The Supreme Court- has been pulled into its first dispute over a Trump administration action with more cases likely coming its way.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices in an emergency request to toss out a temporary restraining order that stopped President Donald Trump from firing the head of the US Office of Special Counsel.

Lower courts have issued TROs in response to Trump’s executive actions now testing presidential authority to reshape the federal workforce, government spending, and citizenship rights.

Thomas Berry, the director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the first case before the high court.

Guest: Thomas Berry, Cato Institute

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court is confronting the stark reality that, unlike the other two branches of government, the court has no real power to enforce its decisions. Should someone — whether government official or private citizen — refuse to comply, the justices have no army or constitutional spending power to use as a cudgel, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr writes in a new longform essay.

That age-old quandary is becoming newly relevant as Donald Trump tries to bulldoze his way through longstanding legal constraints in the opening weeks of his second term as president. As lawsuits over birthright citizenship, spending cuts, and workforce purges make their way to the high court, the cases carry the potential for a genuine constitutional crisis. What happens, Chief Justice John Roberts must ask himself, if Trump loses and then defies the court?

A lawsuit filed in 1801 when the Supreme Court was an untested institution posed a similar dilemma for Chief Justice John Marshall — and more recently, danger signs have been growing.

Article by Greg Stohr read by Catherine Vassilopolos

Do you have feedback on Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a reverse discrimination case when the justices return to the bench at the end of the month. 

A heterosexual woman is asking the court to revive her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services where she's worked since 2004 after the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said she hadn't shown the "background circumstances" necessary to take her case to trial.

The court didn't just ask for a little bit more evidence, it asked for a lot more, said Xiao Wang, director of the University of Virginia's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who's representing Marlean Ames in her case.

Wang and co-counsel Edward Gilbert join Cases and Controversies to discuss the case and what's at stake.

Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about Trump's impending trade war and look at the legal doctrine that could stand in the way of his planned tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. 

Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr

Produce: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

President Donald Trump’s executive orders have sparked a flurry of legal challenges that tee-up constitutional questions about the breadth of executive power the US Supreme Court may be forced to settle.

Daniel Cotter, a partner at Dickinson Wright who writes a column on the Supreme Court for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, joins Cases and Controversies to talk about which disputes could get Supreme Court review.

Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about new cases the justices tacked on to the term, including one over a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma, and discuss why those challenges may not actually increase the court’s workload.

Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler

Guest: Daniel Cotter, of Dickinson Wright PLLC

Produce: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

Supreme Court justices seemed to agree courts should look at the totality of circumstances when analyzing whether a police officer's use of deadly force was reasonable.

During arguments Wednesday, the US Supreme Court appeared ready to rule the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had used the wrong test when it considered the claims of a mother who argues a Texas police officer unjustly shot and killed her son during a traffic stop in 2016.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler discuss the arguments in that dispute over the officer’s use of deadly force and the likelihood of a future Supreme Court case over President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

The order, which deems denies automatic citizenship to children born of immigrants in the US, was temporarily blocked by a federal judge on Thursday.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

Several justices on the Supreme Court seemed eager this week to debate the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires porn sites to verify the age of users to keep kids from viewing obscene content online.

But the court was only asked in the case argued Wednesday to answer whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the correct standard when assessing whether the law violated the free speech rights of adults.

“I don't know if there is going to be sufficient alignment on how to get to the answers here,” said Mark Brennan, who works with a variety of companies in the online space as a partner at Hogan Lovells.

Brennan joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss Wednesday’s argument. They also break down the court’s decisions earlier this week in disputes over fancy dog food and federal overtime rules.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The much-anticipated argument of the future of TikTok in the US will be heard by the Supreme Court on Friday.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler preview the case with Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney Xiangnong (George) Wang.

The Biden administration says the law, which effectively bans the social media site in the US unless sold by its Chinese owner, is necessary for national security. But the social media site and its users say its censorship.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

After an eventful 2024, the justices are now on winter break until Jan. 10.

"Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr review all the biggest news stories from the justices in 2024, from Justice Samuel Alito's flag controversy to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dream-come-true Broadway debut.

They also look ahead to the cases to be heard in 2025, which include an expedited appeal over the social media platform TikTok to another case that could cut back the power of administrative agencies.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared primed to limit the scope of environmental impact reviews, but it's unclear if they need a new test to do so.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr breakdown the Dec. 10 arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, an environmental case about how deep agencies must go in looking at the potential effects of new projects.

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices on both sides of the US Supreme Court’s ideological line seemed concerned about a future ruling on gender-affirming care for minors reaching far beyond Tennessee and transgender kids.

Whether an appeals court erred in how it scrutinized the constitutionality of state laws that purport to discriminate against people based on their sex was a central part of Dec. 4 arguments in United States v. Skrmetti.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners through the arguments in the Biden administration’s fight against Tennessee’s ban on hormone treatments and puberty blockers for transgender minors and what the justices’ questions, or lack thereof, signal for the outcome of the case.

Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson

Producer: Mo Barrow

Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.