the Court's two recent DIGs, ponder the implications of the election on the Court, and briefly discuss the first merits opinion of the Term, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. After an unpredictably long hiatus, we're back to talk about what we missed. We debate the off-the-rails FedSoc panel Dan was on, work through some shadow docket happenings and the Court's two recent DIGs, ponder the implications of the election on the Court, and briefly discuss the first merits opinion of the Term, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. false full 1 5 3b395b6a-68c4-455f-804d-7f94872d84ad Separation-of-Powers Police After a long hiatus, we're particularly unpredictable with an episode that isn't about the Supreme Court. We're joined by NYU law professor Daryl Levinson to talk about his exciting and important new book on constitutional theory, Law For Leviathan: Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State. Listen to learn why the Supreme Court's constitutional pronouncements on separation of powers might not matter as much as you thought—and along the way you'll find out what might happen to Will if he starts breaking into his colleagues' cars at the University of Chicago parking lot. 

Law for Leviathan: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-for-leviathan-9780190061593?cc=us&lang=en&

]]> Thu, 26 Sep 2024 13:55:15 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/separation-of-powers-police-5UgUzHLs After a long hiatus, we're particularly unpredictable with an episode that isn't about the Supreme Court. We're joined by NYU law professor Daryl Levinson to talk about his exciting and important new book on constitutional theory, Law For Leviathan: Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State. Listen to learn why the Supreme Court's constitutional pronouncements on separation of powers might not matter as much as you thought—and along the way you'll find out what might happen to Will if he starts breaking into his colleagues' cars at the University of Chicago parking lot. 

Law for Leviathan: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-for-leviathan-9780190061593?cc=us&lang=en&

]]> Separation-of-Powers Police Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:12:36 After a long hiatus, we're particularly unpredictable with an episode that isn't about the Supreme Court. We're joined by NYU law professor Daryl Levinson to talk about his exciting and important new book on constitutional theory, Law For Leviathan: Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State. Listen to learn why the Supreme Court's constitutional pronouncements on separation of powers might not matter as much as you thought—and along the way you'll find out what might happen to Will if he starts breaking into his colleagues' cars at the University of Chicago parking lot. After a long hiatus, we're particularly unpredictable with an episode that isn't about the Supreme Court. We're joined by NYU law professor Daryl Levinson to talk about his exciting and important new book on constitutional theory, Law For Leviathan: Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State. Listen to learn why the Supreme Court's constitutional pronouncements on separation of powers might not matter as much as you thought—and along the way you'll find out what might happen to Will if he starts breaking into his colleagues' cars at the University of Chicago parking lot. false full 23 4 9e9b913c-4298-4865-a19b-a13823001f16 Not the Best Founder We take a long last look at two more end-of-term cases, where the Court made news with what it did NOT decide: Moyle v. United States (the abortion/EMTALA case), and Moody v. Net Choice (state regulation of social media). But first, a bit of debate about some prominent figures in constitutional history.

]]> Fri, 9 Aug 2024 09:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/not-the-best-founder-IipKCEyg We take a long last look at two more end-of-term cases, where the Court made news with what it did NOT decide: Moyle v. United States (the abortion/EMTALA case), and Moody v. Net Choice (state regulation of social media). But first, a bit of debate about some prominent figures in constitutional history.

]]> Not the Best Founder Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:16:51 We take a long last look at two more end-of-term cases, where the Court made news with what it did NOT decide: Moyle v. United States (the abortion/EMTALA case), and Moody v. Net Choice (state regulation of social media). But first, a bit of debate about some prominent figures in constitutional history. We take a long last look at two more end-of-term cases, where the Court made news with what it did NOT decide: Moyle v. United States (the abortion/EMTALA case), and Moody v. Net Choice (state regulation of social media). But first, a bit of debate about some prominent figures in constitutional history. false full 22 4 d660f730-5f65-4b66-aefd-3c47ec4d3bb9 Hype Music Unpredictably, our recent torrent of episodes continues. We take a deep dive into Moore v. United States, which addressed the scope of Congress's constitutional power to tax. 

]]> Mon, 5 Aug 2024 09:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/hype-music-kn6bxYz3 Unpredictably, our recent torrent of episodes continues. We take a deep dive into Moore v. United States, which addressed the scope of Congress's constitutional power to tax. 

]]> Hype Music Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:02:37 Unpredictably, our recent torrent of episodes continues. We take a deep dive into Moore v. United States, which addressed the scope of Congress's constitutional power to tax. Unpredictably, our recent torrent of episodes continues. We take a deep dive into Moore v. United States, which addressed the scope of Congress's constitutional power to tax. false full 21 4 2124a6d2-b6f8-4301-9d8f-7503c0ac0e5d Reticulated Python We continue our breakneck pace and dig into two substantive criminal law opinions: Fischer v. United States and Snyder v. United States. 

]]> Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/reticulated-python-dc13EfJs We continue our breakneck pace and dig into two substantive criminal law opinions: Fischer v. United States and Snyder v. United States. 

]]> Reticulated Python Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:11:43 We continue our breakneck pace and dig into two substantive criminal law opinions: Fischer v. United States and Snyder v. United States. We continue our breakneck pace and dig into two substantive criminal law opinions: Fischer v. United States and Snyder v. United States. false full 20 4 91893d05-f10f-4146-a19c-70edf7b55a80 Ultimatum Game We're back just a few days after our last episode to dive in to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, a 5-4 decision about the power of the bankruptcy system to release claims against third parties.

]]> Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:15:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/ultimatum-game-bEtesJQW We're back just a few days after our last episode to dive in to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, a 5-4 decision about the power of the bankruptcy system to release claims against third parties.

]]> Ultimatum Game Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:58:55 We're back just a few days after our last episode to dive in to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, a 5-4 decision about the power of the bankruptcy system to release claims against third parties. We're back just a few days after our last episode to dive in to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, a 5-4 decision about the power of the bankruptcy system to release claims against third parties. false full 19 4 61d29b43-896b-4e61-a11e-9e23a2a00ae8 Libertarian Legal Morality Tales As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes.

]]> Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:31:51 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/libertarian-legal-morality-tales-nVer_ugo As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes.

]]> Libertarian Legal Morality Tales Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:12:16 As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes. As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes. true full 18 4 f214a0c7-18ab-4c1b-a3d2-df45bd36c653 Evil Batman After a vacation-related hiatus, we're back to discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron) and Corner Post v. Board of Governors (time limits for challenges to regulations). We try to figure out just how disruptive these decisions will be for the administrative state and somehow manage not to waste half the episode debating Supreme Court ethics.

]]> Fri, 19 Jul 2024 12:23:30 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/evil-batman-bQuDG2h3 After a vacation-related hiatus, we're back to discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron) and Corner Post v. Board of Governors (time limits for challenges to regulations). We try to figure out just how disruptive these decisions will be for the administrative state and somehow manage not to waste half the episode debating Supreme Court ethics.

]]> Evil Batman Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:25:12 After a vacation-related hiatus, we're back to discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron) and Corner Post v. Board of Governors (time limits for challenges to regulations). We try to figure out just how disruptive these decisions will be for the administrative state and somehow manage not to waste half the episode debating Supreme Court ethics. After a vacation-related hiatus, we're back to discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron) and Corner Post v. Board of Governors (time limits for challenges to regulations). We try to figure out just how disruptive these decisions will be for the administrative state and somehow manage not to waste half the episode debating Supreme Court ethics. false full 17 4 1b764281-3995-4572-a0f5-93d70c4915a1 Back on the Island Will makes Dan interrupt his vacation to talk about the case you've all been clamoring for: Trump v. United States.

]]> Thu, 4 Jul 2024 06:08:20 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/back-on-the-island-sWZsMI6P Will makes Dan interrupt his vacation to talk about the case you've all been clamoring for: Trump v. United States.

]]> Back on the Island Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:15:04 Will makes Dan interrupt his vacation to talk about the case you've all been clamoring for: Trump v. United States. Will makes Dan interrupt his vacation to talk about the case you've all been clamoring for: Trump v. United States. false full 16 4 7f96d48b-4dd6-44e2-918f-1e1cc6077c9c Hope Springs Eternal We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

]]> Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:10:50 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/hope-springs-eternal-qb_ERlT1 We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

]]> Hope Springs Eternal Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:34:05 We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. false full 15 4 c693fd03-941f-4f0d-86d5-6d2c58021309 Felony-Adjacent We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

]]> Wed, 26 Jun 2024 02:37:41 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/felony-adjacent-c_Oje_sF We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

]]> Felony-Adjacent Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:08:23 We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey. We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey. false full 14 4 8a8ffbdf-cff4-4711-ae97-98a872d6485d Small Victories After another discussion of Supreme Court ethics and legitimacy (hopefully our last for a long time), we discuss three of last week's decisions. We cover issues of statutory interpretation in Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock case), of standing in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the mifepristone case), and of constitutional remedies in US Trustee v. John Q Hammons (a bankruptcy case).

]]> Thu, 20 Jun 2024 03:19:09 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/small-victories-EM89u8rn After another discussion of Supreme Court ethics and legitimacy (hopefully our last for a long time), we discuss three of last week's decisions. We cover issues of statutory interpretation in Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock case), of standing in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the mifepristone case), and of constitutional remedies in US Trustee v. John Q Hammons (a bankruptcy case).

