The US Supreme Court struggled with how to ensure investors get accurate information without exposing companies to massive liability, in the multi-billion-dollar investor suit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta.

The case centers on the fallout from Cambridge Analytica's unauthorized misuse of users data. Investors claim the tech giant mislead investors when warning that data misuse was a hypothetical risk at a time when Meta already knew that that political consulting firm had accessed information on 30 million users.

"Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the Nov. 6 arguments. They explain how the justices searched for the proper line to draw and ultimately questioned whether they should be the ones to do so.

Why "does the judiciary have to walk the plank on this?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked.

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.

Donald Trump is likely to flip Biden administration positions in disputes at the US Supreme Court over certain health-care treatments for transgender minors and federal regulations for build-at-home “ghost guns” should he win the White House.

“These changes in position are not frequent, but we do see them every four years,” said Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Wolf joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to talk about when the government has flipped positions in the past and what could happen to current cases that could be targeted this term by a Trump administration.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler.

Guest: Thomas Wolf, Brennan Center for Justice.

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 less likely to be the deciding factor in the tight presidential election absent a game-changing dispute in a single state as was the case in 24 years ago when the election went to the justices in Bush v. Gore.

Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller joins Cases and Controversies to explain what states and courts are doing to try to avoid such a situation ahead of Nov. 5, and get his take on what would make high court intervention unlikely and what scenario might trigger a review.

A truck driver consumed CBD oil, failed a drug test, and was fired from his job, but can he sue the companies that make the product for three times his lost wages?

That was the question before the Supreme Court in a case that tests the scope of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law otherwise known as RICO that was designed to fight organized crime.

RICO is a criminal law, but it allows people to bring a civil suit to get three times their damages and attorneys’ fees if their "business or property" is hurt by a criminal enterprise.

The manufacturers of the CBD product say the truck driver in this case suffered a personal injury not an injury to his business or property and can't sue them under the law.

Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler look at the arguments and try to figure out where the justices might come down on this dispute.

Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: David Schultz and Mo Barrow

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

Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip appears likely to achieve a rare victory at the Supreme Court despite a conservative majority that’s often hostile to capital defendants. 

One factor setting Glossip’s case apart from others is that the state’s Republican attorney general sided with him in his bid for a new trial.

But the fact that it’s still a question whether Glossip will prevail after arguments Oct. 9 shows the steep climb capital defendants have a the Supreme Court.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr run through the arguments and the hurdles that Glossip must clear.

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 kick off their new term with arguments on guns and the death penalty, but a case about attorneys’ fees in civil rights cases has grabbed the attention of a diverse set of outside parties.

Pooja Chaudhuri, of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss why groups supporting gun rights, religious freedom, and racial justice have teamed up in Lackey v. Stinnie.

The justices will consider whether a preliminary injunction is enough of a victory to support an award of attorneys’ fees under a statute intended to encourage lawyers to take civil rights cases and deter “bad actors.” The case to be argued Oct. 8 pits civil rights groups against government officials and entities who are the targets of these suits.

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 kicks off its new term on Oct. 7 and the justices will hear arguments the first week in a dispute over “ghost gun” kits and an appeal from a death row inmate in Oklahoma.

With about 27 cases granted for argument so far, the term is light on potential blockbusters.

“There are a lot of cases that I would describe as kind of the meat and potatoes type cases that you typically see on the Supreme Court’s docket,” said Kannon Shanmugam, chair of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Paul Weiss.

Shanmugam joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss the court’s term and the more notable issues the justices will consider, including a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans health-care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to transgender minors.

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

Emergency requests, book tours, and security threats kept the justices busy while the US Supreme Court was on its summer recess.

Get up to speed with Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr before the court kicks off its new term on Oct. 7.

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

The US Supreme Court closed out a blockbuster term with rulings that are likely to shield former President Donald Trump from facing a jury until after the election and further undercut the power of federal regulators. 

In decisions that split 6-3 along the court's ideological line, the justices for the first time in history said former presidents have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts and gave businesses the ability to challenge regulations long after they've been finalized. 

Cases and Controversies hosts unpack those decisions and discuss how the justices declined to rule on the constitutionality of state laws out of Florida and Texas that tried to regulate some of the largest social media platforms. They also look at how the justices voted this term and whether they issue unanimous rulings more often not, as many have claimed in public appearances. 

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Matthew Schwartz

The US Supreme Court closed in on the end of its term with big rulings gutting the way federal agencies wield power, temporarily allowing emergency abortions in Idaho, and embracing a public camping ban that targets homeless people.

The court is expected to wrap up the release of opinions in argued cases for the term on Monday, when decisions on social media laws and former President Donald Trump's bid for immunity from criminal prosecution are expected.

The latest episode of Cases and Controversies unwraps all the latest action from the court and looks ahead to the final round of decisions.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz