The First Monday in October kicks off Supreme Court arguments in a short week featuring disputes over the future of voting rights and environmental regulation.

Bloomberg Law reporters Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin give a sneak peek of the action on the latest Cases and Controversies.

Hearing cases Monday and Tuesday with a holiday on Wednesday, the court will also consider a clash between Delaware and a host of states over unclaimed Money Gram financial instruments, as well as an appeal from a disabled military veteran seeking benefits.

The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, will hear her first cases as the court struggles with its public standing following a blockbuster term topped by the conservative majority’s decision to end the constitutional right to abortion.

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

With the new US Supreme Court term set to start Oct. 3, Cases and Controversies returns with a deep dive episode on a big copyright dispute over Andy Warhol images of Prince.

Orrick partner Mel Bostwick joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to discuss Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which is set to be argued Oct. 12.

The dispute centers on whether Warhol prints of a Prince photo changed original work’s meaning. Bostwick, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, says this is an opportunity for the justices to “put some more meat on the bones” of the test courts should use when determining whether permission is needed to reproduce copyrighted material.

For more on the case, check out Bloomberg Law’s video: Andy Warhol, Prince, and Fair Use at the Supreme Court.

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

From shifts in the law to public reaction to its rulings, the US Supreme Court’s just-concluded term appears to be a blockbuster like no other.

Since the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “I don’t think we’ve seen any term that comes close to the one we just saw,” said A.E. Dick Howard, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia and a former clerk to Justice Hugo Black.

During the term that wrapped up June 30, the court overturned the 1973 landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and broadened the reach of the Second Amendment for the first time in over a decade. The justices also continued to establish a robust right to religious freedom at the expense of other priorities, and set up severe limits on the so-called administrative state.

Howard Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to put in prospective how the term fits with the court’s more than 230-year history.

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

The Supreme Court is finished with its blockbuster term but the focus is already shifting to the next one, with Ketanji Brown Jackson now sworn-in as the first Black woman justice.

Jackson comes aboard following a tumultuous nine months that included her confirmation to replace the now-retired Stephen Breyer. Controversies flared over the court's independence with the conservative majority making transformative changes to abortion, guns, religion.

Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr joins Cases and Controversies to recap the momentous developments and preview what's ahead starting in October.

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

The Supreme Court justices finally issued their ruling in the Mississippi abortion case, with the conservative majority striking down the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and guest-host Lydia Wheeler explain the reasoning behind Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion.

They also look at Chief Justice John Roberts’ failed bid to find middle ground and the dissent by the court’s three liberals decrying the effect on women’s rights and the court’s legitimacy.

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

The Supreme Court made up a lot of ground fast on issuing decisions, and appears to be in good position to finish the term on its customary timeline.

The justices handed down 11 opinions in recent days, and have 18 more to go by the end of the month or early July.

More decisions are expected on Tuesday with blockbuster rulings on abortion, guns, and religion outstanding.

On this episode of Cases and Controversies, host Kimberly Robinson highlighted a flurry of decisions on June 13 and 15.

An immigration case, Arizona v. San Francisco, suggests the justices might look for off-ramps to complex issues as the term winds down.

In an administrative law case, American Hospital Association v. Becerra, the justices made changes to the bedrock Chevron doctrine on judicial respect for federal agency rules, without saying the word “Chevron.”

And a pair cases about tribal sovereignty, Denezpi v. US and Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, suggest tribes might have a friend in Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

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

The Supreme Court again chipped away at the ability of those alleging constitutional violations by federal law enforcement to sue, effectively immunizing Border Patrol agents from being hauled into court.

Athul Acharya, of the public interest law firm Public Accountability, says the June 8 ruling in Egbert v. Boule is one of several judge-made barriers to suing government officials.

There are many stages “in the gauntlet that civil rights plaintiffs have to run before they can have their claim heard on the merits,” Acharya said, noting there are jurisdictional and other technical barriers, questions about who can be sued, and then immunity doctrines.

The latest ruling limiting so-called Bivens claims, isn’t a surprise. The fortified conservative-majority court has questioned the authority of judges to permit suits against federal officials in instances where Congress hasn’t.

In “all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 6-3 Boule ruling that split the court along ideological lines.

Acharya explains that another barrier to suits against law enforcement—qualified immunity—is subject to the same criticism.

The doctrine, which often shields officers from being sued for all but the most obvious constitutional violations, has come under fire recently by groups on the right and the left.

But qualified immunity is still considered by courts to be “good law,” despite being a judge-made rule.

It’s an open question “why atextual doctrines like qualified immunity are OK” with the justices, while Bivens claims aren’t, Acharya said.

Cases dealing with qualified immunity are constantly pending before the justices. Cope v. Cogdill, alleging that jail officials failed to prevent a detainee’s suicide, has been considered at their private conferences 10 times. But the justices haven’t seemed eager to address the doctrine in that case or any other.

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

Though the justices took the unusual step of not issuing orders during the first week of June, there was still plenty going on at One First Street.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and producer David Schultz discuss the latest shadow docket developments, and how the handling of emergency orders highlight a broader divide between conservative and liberal justices.

And news on the court’s ongoing investigation into the draft abortion opinion leak last month suggests the atmosphere inside the building may be as divisive as the reaction to its rulings outside of it.

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

With all eyes on abortion and guns, the US Supreme Court still has potentially major opinions to issue in the coming weeks on other big issues such as administrative law, religion, and immigration.

Goodwin partner Jaime Santos joins Cases and Controversies to remind listeners of the cases that in any other term would be the headlining cases, but which have taken a backseat in this headline-grabbing year.

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

The Supreme Court’s latest decision chipping away at campaign finance reform was a victory for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who challenged a limit on how much candidates can expect to recoup when loaning their campaigns money.

University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to review the May 16 decision striking down another provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

Muller explains how the issue of campaign finance splits the justices along ideological lines and what future challenges might come before the conservative-majority court.

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