]]> Small Victories Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:28:17 After another discussion of Supreme Court ethics and legitimacy (hopefully our last for a long time), we discuss three of last week's decisions. We cover issues of statutory interpretation in Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock case), of standing in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the mifepristone case), and of constitutional remedies in US Trustee v. John Q Hammons (a bankruptcy case). After another discussion of Supreme Court ethics and legitimacy (hopefully our last for a long time), we discuss three of last week's decisions. We cover issues of statutory interpretation in Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock case), of standing in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the mifepristone case), and of constitutional remedies in US Trustee v. John Q Hammons (a bankruptcy case). false full 13 4 321bfa08-35ea-41ce-877b-a61d0a1da11b Vexillology Unpredictably, we take a new approach and record immediately after the Court drops new opinions. We dig into Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (voting rights) and NRA v. Vullo (free speech). Before that, we engage with listener feedback and talk about the latest developments in the endless Alito flag saga. 

]]> Sun, 2 Jun 2024 03:33:57 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/vexillology-9obnGfRd Unpredictably, we take a new approach and record immediately after the Court drops new opinions. We dig into Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (voting rights) and NRA v. Vullo (free speech). Before that, we engage with listener feedback and talk about the latest developments in the endless Alito flag saga. 

]]> Vexillology Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:37:55 Unpredictably, we take a new approach and record immediately after the Court drops new opinions. We dig into Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (voting rights) and NRA v. Vullo (free speech). Before that, we engage with listener feedback and talk about the latest developments in the endless Alito flag saga. Unpredictably, we take a new approach and record immediately after the Court drops new opinions. We dig into Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (voting rights) and NRA v. Vullo (free speech). Before that, we engage with listener feedback and talk about the latest developments in the endless Alito flag saga. false full 12 4 c25d6343-dc94-46f4-a4d3-0bb22e5d6990 p(doom) Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence. 

]]> Fri, 24 May 2024 17:48:26 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/pdoom-6mmWoT6t Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence. 

]]> p(doom) Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:29:03 Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence. Continuing our pattern of staying a week behind the Court's latest output, we discuss last week's opinions: CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (the Appropriations Clause), Harrow v. Department of Defense (jurisdiction and equitable tolling); and Smith v. Spizzirri (arbitration), while also covering the shadow docket order in a Louisiana redistricting case. Before those, we touch on a bunch of topics including Justice Alito's flag display and the degree of existential risk posed by artificial intelligence. false full 11 4 228db9bb-f10e-469b-8238-a7851ec00dc9 Poison Pill in Your Pocket We follow up on feedback, puzzle over the Court's apparent continued lack of interest in Fourth Amendment cases, and then discuss two of the latest opinions—Culley v. Marshall (civil forfeiture) and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (copyright).

And yes, we know Dan's audio sounds terrible due to a technical snafu, sorry!

]]> Thu, 16 May 2024 19:56:11 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/poison-pill-in-your-pocket-LLrFMKCi We follow up on feedback, puzzle over the Court's apparent continued lack of interest in Fourth Amendment cases, and then discuss two of the latest opinions—Culley v. Marshall (civil forfeiture) and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (copyright).

And yes, we know Dan's audio sounds terrible due to a technical snafu, sorry!

]]> Poison Pill in Your Pocket Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:16:58 We follow up on feedback, puzzle over the Court's apparent continued lack of interest in Fourth Amendment cases, and then discuss two of the latest opinions—Culley v. Marshall (civil forfeiture) and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (copyright). And yes, we know Dan's audio sounds terrible due to a technical snafu, sorry! We follow up on feedback, puzzle over the Court's apparent continued lack of interest in Fourth Amendment cases, and then discuss two of the latest opinions—Culley v. Marshall (civil forfeiture) and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy (copyright). And yes, we know Dan's audio sounds terrible due to a technical snafu, sorry! false full 10 4 4b3b9d9f-441a-4e07-a07c-6bf0ac0287e5 Radical Agreement After taking some listener questions, we analyze the lengthy shadow docket opinions in Labrador v. Poe, dealing with universal relief, emergency applications, and more. We then tackle two recent merits opinions: Devillier v. Texas (takings) and Muldrow v. St. Louis (Title VII).

]]> Fri, 26 Apr 2024 03:45:26 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/radical-agreement-19inKCEs After taking some listener questions, we analyze the lengthy shadow docket opinions in Labrador v. Poe, dealing with universal relief, emergency applications, and more. We then tackle two recent merits opinions: Devillier v. Texas (takings) and Muldrow v. St. Louis (Title VII).

]]> Radical Agreement Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:10:28 After taking some listener questions, we analyze the lengthy shadow docket opinions in Labrador v. Poe, dealing with universal relief, emergency applications, and more. We then tackle two recent merits opinions: Devillier v. Texas (takings) and Muldrow v. St. Louis (Title VII). After taking some listener questions, we analyze the lengthy shadow docket opinions in Labrador v. Poe, dealing with universal relief, emergency applications, and more. We then tackle two recent merits opinions: Devillier v. Texas (takings) and Muldrow v. St. Louis (Title VII). false full 9 4 90cfb418-165c-4dff-95ea-2b21ba484379 Bootlegging-Adjacent After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies.

]]> Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:06:15 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/bootlegging-adjacent-muGfxhg5 After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies.

]]> Bootlegging-Adjacent Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:04:41 After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies. After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies. false full 8 4 bc747286-2c8a-4184-945e-0d40be59b57f Dinkus After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour!

]]> Wed, 20 Mar 2024 01:58:59 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/dinkus-kcF9r4VC After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour!

]]> Dinkus Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:03:59 After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour! After grappling with listener feedback ranging from the acoustic to the typographical, we catch up on last month's decisions in Great Lakes v. Raiders Retreat Realty (admiralty) and McElrath v. Georgia (double jeopardy). We then turn to last week's decisions about public officials on social media, Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratliff v. Garnier, and then finally to the statutory interpretation decision in Pulsifer v. United States. It's a lot of cases in just over an hour! false full 7 4 f89e5c7c-1b1f-44ff-bb81-673ec9738821 Political Hacks Pretending to be Lawyers We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech.

]]> Tue, 5 Mar 2024 16:53:37 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/political-hacks-pretending-to-be-lawyers-QXvLbbC2 We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech.

]]> Political Hacks Pretending to be Lawyers Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:59:19 We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech. We (of course) break down the Court's opinions in Trump v. Anderson, the Section Three case from Colorado. We also discuss the Court's cert. grant on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution, and several other opinions on the orders list, dealing with rent control, magnet school admissions, and campus speech. false full 6 4 2d0f2fc2-b33a-4e88-8ecb-35efa2fa8024 Votin' for Lincoln After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot?

]]> Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:45:13 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/votin-for-lincoln-3T9kha7i After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot?

]]> Votin' for Lincoln Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:53:15 After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot? After quick review of an order about admissions at West Point and two new unanimous opinions, we spend almost all of the episode breaking down last week's oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson. What excuse will the Supreme Court use to keep Colorado from disqualifying Trump from the ballot? false full 5 4 bf184d8e-1d7b-400d-9cda-22ef00f5bc34 Into the Brick Wall After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it. 

]]> Thu, 11 Jan 2024 14:11:34 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/into-the-brick-wall-dOJxFmS8 After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it. 

]]> Into the Brick Wall Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:06:10 After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it. After catching up on a few odds and ends, we decide to give the people what they want and discuss Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and whether the Supreme Court could possibly declare Donald Trump ineligible for the Presidency. You won't want to miss it. false full 4 4 28c70aed-b30e-468b-8079-1aabe0f602ae Muppetproof We discuss the passing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then turn to two interesting opinions on the shadow docket (in Griffin v. HM Florida and DuPont v. Abbott), and finally break down the Court's first merits opinion of the term in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, at the intersection of standing and mootness. Will also expresses skepticism about Dan's latest AI habit.

]]> Sun, 10 Dec 2023 21:30:37 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/muppetproof-Tut4UnCd We discuss the passing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then turn to two interesting opinions on the shadow docket (in Griffin v. HM Florida and DuPont v. Abbott), and finally break down the Court's first merits opinion of the term in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, at the intersection of standing and mootness. Will also expresses skepticism about Dan's latest AI habit.

]]> Muppetproof Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:08:38 We discuss the passing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then turn to two interesting opinions on the shadow docket (in Griffin v. HM Florida and DuPont v. Abbott), and finally break down the Court's first merits opinion of the term in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, at the intersection of standing and mootness. Will also expresses skepticism about Dan's latest AI habit. We discuss the passing of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, then turn to two interesting opinions on the shadow docket (in Griffin v. HM Florida and DuPont v. Abbott), and finally break down the Court's first merits opinion of the term in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, at the intersection of standing and mootness. Will also expresses skepticism about Dan's latest AI habit. false full 3 4 2674eb27-48b2-4487-912e-9fd1dd2495f5 Easy Win We discuss the Court's new Code of Conduct, catch up on shadow docket happenings, and debate what historians can teach originalists. We then recap the argument United States v. Rahimi, (the Term's big Second Amendment case). Finally, we stay on brand by circling back to Pulsifer v. United States from the October sitting, where the Justices puzzled over deep questions about  statutory interpretation. 

]]> Thu, 16 Nov 2023 16:06:54 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/easy-win-_aqO000a We discuss the Court's new Code of Conduct, catch up on shadow docket happenings, and debate what historians can teach originalists. We then recap the argument United States v. Rahimi, (the Term's big Second Amendment case). Finally, we stay on brand by circling back to Pulsifer v. United States from the October sitting, where the Justices puzzled over deep questions about  statutory interpretation. 

]]> Easy Win Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:12:41 We discuss the Court's new Code of Conduct, catch up on shadow docket happenings, and debate what historians can teach originalists. We then recap the argument United States v. Rahimi, (the Term's big Second Amendment case). Finally, we stay on brand by circling back to Pulsifer v. United States from the October sitting, where the Justices puzzled over deep questions about statutory interpretation. We discuss the Court's new Code of Conduct, catch up on shadow docket happenings, and debate what historians can teach originalists. We then recap the argument United States v. Rahimi, (the Term's big Second Amendment case). Finally, we stay on brand by circling back to Pulsifer v. United States from the October sitting, where the Justices puzzled over deep questions about statutory interpretation. false full 2 4 1c1cd58d-5eb2-4447-bd14-dd115e0cbef7 Good Dig The October Term is now underway, and that means it's time for Season 4 of the show. We catch up on the inevitable shadow docket happenings before diving into a discussion of two cases that were argued earlier in the month. First, we dig into Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, and debate which jurisdictional ground the Court will rely on to get rid of the case. Then, we give the people what they want and talk about admiralty law in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. 

]]> Fri, 27 Oct 2023 17:53:47 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/good-dig-0mD9qu_0 The October Term is now underway, and that means it's time for Season 4 of the show. We catch up on the inevitable shadow docket happenings before diving into a discussion of two cases that were argued earlier in the month. First, we dig into Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, and debate which jurisdictional ground the Court will rely on to get rid of the case. Then, we give the people what they want and talk about admiralty law in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. 

]]> Good Dig Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:07:42 The October Term is now underway, and that means it's time for Season 4 of the show. We catch up on the inevitable shadow docket happenings before diving into a discussion of two cases that were argued earlier in the month. First, we dig into Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, and debate which jurisdictional ground the Court will rely on to get rid of the case. Then, we give the people what they want and talk about admiralty law in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. The October Term is now underway, and that means it's time for Season 4 of the show. We catch up on the inevitable shadow docket happenings before diving into a discussion of two cases that were argued earlier in the month. First, we dig into Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, and debate which jurisdictional ground the Court will rely on to get rid of the case. Then, we give the people what they want and talk about admiralty law in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. false full 1 4 cbcfbcf5-6c58-41fd-9a31-aecc6d0f97c7 Screaming Clown The Court hasn't done too much while the summer recess drags on, but we're back for what might be our last episode of Season 3 before Season 4 kicks off with the new Term. We manage to piece together an episode with some items from the mailbag, some SG gossip, and a few shadow docket happenings. 

]]> Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:37:58 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/screaming-clown-vNxYKlWe The Court hasn't done too much while the summer recess drags on, but we're back for what might be our last episode of Season 3 before Season 4 kicks off with the new Term. We manage to piece together an episode with some items from the mailbag, some SG gossip, and a few shadow docket happenings. 

]]> Screaming Clown Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:04:15 The Court hasn't done too much while the summer recess drags on, but we're back for what might be our last episode of Season 3 before Season 4 kicks off with the new Term. We manage to piece together an episode with some items from the mailbag, some SG gossip, and a few shadow docket happenings. The Court hasn't done too much while the summer recess drags on, but we're back for what might be our last episode of Season 3 before Season 4 kicks off with the new Term. We manage to piece together an episode with some items from the mailbag, some SG gossip, and a few shadow docket happenings. false full 25 3 b62adf78-f742-4181-8527-b1c9332115b7 Lib Fanfiction The Justices have beenoff  on their European vacations for a couple of months but we're still cranking out episodes breaking down last Term. We start off by discussion Will and Michael Stokes Paulsen's SSRN-breaking article arguing that Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We then break down a couple of shadow-docket happenings involving "ghost guns" and the Purdue bankruptcy. We then finally clear our backlog of June cases by discussing two last opinions: Coinbase v. Bielski, which involves the intersection of arbitration and appellate jurisdiction,  and Groff v. DeJoy, which importantly clarified employers' obligations to provide religious accommodations to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

]]> Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/lib-fanfiction-DIPovf_s The Justices have beenoff  on their European vacations for a couple of months but we're still cranking out episodes breaking down last Term. We start off by discussion Will and Michael Stokes Paulsen's SSRN-breaking article arguing that Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We then break down a couple of shadow-docket happenings involving "ghost guns" and the Purdue bankruptcy. We then finally clear our backlog of June cases by discussing two last opinions: Coinbase v. Bielski, which involves the intersection of arbitration and appellate jurisdiction,  and Groff v. DeJoy, which importantly clarified employers' obligations to provide religious accommodations to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

]]> Lib Fanfiction Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:09:36 The Justices have been on their European vacations for a couple of months but we're still cranking out episodes breaking down last Term. We start off by discussion Will and Michael Stokes Paulsen's SSRN-breaking article arguing that Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We then break down a couple of shadow-docket happenings involving "ghost guns" and the Purdue bankruptcy. We then finally clear our backlog of June opinions by discussing two last opinions: Coinbase v. Bielski, which involves the intersection of arbitration and appellate jurisdiction, and Groff v. DeJoy, which importantly clarified employers' obligations to provide religious accommodations to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Justices have been on their European vacations for a couple of months but we're still cranking out episodes breaking down last Term. We start off by discussion Will and Michael Stokes Paulsen's SSRN-breaking article arguing that Donald Trump is ineligible for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We then break down a couple of shadow-docket happenings involving "ghost guns" and the Purdue bankruptcy. We then finally clear our backlog of June opinions by discussing two last opinions: Coinbase v. Bielski, which involves the intersection of arbitration and appellate jurisdiction, and Groff v. DeJoy, which importantly clarified employers' obligations to provide religious accommodations to employees under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. false full 24 3 6b184bb3-d735-40c5-a99e-b1324e5280bb Map Guy We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests.

]]> Wed, 9 Aug 2023 13:03:10 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/map-guy-a6b1swdJ We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests.

]]> Map Guy Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:10:14 We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests. We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests. false full 23 3 6fb345dc-f3c1-4e58-858e-b663b8a21be4 Triple Threat What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in little more than a week? We briefly discuss the latest developments in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. 

]]> Mon, 31 Jul 2023 10:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/triple-threat-HeK2EwgZ What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in little more than a week? We briefly discuss the latest developments in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. 

]]> Triple Threat Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:05:33 What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in little more than a week? We briefly discuss the jurisdictional complexities in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit recent ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in little more than a week? We briefly discuss the jurisdictional complexities in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit recent ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. false full 22 3 ac2a8e1f-a29b-4947-9229-f953dc17ae6d Dishonorable Tradition We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States.

]]> Thu, 27 Jul 2023 14:15:06 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/dishonorable-tradition-qoxli9YY We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States.

]]> Dishonorable Tradition Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:14:27 We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States. We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States. false full 21 3 ebc4fb45-e4ab-4fd1-8498-9acc8bb44450 Peak SG In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper. 

]]> Mon, 24 Jul 2023 16:28:44 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/peak-sg-L49UTNll In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper. 

]]> Peak SG Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:52:47 In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely three days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper. In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely three days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper. false full 20 3 d28cd87a-3841-456d-b2f8-44fd439a65bb My Despised World After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned "United States v. Texas." 

]]> Fri, 21 Jul 2023 20:44:45 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/my-despised-world-zvTl_ZkE After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned "United States v. Texas." 

]]> My Despised World Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:55:29 After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned "United States v. Texas." After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned "United States v. Texas." false full 19 3 7a02ab53-cc03-4c2e-b829-09c4ac56e958 Demokratia We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hansen, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge.

]]> Wed, 28 Jun 2023 21:29:33 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/demokratia-hN7Yqngx We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hansen, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge.

]]> Demokratia Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:33:35 We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hansen, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge. We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hansen, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge. false full 18 3 9ac0fd9d-1374-47c2-b9c7-cbaeb00856fc Justified True Belief We discuss a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss Tyler v. Hennepin County, United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., and Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. 

]]> Mon, 5 Jun 2023 20:10:25 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/justified-true-belief-ebFMkrXD We discuss a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss Tyler v. Hennepin County, United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., and Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. 

]]> Justified True Belief Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:09:28 We discuss a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss Tyler v. Hennepin County, United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., and Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. We discuss a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss Tyler v. Hennepin County, United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., and Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. false full 17 3 23418768-3c44-4e03-a01d-ecce89b6e95a Pale Fire We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. 

]]> Wed, 24 May 2023 20:07:26 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/pale-fire-Bkx_EhIl We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. 

