Beyond The Judgement

Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss US v. Skrmetti. Here are the resources we used:

- https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map

- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2793977

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618

-  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-477

- https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/united-states-v-skrmetti/#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20v.,Clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment

-  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0001.pdf

- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/

- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/300984/20240220190248213_23-477%20United%20States%20v.%20Skrmetti%20-%20final.pdf

- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/299674/20240202161645864_23-466%20-477%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf

On today’s episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Barnes v. Felix, a case concerning the “moment of threat doctrine”--a legal principle limiting review of police officers’ use of force to only the “moment of threat” in which they perceived a threat. Opponents of the doctrine call for an evaluation of “totality of circumstances”--arguing that courts must review any and all actions leading up to the moment of threat. 

Barnes v. Felix is named for Ashtian Barnes, a Black man who was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop in 2016. 

Listed below are relevant resources: 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/barnes-v-felix/

https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/barnes-v-felix/

https://www.forcescience.com/2024/10/officer-created-jeopardy-a-legal-theory-that-threatens-effective-policing-will-the-supreme-court-restore-limits/

https://abc13.com/post/us-supreme-court-reviewing-2016-case-where-pct-5-deputy-constable-roberto-felix-fatally-shot-ashtian-barnes-during-traffic-stop/15409623/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1239/331758/20241113164932983_Barnes%20Merits%20Brief%2011-13-24%20Final.pdf

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1239/335125/20241213165012756_Felix%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf

In this episode, we dive into the legal battle between e-cigarette manufacturers and the FDA—a case that’s making waves all the way to the Supreme Court. Back in 2009, Congress put vaping under FDA oversight, but fast forward to 2021, and manufacturers claim the agency pulled a last-minute rule change, shutting down their applications without warning. The FDA says it’s just doing its job to protect public health—especially kids. So, did the agency play fair, or did it pull a “regulatory switcheroo,” as the Fifth Circuit called it? We break down the arguments, the legal implications, and what this case means for government transparency, corporate accountability, and the future of flavored vapes.

Tune in as we unpack the puffs, politics, and procedures behind this high-stakes case!

Here are our sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1038

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-and-drug-administration-v-wages-and-white-lion-investments-llc/

 https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/12/justices-hear-fda-case-on-flavored-vapes/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/323413/20240826164114741_23-1038tsFDA.pdf

 https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/327672/20241007153644875_23-1038%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf

Happy Monday, folks! On today's episode, Pari and I discuss Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case in which SCOTUS must decide the correct scrutiny test to apply to age verification laws on porn sites. Other questions we touch on...Should governments be able to require that porn websites verify viewers' ages? Do such laws infringe on First Amendment protections and anonymity?

This is a case that will have significant implications for free speech protections regarding sexual/obscene content. We recorded this episode before the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case, so we've linked the January 15th arguments for you below--alongside a host of resources if you're interested in learning more.

See you in two weeks!

Eva & Pari

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1122

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1122

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/

https://ballotpedia.org/Free_Speech_Coalition,_Inc._v._Paxton#:~:text=Ketanji%20Brown%20Jackson-,Free%20Speech%20Coalition%20v.,court's%20October%202024%2D2025%20term.&text=The%20issue%3A%20The%20case%20concerns%20people's%20access%20to%20protected%20speech

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/scotus-attorney-general-ken-paxton-defends-texas-law-requiring-age-verification-measures-pornography#:~:text=Attorney%20General%20Ken%20Paxton%20filed,children%20from%20obscene%20online%20material

https://www.aclu.org/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/326045/20240916160337719_Petitioners%20Merits%20Br.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/311950/20240530120355427_23-1122%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/326689/20240923183221800_23-1122tsacUS_Free_Speech_Coal_Final.pdf

Hello listeners! In this episode, Pari and I discuss Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a SCOTUS case that concerns Hungarian Holocaust survivors suing the Republic of Hungary in pursuit of compensation for seized property. Pari was actually lucky enough to be present in the chamber during oral arguments for this case! Listen for her observations about the justices' statures, behaviors and body languages during arguments, and more. As always, we've linked some information for you below and we'll see you in two weeks!

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/case-preview-foreign-sovereign-immunity-comity-and-the-holocaust/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/309743/20240514121241293_Republic%20of%20Hungary%20v.%20Simon%20-%20Brief%20for%20Respondents%20FILE.pdf

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-867

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/323352/20240826122931272_23-867%20Petitioners%20Opening%20Brief.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/324002/20240903185425980_23-867tsacUnitedStates.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/309743/20240514121241293_Republic%20of%20Hungary%20v.%20Simon%20-%20Brief%20for%20Respondents%20FILE.pdf

https://tlblog.org/hungary-v-simon-offers-supreme-court-stark-choice/

Hey y'all!

On today's episode Eva and I discuss the SCOTUS case about the Tik Tok ban. Here are the sources we used:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336151/20241227163400981_2024-12-27%20-%20TikTok%20v.%20Garland%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20President%20Donald%20J.%20Trump.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/335387/20241217150212414_24A587%20Amicus%20Brief%20PDFA.pdf)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336144/20241227161148472_24-656tsGovt_final.pdfhttps://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336136/20241227160309446_24-656%20ts.pdf

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-tiktok-ban-law/

https://www.wral.com/story/republican-nc-supreme-court-candidate-wants-gop-led-high-court-to-toss-ballots-after-elections-board-rejects-protest/21774323/

In today's episode, Eva and I discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case is about Richard Glossip who has been sentenced to the death penalty despite the prosecution hiding information about a key witness' mental health and that same witness admitting that he lied on the stand. We dive into the ethical implications of what will happen if the Supreme Court decides to uphold Glossip's sentence. Here are the sources we used:

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/22-7466

- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/opinion/courts-execution-mistakes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/308603/20240429163200162_22-7466%20ts.pdf

- https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency

- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/

- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule

- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/270450/20230705170639604_GlossipRes%20MAIN%20%20E%20FILE%20Jul%205.pdf

- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-7955

In this episode, we delve into the Supreme Court case that challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) 2022 revisions to the Gun Control Act of 1986. These revisions introduced new definitions of key terms like "firearm," "firearm frame," and "receiver" that could have far-reaching implications for gun regulations across the country. The case revolves around whether the ATF has overstepped its authority by redefining these terms and altering the legal landscape for gun owners, manufacturers, and regulators. Join us as we break down the legal arguments, the historical context of the Gun Control Act, and the potential consequences of this case for the future of firearms law.

Here are the sources we used:

Hello everybody! We are on to business as usual, updating you on U.S. v. Rahimi. This is a case about the permissibility of 2nd amendment restrictions. If you need additional background, we recommend you go back and listen to the original U.S. v. Rahimi episode, as well as the NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen episode. Linked below are some resources on the Rahimi case for your viewing! Thanks for tuning in.

As for the NC Supreme Court race, Justice Allison Riggs appears to have won by a slim 625 votes. There will likely be a recount. If you want to learn more about her, we recommend that you go back and listen to our interview with her, entitled "Campaigning with Conviction".

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence-d63ee828e51911cc5e5a01780820f224

Hey y'all!

On today's episode Eva and I discuss 3 key decisions that the Supreme Court made about the upcoming election. If you have not made a plan to vote yet visit iwillvote.com to get all the information you need to vote tomorrow. Here are all the resources we used in compiling this episode:

- https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/g-s1-31054/supreme-court-pennsylvania

- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/30/us/supreme-court-virginia-purge-voter-registration.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/30/virginia-voter-purge-justices/

- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-missing-millions

- https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4960129-election-lawsuits-supreme-court/