]]> Pale Fire Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:11:07 We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. false full 16 3 5751f431-0794-438e-81da-7a34cee9454c Break the Fourth Wall After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, Percoco and Ciminelli. 

]]> Thu, 18 May 2023 22:19:46 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/break-the-fourth-wall-UKI5Antt After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, Percoco and Ciminelli. 

]]> Break the Fourth Wall Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:59:55 After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, Percoco and Ciminelli. After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, Percoco and Ciminelli. false full 15 3 1c9165ee-ed04-47ef-968e-de3c43b8aaf4 Provocative Subtitle We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough.

]]> Tue, 16 May 2023 12:02:49 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/provocative-subtitle-dfK7bRJm We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough.

]]> Provocative Subtitle Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:54:07 We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough. We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough. false full 14 3 2d489830-f4ab-4569-8d18-f338381a4a04 Creator of the Stars of Night We cover many developments -- Justice Alito's unusual interview in the Wall Street Journal, the release of Justice Stevens' papers, more news on Supreme Court ethics, as well as a new cert. grant on the Chevron doctrine, the mifepristone shadow-docket ruling, and still more jurisdictional news in Moore v. Harper. But first -- an anonymous caller drops a new voicemail song.

]]> Sat, 6 May 2023 19:02:08 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/creator-of-the-stars-of-night-WuMppN2e We cover many developments -- Justice Alito's unusual interview in the Wall Street Journal, the release of Justice Stevens' papers, more news on Supreme Court ethics, as well as a new cert. grant on the Chevron doctrine, the mifepristone shadow-docket ruling, and still more jurisdictional news in Moore v. Harper. But first -- an anonymous caller drops a new voicemail song.

]]> Creator of the Stars of Night Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:12:25 We cover many developments -- Justice Alito's unusual interview in the Wall Street Journal, the release of Justice Stevens' papers, more news on Supreme Court ethics, as well as a new cert. grant on the Chevron doctrine, the mifepristone shadow-docket ruling, and still more jurisdictional news in Moore v. Harper. But first -- an anonymous caller drops a new voicemail song. We cover many developments -- Justice Alito's unusual interview in the Wall Street Journal, the release of Justice Stevens' papers, more news on Supreme Court ethics, as well as a new cert. grant on the Chevron doctrine, the mifepristone shadow-docket ruling, and still more jurisdictional news in Moore v. Harper. But first -- an anonymous caller drops a new voicemail song. false full 13 3 d88e9d07-5f64-4453-b1c2-ab5fdeadac9d Best Suits We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions --  Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States and Reed v. Goertz.

]]> Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:28:49 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/best-suits-iI_0ckIZ We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions --  Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States and Reed v. Goertz.

]]> Best Suits Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:49:44 We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions -- Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States and Reed v. Goertz. We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions -- Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States and Reed v. Goertz. false full 12 3 f85e8b58-e0c8-45de-a91e-a4893f2166bf A Chanting of Morrison v. Olson We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe (starting at 25:41) and Donziger v. United States (starting at 35:15) -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized.

]]> Mon, 3 Apr 2023 16:54:26 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/a-chanting-of-morrison-v-olson-AxpVzELI We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe (starting at 25:41) and Donziger v. United States (starting at 35:15) -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized.

]]> A Chanting of Morrison v. Olson Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:01:11 We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe and Donziger v. United States -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized. We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe and Donziger v. United States -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized. false full 11 3 b402ecf2-cfca-49b0-8d93-411279567a7d Mr. Jurisdiction We're back to break down two of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 opinions—Bittner v. United States, about penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, and Cruz v. Arizona, a death penalty case about state procedures and federal jurisdiction. But first, we take a brief look back at the oral arguments in the student loan case, and a new order and jurisdictional developments in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature case).

]]> Mon, 6 Mar 2023 16:17:55 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/mr-jurisdiction-XqDFT9eO We're back to break down two of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 opinions—Bittner v. United States, about penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, and Cruz v. Arizona, a death penalty case about state procedures and federal jurisdiction. But first, we take a brief look back at the oral arguments in the student loan case, and a new order and jurisdictional developments in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature case).

]]> Mr. Jurisdiction Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:08:47 We're back to break down two of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 opinions—Bittner v. United States, about penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, and Cruz v. Arizona, a death penalty case about state procedures and federal jurisdiction. But first, we take a brief look back at the oral arguments in the student loan case, and a new order and jurisdictional developments in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature case). We're back to break down two of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 opinions—Bittner v. United States, about penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, and Cruz v. Arizona, a death penalty case about state procedures and federal jurisdiction. But first, we take a brief look back at the oral arguments in the student loan case, and a new order and jurisdictional developments in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature case). false full 10 3 c0cb3d8b-3de7-473d-b7b0-d01b227f4ee3 Least Incorrect We're live at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree. 

]]> Sat, 18 Feb 2023 19:55:53 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/least-incorrect-ofsWUtNf We're live at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree. 

]]> Least Incorrect Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:05:09 We're live at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree. We're live at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree. false full 9 3 787aea13-966b-4894-99d7-e0a43dad9f43 Marching Orders We revisit the leak investigation, catch up on recent news, and then take a deep dive into the recent dispute in United States v. Texas  (starting at 37:56) over the scope of courts' power to vacate administrative rules and the related controversy over so-called "nationwide" injunctions. 

]]> Sat, 11 Feb 2023 17:58:34 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/marching-orders-cVJwzGT3 We revisit the leak investigation, catch up on recent news, and then take a deep dive into the recent dispute in United States v. Texas  (starting at 37:56) over the scope of courts' power to vacate administrative rules and the related controversy over so-called "nationwide" injunctions. 

]]> Marching Orders Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:02:02 We revisit the leak investigation, catch up on recent news, and then take a deep dive into the recent dispute in United States v. Texas over the scope of courts' power to vacate administrative rules and the related controversy over so-called "nationwide" injunctions. We revisit the leak investigation, catch up on recent news, and then take a deep dive into the recent dispute in United States v. Texas over the scope of courts' power to vacate administrative rules and the related controversy over so-called "nationwide" injunctions. nationwide injunctions, vacatur, administrative law false full 8 3 3550b78a-c5bd-4652-b8df-175093c45f37 Soft Target We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak!

]]> Sat, 21 Jan 2023 15:36:57 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/soft-target-46WV4G6_ We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak!

]]> Soft Target Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:48:08 We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak! We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak! false full 7 3 dbf9d993-0ad1-43df-84c5-ce996042c7fc Expanded Universe We catch up on some odds and ends, take a long detour through a debate about the merits of the Star Wars trilogies, and then dig into Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (starting at 38:10), an interesting case about the scope of foreign sovereign immunity being heard in the January sitting. 

]]> Sat, 14 Jan 2023 19:57:20 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/expanded-universe-Ogb8rS_a We catch up on some odds and ends, take a long detour through a debate about the merits of the Star Wars trilogies, and then dig into Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (starting at 38:10), an interesting case about the scope of foreign sovereign immunity being heard in the January sitting. 

]]> Expanded Universe Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:16:04 We catch up on some odds and ends, take a long detour through a debate about the merits of the Star Wars trilogies, and then dig into Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, an interesting case about the scope of foreign sovereign immunity being heard in the January sitting. We catch up on some odds and ends, take a long detour through a debate about the merits of the Star Wars trilogies, and then dig into Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, an interesting case about the scope of foreign sovereign immunity being heard in the January sitting. false full 6 3 76948316-400f-477b-88e5-e36626444e82 Unpersuasive Scholar Trolling We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States. 

]]> Thu, 24 Nov 2022 11:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/unpersuasive-scholar-trolling-Qa6aA234 We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States. 

]]> Unpersuasive Scholar Trolling Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:19:11 We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli and Percoco. We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli and Percoco. fraud, percoco, hobby lobby, ciminelli, leak false full 5 3 916e1edb-42c4-4fb7-93ff-46e924f058a6 Relentless Personal Attacks In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases. 

]]> Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:39:20 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/relentless-personal-attacks-HyVmyWI6 In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases. 

]]> Relentless Personal Attacks Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:24:38 In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases. In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases. false full 4 3 3120c6f0-1a52-44c0-80a3-394553d81db9 For Liberty and not for Fascism We check in on some Court-related news and developments and Dan gives Will a hard time for his recent bold claim about the conservative justices. We then dig deep into Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a fascinating personal jurisdiction case being argued in the November sitting.

]]> Wed, 2 Nov 2022 14:50:56 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/for-liberty-and-not-for-fascism-IMuQNwxM We check in on some Court-related news and developments and Dan gives Will a hard time for his recent bold claim about the conservative justices. We then dig deep into Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a fascinating personal jurisdiction case being argued in the November sitting.

]]> For Liberty and not for Fascism Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:00:51 We check in on some Court-related news and Dan gives Will a hard time for his recent bold claim about the conservative justices. We then dig deep into Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a fascinating personal jurisdiction case being argued in the November sitting. We check in on some Court-related news and Dan gives Will a hard time for his recent bold claim about the conservative justices. We then dig deep into Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., a fascinating personal jurisdiction case being argued in the November sitting. affirmative action, personal jurisdiction, mallory false full 3 3 03e24814-8708-4641-a92c-f6f564813d01 Horse Sausage We provided an extended preview of the arguments in one of the October cases, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which takes us into a long discussion of the "dormant" Commerce Clause and extraterritorial regulation. But first we discuss some statements from Justice Alito and Ginni Thomas, the newest circuit justice assignment, and some updates from last episode.

]]> Sun, 2 Oct 2022 19:12:22 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/horse-sausage-z3aAAPbW We provided an extended preview of the arguments in one of the October cases, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which takes us into a long discussion of the "dormant" Commerce Clause and extraterritorial regulation. But first we discuss some statements from Justice Alito and Ginni Thomas, the newest circuit justice assignment, and some updates from last episode.

]]> Horse Sausage Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:04:00 We provided an extended preview of the arguments in one of the October cases, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which takes us into a long discussion of the "dormant" Commerce Clause and extraterritorial regulation. But first we discuss some statements from Justice Alito and Ginni Thomas, the newest circuit justice assignment, and some updates from last episode. We provided an extended preview of the arguments in one of the October cases, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which takes us into a long discussion of the "dormant" Commerce Clause and extraterritorial regulation. But first we discuss some statements from Justice Alito and Ginni Thomas, the newest circuit justice assignment, and some updates from last episode. false full 2 3 542da065-8db6-45fb-a182-c063bdaeafe6 Maoist Takeover We open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University.

]]> Mon, 19 Sep 2022 12:25:16 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/maoist-takeover-TnKTDGBq We open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University.

]]> Maoist Takeover Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:03:41 We open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University. We open Season 3 with a live show at William and Mary Law School, part of the Scalia-Ginsburg Collegiality Speaker Series. With our first-ever guest, we discuss the limits of friendship and offer advice on civil disagreement. But first we break down the Supreme Court's ruling on an important stay application from Yeshiva University. yeshiva, religion, first amendment, lgbt, friendship, civility false full 1 3 005f788d-e484-4db3-b8bd-acc36778e230 I Say "Timbre" We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone.

]]> Sat, 30 Jul 2022 18:57:45 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/i-say-timbre-WoD9F3Q8 We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone.

]]> I Say "Timbre" Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:24:23 We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone. We catch up on listener questions and feedback (both positive and negative), and then spend a while on the neglected case of Vega v. Tekoh, about the intersection of remedies and Miranda. We also discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton, the case of the praying football coach. Unfortunately, Will recorded all of this into the wrong microphone. religion, civil rights, criminal procedure, football, miranda false full 14 2 e346688c-7838-4cdc-a790-d530cc70f71a Settling of Scores We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine."

]]> Sun, 10 Jul 2022 18:39:51 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/settling-of-scores-_RnPhZIy We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine."

]]> Settling of Scores Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:20:59 We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine." We reflect on the Supreme Court term as a whole, and the direction and politics of the Court. We focus on West Virginia v. EPA, which canonized the "major questions" doctrine, and the upcoming case of Moore v. Harper, which confronts the "independent state legislature doctrine." gerrymandering, court reform, major questions, lung cancer, climate change, clean power plan false full 13 2 8980404e-a733-49e9-aa3a-96eb57229fae Character Sketches In our longest episode yet, we break down two massively consequential cases: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. 

]]> Tue, 28 Jun 2022 11:57:48 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/character-sketches-0KblKm4u In our longest episode yet, we break down two massively consequential cases: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. 

]]> Character Sketches Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:57:13 In our longest episode yet, we break down two massively consequential cases: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In our longest episode yet, we break down two massively consequential cases: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. roe v. wade, gun control, guns, abortion false full 12 2 32d063a6-98a4-441b-8666-972e5683e359 COBRA We try to catch up after the Court's big opinion dump this week, and end up focusing on Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, Denezpi v. United States, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, and the DIG in Arizona v. San Francisco. Come for the legal analysis, stay for the health insurance advice. 

]]> Sun, 19 Jun 2022 20:38:10 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/cobra-4jTFJ5Su We try to catch up after the Court's big opinion dump this week, and end up focusing on Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, Denezpi v. United States, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, and the DIG in Arizona v. San Francisco. Come for the legal analysis, stay for the health insurance advice. 

]]> COBRA Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:28:54 We try to catch up after the Court's big opinion dump this week, and end up focusing on Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, Denezpi v. United States, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, and the DIG in Arizona v. San Francisco. Come for the legal analysis, stay for the health insurance advice. We try to catch up after the Court's big opinion dump this week, and end up focusing on Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, Denezpi v. United States, Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, and the DIG in Arizona v. San Francisco. Come for the legal analysis, stay for the health insurance advice. false full 11 2 4a78c564-302f-4bd6-b4b4-0839356ecc3d SMUGLER We're back to talk about Wednesday's decision in Egbert v. Boule and the problem of constitutional remedies. But first we catch up on the Court's pace of opinions, the leak investigation, the attempted attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and Puerto Rico (United States v. Vaello-Madero).

]]> Sat, 11 Jun 2022 03:28:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/smugler-nu5Mtyn6 We're back to talk about Wednesday's decision in Egbert v. Boule and the problem of constitutional remedies. But first we catch up on the Court's pace of opinions, the leak investigation, the attempted attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and Puerto Rico (United States v. Vaello-Madero).

]]> SMUGLER Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:21:40 We're back to talk about Wednesday's decision in Egbert v. Boule and the problem of constitutional remedies. But first we catch up on the Court's pace of opinions, the leak investigation, the attempted attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and Puerto Rico (United States v. Vaello-Madero). We're back to talk about Wednesday's decision in Egbert v. Boule and the problem of constitutional remedies. But first we catch up on the Court's pace of opinions, the leak investigation, the attempted attack on Justice Kavanaugh, and Puerto Rico (United States v. Vaello-Madero). false full 10 2 4266ffc3-f008-451f-be0f-918282105114 Marshal Law We're back to talk about the big news: the draft of Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, and the questions that surround it -- how and why this might have happened, what it means for the Court, and what the Court can do about it.

]]> Thu, 5 May 2022 03:19:27 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/marshal-law-FwVQ_b5b We're back to talk about the big news: the draft of Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, and the questions that surround it -- how and why this might have happened, what it means for the Court, and what the Court can do about it.

]]> Marshal Law Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:00:36 We're back to talk about the big news: the draft of Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, and the questions that surround it -- how and why this might have happened, what it means for the Court, and what the Court can do about it. We're back to talk about the big news: the draft of Justice Alito's opinion in Dobbs, and the questions that surround it -- how and why this might have happened, what it means for the Court, and what the Court can do about it. false full 9 2 359882ca-8ea5-47a2-bdea-9730ad64132f Hoosiers We try to clear our backlog after a break. We manage to make it through United States v. Tsarnaev, Ramirez v. Collier, and a few other odds and ends. 

]]> Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:33:31 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/hoosiers-mD0QgNHs We try to clear our backlog after a break. We manage to make it through United States v. Tsarnaev, Ramirez v. Collier, and a few other odds and ends. 

]]> Hoosiers Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:07:40 We try to clear our backlog after a break. We manage to make it through United States v. Tsarnaev, Ramirez v. Collier, and a few other odds and ends. We try to clear our backlog after a break. We manage to make it through United States v. Tsarnaev, Ramirez v. Collier, and a few other odds and ends. false full 8 2 9e0c5d5c-dcf9-4541-9134-0da5850cda98 Shmoland We try to catch up on what the Court did since we last recorded, but end only making it through the Court's opinions in United States v. Zubaydah and Wooden v. United States.

]]> Sat, 12 Mar 2022 20:07:02 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/shmoland-SjRgRriv We try to catch up on what the Court did since we last recorded, but end only making it through the Court's opinions in United States v. Zubaydah and Wooden v. United States.

]]> Shmoland Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:57:30 We try to catch up on what the Court did since we last recorded, but end only making it through the Court's opinions in United States v. Zubaydah and Wooden v. United States. We try to catch up on what the Court did since we last recorded, but end only making it through the Court's opinions in United States v. Zubaydah and Wooden v. United States. false full 7 2 ae44c6cf-1fe7-43cd-9783-491bca2a48e1 Knife in the Back We catch up on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a new opinion by Justice Breyer, revisit a debate about who the greatest law professor on the Supreme Court is, and talk through each of our recent scholarly efforts. Tune in to hear Dan surprisingly attack Will's Fourth Amendment views from the right flank, learn an interesting tidbit about Justice Brandeis, and get some insight into the mysterious originalist gathering in San Diego. 

]]> Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:36:35 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/knife-in-the-back-jZ90WMe_ We catch up on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a new opinion by Justice Breyer, revisit a debate about who the greatest law professor on the Supreme Court is, and talk through each of our recent scholarly efforts. Tune in to hear Dan surprisingly attack Will's Fourth Amendment views from the right flank, learn an interesting tidbit about Justice Brandeis, and get some insight into the mysterious originalist gathering in San Diego. 

]]> Knife in the Back Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:58:43 We catch up on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a new opinion by Justice Breyer, revisit a debate about who the greatest law professor on the Supreme Court is, and talk through each of our recent scholarly efforts. Tune in to hear Dan surprisingly attack Will's Fourth Amendment views from the right flank, learn an interesting tidbit about Justice Brandeis, and get some insight into the mysterious originalist gathering in San Diego. We catch up on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, a new opinion by Justice Breyer, revisit a debate about who the greatest law professor on the Supreme Court is, and talk through each of our recent scholarly efforts. Tune in to hear Dan surprisingly attack Will's Fourth Amendment views from the right flank, learn an interesting tidbit about Justice Brandeis, and get some insight into the mysterious originalist gathering in San Diego. false full 6 2 7ba794b5-d94e-46db-a0bb-1f756c790dad Speakin' to the Youth We're back after a long absence, but there's a good excuse. We catch up on the biggest developments from the last couple months, including the Breyer retirement, the Court's COVID decisions, the masking imbroglio, and the Alabama redistricting shadow-docket ruling. We also discuss Dan's childhood meeting with Justice Thomas, speculate about the median age of our listenership, and invent a new empirical metric for evaluating Supreme Court justices. 

]]> Sat, 12 Feb 2022 21:53:59 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/speakin-to-the-youth-qOKZ23W1 We're back after a long absence, but there's a good excuse. We catch up on the biggest developments from the last couple months, including the Breyer retirement, the Court's COVID decisions, the masking imbroglio, and the Alabama redistricting shadow-docket ruling. We also discuss Dan's childhood meeting with Justice Thomas, speculate about the median age of our listenership, and invent a new empirical metric for evaluating Supreme Court justices. 

]]> Speakin' to the Youth Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:31:59 We're back after a long absence, but there's a good excuse. We catch up on the biggest developments from the last couple months, including the Breyer retirement, the Court's COVID decisions, the masking imbroglio, and the Alabama redistricting shadow-docket ruling. We also discuss Dan's childhood meeting with Justice Thomas, speculate about the median age of our listenership, and invent a new empirical metric for evaluating Supreme Court justices. We're back after a long absence, but there's a good excuse. We catch up on the biggest developments from the last couple months, including the Breyer retirement, the Court's COVID decisions, the masking imbroglio, and the Alabama redistricting shadow-docket ruling. We also discuss Dan's childhood meeting with Justice Thomas, speculate about the median age of our listenership, and invent a new empirical metric for evaluating Supreme Court justices. false full 5 2 15405001-efa5-41f9-9bac-112dfbb731cc Completely Naïve Idiot Will and Dan try to make sense of the Court’s decisions in the two cases addressing the possibility of preenforcement challenges to Texas’s novel abortion ban.

]]> Tue, 14 Dec 2021 05:16:14 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/completely-naive-idiot-alAhhlEv Will and Dan try to make sense of the Court’s decisions in the two cases addressing the possibility of preenforcement challenges to Texas’s novel abortion ban.

]]> Completely Naïve Idiot Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:09:54 Will and Dan try to make sense of the Court’s decisions in the two cases addressing the possibility of preenforcement challenges to Texas’s novel abortion ban. Will and Dan try to make sense of the Court’s decisions in the two cases addressing the possibility of preenforcement challenges to Texas’s novel abortion ban. false full 4 2 3d480dbd-860d-40d2-b77a-d9565696a9d5 Out of Whack We’ve been waiting for months to bring you this one: we can finally talk about the President’s Supreme Court Commission, which just finalized its report this week. We also briefly talk about the recent argument in Dobbs and try to predict what the Court might do.

]]> Fri, 10 Dec 2021 05:05:46 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/out-of-whack-8sY0r3Lm We’ve been waiting for months to bring you this one: we can finally talk about the President’s Supreme Court Commission, which just finalized its report this week. We also briefly talk about the recent argument in Dobbs and try to predict what the Court might do.

]]> Out of Whack Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:12:41 We’ve been waiting for months to bring you this one: we can finally talk about the President’s Supreme Court Commission, which just finalized its report this week. We also briefly talk about the recent argument in Dobbs and try to predict what the Court might do. We’ve been waiting for months to bring you this one: we can finally talk about the President’s Supreme Court Commission, which just finalized its report this week. We also briefly talk about the recent argument in Dobbs and try to predict what the Court might do. false full 3 2 e8f3f06f-3a38-4b28-b802-b73e09ac1aea First in Flight Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action.

]]> Sat, 6 Nov 2021 18:39:09 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/first-in-flight-F8Jeorwx Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action.

]]> First in Flight Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:06:48 Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action. Dan and Will catch up on what the Court's been up to other than dealing with the Texas abortion law, including cert grants addressing the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions, a couple of summary reversals, and some other shadow-docket action. false full 2 2 869a80fe-27de-46e3-a8a4-8602b638132f Fast and Loose Divided Argument is back after an unscheduled, unpredictable break to kick off a brand new season. We dig into this week's oral arguments in two cases involving Texas's abortion law. 

]]> Tue, 2 Nov 2021 21:26:14 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/fast-and-loose-Wv4ZhTYT Divided Argument is back after an unscheduled, unpredictable break to kick off a brand new season. We dig into this week's oral arguments in two cases involving Texas's abortion law. 

]]> Fast and Loose Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:04:56 Divided Argument is back after an unscheduled, unpredictable break to kick off a brand new season. We dig into this week's oral arguments in two cases involving Texas's abortion law. Divided Argument is back after an unscheduled, unpredictable break to kick off a brand new season. We dig into this week's oral arguments in two cases involving Texas's abortion law. false full 1 2 88fb6a9a-fc3a-4e1c-bb77-a55cc3419a1d Sovereign to Sovereign The road show continues as Will and Dan record another live episode at the National Association of Attorneys General's State Solicitors General and Appellate Chiefs Conference in Chicago. They delve deeper into Texas's abortion law and the US's lawsuit seeking to stop it. Then, they have a broader discussion about the role and power of states in Supreme Court litigation. 

]]> Sat, 25 Sep 2021 05:12:46 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/sovereign-to-sovereign-8Bkoz0Va The road show continues as Will and Dan record another live episode at the National Association of Attorneys General's State Solicitors General and Appellate Chiefs Conference in Chicago. They delve deeper into Texas's abortion law and the US's lawsuit seeking to stop it. Then, they have a broader discussion about the role and power of states in Supreme Court litigation. 

]]> Sovereign to Sovereign Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:55:43 The road show continues as Will and Dan record another live episode at the National Association of Attorneys General's State Solicitors General and Appellate Chiefs Conference in Chicago. They delve deeper into Texas's abortion law and the US's lawsuit seeking to stop it. Then, they have a broader discussion about the role and power of states in Supreme Court litigation. The road show continues as Will and Dan record another live episode at the National Association of Attorneys General's State Solicitors General and Appellate Chiefs Conference in Chicago. They delve deeper into Texas's abortion law and the US's lawsuit seeking to stop it. Then, they have a broader discussion about the role and power of states in Supreme Court litigation. false full 19 1 ca14961a-6613-4637-8b41-a287d5c6e822 Unspeakable Cruelty Divided Argument is live from the University of Chicago Law School! In our first ever episode in front of a live studio audience, we catch up on recent Court-related developments, such as several Justices' recent public remarks pushing back on Court politicization and the Court's latest foray into whether capital prisoners can have spiritual advisors with them in the execution chamber. 

]]> Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:45:15 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/unspeakable-cruelty-bstFTSR9 Divided Argument is live from the University of Chicago Law School! In our first ever episode in front of a live studio audience, we catch up on recent Court-related developments, such as several Justices' recent public remarks pushing back on Court politicization and the Court's latest foray into whether capital prisoners can have spiritual advisors with them in the execution chamber. 

]]> Unspeakable Cruelty Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:47:54 Divided Argument is live from the University of Chicago Law School! In our first ever episode in front of a live studio audience, we catch up on recent Court-related developments, such as several Justices' recent public remarks pushing back on Court politicization and the Court's latest foray into whether capital prisoners can have spiritual advisors with them in the execution chamber. Divided Argument is live from the University of Chicago Law School! In our first ever episode in front of a live studio audience, we catch up on recent Court-related developments, such as several Justices' recent public remarks pushing back on Court politicization and the Court's latest foray into whether capital prisoners can have spiritual advisors with them in the execution chamber. true full 18 1 5a2da1de-5cdb-44f6-b78d-ae3cf19adf2f The Lightning Docket Will and Dan break down the Court's late-night refusal to block the implementation of Texas's controversial "fetal heartbeat"  law, and what it might mean for the future of the Court's abortion jurisprudence. 

]]> Thu, 2 Sep 2021 21:09:58 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/the-lightning-docket-_427Ar_T Will and Dan break down the Court's late-night refusal to block the implementation of Texas's controversial "fetal heartbeat"  law, and what it might mean for the future of the Court's abortion jurisprudence. 

]]> The Lightning Docket Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:07:16 Will and Dan break down the Court's late-night refusal to block the implementation of Texas's controversial "fetal heartbeat" law, and what it might mean for the future of the Court's abortion jurisprudence. Will and Dan break down the Court's late-night refusal to block the implementation of Texas's controversial "fetal heartbeat" law, and what it might mean for the future of the Court's abortion jurisprudence. false full 17 1 51fc3abb-36ef-4657-b5bc-212c0429c02d Out on a Limb Dan and will try to catch up on the flurry of news from Thursday afternoon, including an update on the Acting Solicitor General and the Court’s surprising grant of injunctive relief against New York’s eviction procedures. Come for the breaking news, stay to find out how Dan procrastinate and to learn the relevance of Catskills humor to the shadow docket.

]]> Sat, 14 Aug 2021 16:30:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/out-on-a-limb-g__4a07C Dan and will try to catch up on the flurry of news from Thursday afternoon, including an update on the Acting Solicitor General and the Court’s surprising grant of injunctive relief against New York’s eviction procedures. Come for the breaking news, stay to find out how Dan procrastinate and to learn the relevance of Catskills humor to the shadow docket.

]]> Out on a Limb Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:27:21 Dan and will try to catch up on the flurry of news from Thursday afternoon, including an update on the Acting Solicitor General and the Court’s surprising grant of injunctive relief against New York’s eviction procedures. Come for the breaking news, stay to find out how Dan procrastinate and to learn the relevance of Catskills humor to the shadow docket. Dan and will try to catch up on the flurry of news from Thursday afternoon, including an update on the Acting Solicitor General and the Court’s surprising grant of injunctive relief against New York’s eviction procedures. Come for the breaking news, stay to find out how Dan procrastinate and to learn the relevance of Catskills humor to the shadow docket. false full 16 1 b16f94fe-f7b9-41f7-a437-6f08898e29a7 Beyond The Pale As Will, Dan, and the Court all navigate their August vacations, we learn how a controversy over the qui tam statute indirectly saved Roe v. Wade. We then catch up on a few legal developments: The Biden Administration has renewed its eviction moratorium, confusing many legal observers in the process. The administration has also finally given us a nomination for Solicitor General. And a controversial cert. petition by the state of Oklahoma provokes an extended discussion of stare decisis and lawyer shaming.

]]> Sat, 14 Aug 2021 02:15:42 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/beyond-the-pale-0hI5Lxhl As Will, Dan, and the Court all navigate their August vacations, we learn how a controversy over the qui tam statute indirectly saved Roe v. Wade. We then catch up on a few legal developments: The Biden Administration has renewed its eviction moratorium, confusing many legal observers in the process. The administration has also finally given us a nomination for Solicitor General. And a controversial cert. petition by the state of Oklahoma provokes an extended discussion of stare decisis and lawyer shaming.

]]> Beyond The Pale Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:56:18 As Will, Dan, and the Court all navigate their August vacations, we learn how a controversy over the qui tam statute indirectly saved Roe v. Wade. We then catch up on a few legal developments: The Biden Administration has renewed its eviction moratorium, confusing many legal observers in the process. The administration has also finally given us a nomination for Solicitor General. And a controversial cert. petition by the state of Oklahoma provokes an extended discussion of stare decisis and lawyer shaming. As Will, Dan, and the Court all navigate their August vacations, we learn how a controversy over the qui tam statute indirectly saved Roe v. Wade. We then catch up on a few legal developments: The Biden Administration has renewed its eviction moratorium, confusing many legal observers in the process. The administration has also finally given us a nomination for Solicitor General. And a controversial cert. petition by the state of Oklahoma provokes an extended discussion of stare decisis and lawyer shaming. false full 15 1 f6a70c32-ca51-461c-9647-0255ba7a65f7 Secondary Trolling As October Term 2020 recedes in the rear-view mirror, Dan and Will take a moment to reflect. We ponder the current balance of power on the Court and how the pandemic era might change the institution. We also address some listener feedback on Transunion; Will defends himself against the charge that he worships the justices too much; and Dan takes issue with a bold claim that Will snuck in on a previous episode.

]]> Mon, 2 Aug 2021 09:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/secondary-trolling-Rm6Ehbt6 As October Term 2020 recedes in the rear-view mirror, Dan and Will take a moment to reflect. We ponder the current balance of power on the Court and how the pandemic era might change the institution. We also address some listener feedback on Transunion; Will defends himself against the charge that he worships the justices too much; and Dan takes issue with a bold claim that Will snuck in on a previous episode.

]]> Secondary Trolling Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:59:44 As October Term 2020 recedes in the rear-view mirror, Dan and Will take a moment to reflect. We ponder the current balance of power on the Court and how the pandemic era might change the institution. We also address some listener feedback on Transunion; Will defends himself against the charge that he worships the justices too much; and Dan takes issue with a bold claim that Will snuck in on a previous episode. As October Term 2020 recedes in the rear-view mirror, Dan and Will take a moment to reflect. We ponder the current balance of power on the Court and how the pandemic era might change the institution. We also address some listener feedback on Transunion; Will defends himself against the charge that he worships the justices too much; and Dan takes issue with a bold claim that Will snuck in on a previous episode. false full 14 1 e9452493-3044-4047-97e5-be4762cf426d Inner Sanctum Will and Dan deal with listener feedback that prompts them to recall some of the Court's most bad-faith decisions in recent years. They then do a deep dive into Transunion v. Ramirez, the Court's major standing decision from the end of the Term. 

]]> Wed, 28 Jul 2021 01:35:15 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/inner-sanctum-i1lGbw3W Will and Dan deal with listener feedback that prompts them to recall some of the Court's most bad-faith decisions in recent years. They then do a deep dive into Transunion v. Ramirez, the Court's major standing decision from the end of the Term. 

]]> Inner Sanctum Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:58:49 Will and Dan deal with listener feedback that prompts them to recall some of the Court's most bad-faith decisions in recent years. They then do a deep dive into Transunion v. Ramirez, the Court's major standing decision from the end of the Term. Will and Dan deal with listener feedback that prompts them to recall some of the Court's most bad-faith decisions in recent years. They then do a deep dive into Transunion v. Ramirez, the Court's major standing decision from the end of the Term. false full 13 1 f30f87d4-8dcd-4fcd-85f6-fb58f6cc9c0a Crime of the Day Will and Dan deal with some tough but fair listener feedback, and then get through AFP v. Bonta (finally). Listen to see if they get further!

]]> Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:34:43 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/crime-of-the-day-CGiieXCH Will and Dan deal with some tough but fair listener feedback, and then get through AFP v. Bonta (finally). Listen to see if they get further!

]]> Crime of the Day Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:46:43 Will and Dan deal with some tough but fair listener feedback, and then get through AFP v. Bonta (finally). Listen to see if they get further! Will and Dan deal with some tough but fair listener feedback, and then get through AFP v. Bonta (finally). Listen to see if they get further! false full 12 1 4af0a55f-8712-4ba9-9e98-cac21ba8f8d3 Very Breyeresque Dan and Will return after their vacations to catch up on what they've missed. After checking in briefly on Justice Breyer, they try to talk about two of the Court's biggest cases from the end of the Term. They only manage to get through one of them: Brnovich v. DNC.

]]> Sat, 17 Jul 2021 16:39:03 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/very-breyeresque-CHmMtPRu Dan and Will return after their vacations to catch up on what they've missed. After checking in briefly on Justice Breyer, they try to talk about two of the Court's biggest cases from the end of the Term. They only manage to get through one of them: Brnovich v. DNC.

]]> Very Breyeresque Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:15:33 Dan and Will return after their vacations to catch up on what they've missed. After checking in briefly on Justice Breyer, they try to talk about two of the Court's biggest cases from the end of the Term. They only manage to get through one of them: Brnovich v. DNC. Dan and Will return after their vacations to catch up on what they've missed. After checking in briefly on Justice Breyer, they try to talk about two of the Court's biggest cases from the end of the Term. They only manage to get through one of them: Brnovich v. DNC. false full 11 1 31d4abd9-b420-4f49-8611-cf07c2875169 House Parties Will and Dan break down two more decisions from Wednesday. First is Collins v. Yellen, a complicated separation of powers and severability case with a lot of money on the line. Second is Lange v. California, a Fourth Amendment case about the "hot pursuit" doctrine, which gives rise to some high school confessions.

]]> Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:45:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/house-parties-gy5Oh5_x Will and Dan break down two more decisions from Wednesday. First is Collins v. Yellen, a complicated separation of powers and severability case with a lot of money on the line. Second is Lange v. California, a Fourth Amendment case about the "hot pursuit" doctrine, which gives rise to some high school confessions.

]]> House Parties Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:09:41 Will and Dan break down two more decisions from Wednesday. First is Collins v. Yellen, a complicated separation of powers and severability case with a lot of money on the line. Second is Lange v. California, a Fourth Amendment case about the "hot pursuit" doctrine, which gives rise to some high school confessions. Will and Dan break down two more decisions from Wednesday. First is Collins v. Yellen, a complicated separation of powers and severability case with a lot of money on the line. Second is Lange v. California, a Fourth Amendment case about the "hot pursuit" doctrine, which gives rise to some high school confessions. false full 10 1 0147bc4b-cde7-4cd2-bd96-8afe07c7cb50 Evil and Corrupt Language, Images, and Thoughts The Court dropped four fascinating constitutional law opinions on Wednesday, and Will & Dan talk through two of them. First up is Mahanoy, which addresses First Amendment protections for Snapchatting school kids. Then we have Cedar Point, an important decision about the Takings Clause.

]]> Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:20:10 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/evil-and-corrupt-language-images-and-thoughts-YpgiCKcq The Court dropped four fascinating constitutional law opinions on Wednesday, and Will & Dan talk through two of them. First up is Mahanoy, which addresses First Amendment protections for Snapchatting school kids. Then we have Cedar Point, an important decision about the Takings Clause.

]]> Evil and Corrupt Language, Images, and Thoughts Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:06:36 The Court dropped four fascinating constitutional law opinions on Wednesday, and Will & Dan talk through two of them. First up is Mahanoy, which addresses First Amendment protections for Snapchatting school kids. Then we have Cedar Point, an important decision about the Takings Clause. The Court dropped four fascinating constitutional law opinions on Wednesday, and Will & Dan talk through two of them. First up is Mahanoy, which addresses First Amendment protections for Snapchatting school kids. Then we have Cedar Point, an important decision about the Takings Clause. true full 9 1 239c3c7c-4f22-4735-a87c-868ceef35ca5 Early Wittgenstein As October Term 2020 hurtles towards a thrilling conclusion (well, hopefully), Dan and Will break down two of Monday's decisions. They explore the separation of powers and severability in United States v. Arthrex and talk about antitrust law's implications for college sports in NCAA v. Alston. 

]]> Mon, 21 Jun 2021 23:40:14 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/episode-8-2vA1IgZD As October Term 2020 hurtles towards a thrilling conclusion (well, hopefully), Dan and Will break down two of Monday's decisions. They explore the separation of powers and severability in United States v. Arthrex and talk about antitrust law's implications for college sports in NCAA v. Alston. 

]]> Early Wittgenstein Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:00:12 As October Term 2020 hurtles towards a thrilling conclusion (well, hopefully), Dan and Will break down two of Monday's decisions. They explore the separation of powers and severability in United States v. Arthrex and talk about antitrust law's implications for college sports in NCAA v. Alston. As October Term 2020 hurtles towards a thrilling conclusion (well, hopefully), Dan and Will break down two of Monday's decisions. They explore the separation of powers and severability in United States v. Arthrex and talk about antitrust law's implications for college sports in NCAA v. Alston. false full 8 1 54b21f51-63e7-4ac2-942c-222023c8b1ef Triple Bank Shot Will and Dan break down the Court's sudden burst of interesting opinions – California v. Texas, Fulton v. Philadelphia, and Nestle v. Doe.

]]> Fri, 18 Jun 2021 21:50:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/triple-bank-shot-b6kTU7P_ Will and Dan break down the Court's sudden burst of interesting opinions – California v. Texas, Fulton v. Philadelphia, and Nestle v. Doe.

]]> Triple Bank Shot Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:20:46 Will and Dan break down the Court's sudden burst of interesting opinions – California v. Texas, Fulton v. Philadelphia, and Nestle v. Doe. Will and Dan break down the Court's sudden burst of interesting opinions – California v. Texas, Fulton v. Philadelphia, and Nestle v. Doe. false full 7 1 0bd4b8f5-eeec-45c8-b48f-2a2a99031d83 So What Will and Dan break down the Court's fascinating decision yesterday in Van Buren v. United States, which interpreted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 

]]> Fri, 4 Jun 2021 15:05:36 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/so-what-w8liuLzH Will and Dan break down the Court's fascinating decision yesterday in Van Buren v. United States, which interpreted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. 

]]> So What Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:52:48 Will and Dan break down the Court's fascinating decision yesterday in Van Buren v. United States, which interpreted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Will and Dan break down the Court's fascinating decision yesterday in Van Buren v. United States, which interpreted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. false full 6 1 5d91e300-b808-4a6f-ae34-c5448b7bfc05 Everybody Procrastinates Dan and Will  discuss the Court's recent run of unanimous cases, paying particular attention to United States v. Cooley; ponder weighty issues like the role of the Hart & Wechsler casebook in defining the field of federal courts; and announce a new way for listeners to engage with the show: our voicemail line, (314) 649-3790‬.

]]> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/everbody-procrastinates-OXKc8_OO Dan and Will  discuss the Court's recent run of unanimous cases, paying particular attention to United States v. Cooley; ponder weighty issues like the role of the Hart & Wechsler casebook in defining the field of federal courts; and announce a new way for listeners to engage with the show: our voicemail line, (314) 649-3790‬.

]]> Everybody Procrastinates Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:02:10 Dan and Will discuss the Court's recent run of unanimous cases, paying particular attention to United States v. Cooley; ponder weighty issues like the role of the Hart & Wechsler casebook in defining the field of federal courts; and announce a fun new way for listeners to engage with the show. Dan and Will discuss the Court's recent run of unanimous cases, paying particular attention to United States v. Cooley; ponder weighty issues like the role of the Hart & Wechsler casebook in defining the field of federal courts; and announce a fun new way for listeners to engage with the show. indian law, cooley false full 5 1 46559101-b5b6-4af9-83bc-2dea000108c1 Faith in Princes Will and Dan ponder what this podcast is about, continue their discussion of good faith in judging, try to game out exactly what the Court is up to in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, and respond to listener feedback. 

]]> Sun, 23 May 2021 12:36:17 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/faith-in-princes-0pUP7zBD Will and Dan ponder what this podcast is about, continue their discussion of good faith in judging, try to game out exactly what the Court is up to in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, and respond to listener feedback. 

]]> Faith in Princes Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:55:57 Will and Dan ponder what this podcast is about, continue their discussion of good faith in judging, try to game out exactly what the Court is up to in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, and respond to listener feedback. Will and Dan ponder what this podcast is about, continue their discussion of good faith in judging, try to game out exactly what the Court is up to in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, and respond to listener feedback. false full 4 1 0043ad84-1390-4191-bab9-54edbc817f1f Grandma's House of Vice Will and Dan ponder the significance Court's grant of certiorari in an abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, before going on to recap some of the opinions the Court released this week. They discuss Caniglia v. Strom, a Fourth Amendment case, and what it might mean for drug-dealing senior citizens. And they explore the puzzling world of criminal-procedure retroactivity in Edwards v. Vannoy, and in particular Justice Gorsuch's bold concurrence charting a new course for federal habeas corpus law. 

]]> Tue, 18 May 2021 18:01:23 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/grandmas-house-of-vice-vx9Sh2Db Will and Dan ponder the significance Court's grant of certiorari in an abortion case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, before going on to recap some of the opinions the Court released this week. They discuss Caniglia v. Strom, a Fourth Amendment case, and what it might mean for drug-dealing senior citizens. And they explore the puzzling world of criminal-procedure retroactivity in Edwards v. Vannoy, and in particular Justice Gorsuch's bold concurrence charting a new course for federal habeas corpus law. 

]]> Grandma's House of Vice Will Baude & Dan Epps 01:03:43 Will and Dan discuss Edwards v. Vannoy and other opinions released this week, as well as the Court's decision to grant cert in an abortion case. Will and Dan discuss Edwards v. Vannoy and other opinions released this week, as well as the Court's decision to grant cert in an abortion case. habeas corpus, fourth amendment, abortion false full 3 1 134b32ad-19c6-46ee-b920-ac91f076c647 Woke to the Trend Will and Dan finish up their conversation about the shadow docket. They discuss the Court’s summary reversal practices, try to get to the bottom of what might be wrong with the shadow docket, and ponder what it means for Supreme Court justices to act in “good faith.”

]]> Mon, 17 May 2021 09:55:05 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/woke-to-the-trend-gSzt4mZa Will and Dan finish up their conversation about the shadow docket. They discuss the Court’s summary reversal practices, try to get to the bottom of what might be wrong with the shadow docket, and ponder what it means for Supreme Court justices to act in “good faith.”

]]> Woke to the Trend Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:39:40 Will and Dan finish up their conversation about the shadow docket. Will and Dan finish up their conversation about the shadow docket. qualified immunity, shadow docket, supreme court false full 2 1 f6938ca3-5e27-43a4-992d-a85677d954ec Normal Procedural Regularity In the inaugural episode of Divided Argument, Will and Dan have the first part of a two-part discussion of the Supreme Court's "shadow docket." Will explains how he came to coin the now-famous phrase in a 2013 article, and how good advice from a friend helped him avoid a "terrible title" for that piece. Will and Dan also discuss Justice Alito's contribution to the important field of original jurisdiction before closing out the episode with a plea for reviews on your podcast app of choice. 

]]> Sat, 15 May 2021 15:00:00 +0000 pod@dividedargument.com (Will Baude & Dan Epps) https://dividedargument.com/episodes/normal-procedural-regularity-LVvhAJp3 In the inaugural episode of Divided Argument, Will and Dan have the first part of a two-part discussion of the Supreme Court's "shadow docket." Will explains how he came to coin the now-famous phrase in a 2013 article, and how good advice from a friend helped him avoid a "terrible title" for that piece. Will and Dan also discuss Justice Alito's contribution to the important field of original jurisdiction before closing out the episode with a plea for reviews on your podcast app of choice. 

]]> Normal Procedural Regularity Will Baude & Dan Epps 00:55:29 Will and Dan have the first part of a two-episode discussion of the Supreme Court's "shadow docket." Will and Dan have the first part of a two-episode discussion of the Supreme Court's "shadow docket." false full 1 1