Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.

But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.

Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.

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

Whether funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unlawful or not could rest with conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, one court watcher says.

Brennan Center for Justice President and CEO Michael Waldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss a challenge to the Obama-era agency that was set up in the aftermath of the financial crisis to regulate mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.

He says it’s unclear how the court ultimately will rule following argument Oct. 3 over the agency’s funding structure, but notes that Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Barrett, especially, merit watching.

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 kicks off its 2023 term on Monday with guns, abortion, and affirmative action potentially coming back—whether the justices are ready for them or not.

Advocates and lower courts are emboldened by the high court’s recent rulings in key areas and are bringing aggressive claims that the justices might not have anticipated, University of Chicago law professor David Strauss said.

The “chickens are coming home to roost,” Strauss said in noting the court has unsettled law in some areas with its rulings.

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

Death penalty cases are often adjudicated for years, if not decades, before they reach the Supreme Court. But once they do, the justices must make life-or-death decisions in a relatively quick amount of time.

Death penalty cases at the Supreme Court often come through the court's emergency, or "shadow" docket. In recent years, the court's conservatives have handed down rulings that closed off several avenues for capital defendants to get a rehearing of their case, or to even to challenge their method of execution.

On this special episode of Cases & Controversies, Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take a look at what the court's rulings mean for how the death penalty works in America, and what happens at the court when an 11th hour request comes in.

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

From Antonin Scalia’s sudden death, to four new justices, a leaked opinion draft, the overturning of abortion rights, and the pandemic-era introduction of live audio for oral arguments—a lot has happened at the Supreme Court in the past decade and Cases and Controversies has been there for all of it.

The Bloomberg Law podcast started in very lo-fi way in a virtual closet has grown over the years as a staple of Supreme Court coverage with studio space with really good microphones, its own producer in David Schultz, and up to three hosts offering behind-the-scene takes, and insight and analysis of court happenings and all of the turbulence that’s gone along with it.

Created by Tom Taylor, Bloomberg Law’s former high court correspondent and now its newsroom’s chief of staff, Cases and Controversies marks 10 years this term with a special edition. Taylor and current co-hosts Kimberly Robinson, Greg Stohr, and Lydia Wheeler offer their observations on heightened public interest in the court, what’s changed for the justices and how the court operates, and what may be in store in coming years.

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

Rejection of Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan suggests Supreme Court conservatives are going to be more comfortable with second-guessing federal agency determinations even when they fall within a federal statute.

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what he's calling the "supersized" Major Questions Doctrine, the high court-made principle that's risen in recent terms and was the reasoning behind the 6-3 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska.

Podcast hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners beyond the headlines of the biggest opinions of the term. They also look ahead to the one starting in October which Winkler says is shaping up as another with blockbuster potential on guns and the SEC to start with.

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

Conservative justices asserted themselves in a big way in the final days of the Supreme Court term.

The six Republican-appointed justices joined together in striking down affirmative action, rejecting Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan, and supporting religious liberty in a setback for LGBTQ rights.

While the end of this term for argued cases wasn’t as explosive as a year ago when the court handed conservatives landmark victories on abortion and guns, the final flurry of decisions still packed plenty of drama, especially tension in written opinions and readings from the bench.

In the newest episode of Cases and Controversies, hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners behind the scenes to break down the biggest decisions, notable moments, and update listeners on some newly granted cases for next term.

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 heads into the final week of the term for argued cases with a flurry of opinions on tap, including what could be a blockbuster on affirmative action in higher education and the fate of Joe Biden’s student loan relief plan.

Ten 10 cases remain with work expected to be wrapped up by June 30.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr take listeners down the homestretch and behind the scenes of what court watchers might expect and whether surprises are in store.

They also break down the opinions most recently handed down. That includes Friday’s decision clearing the way for the Biden administration to shift immigration enforcement priorities to focus on people who recently crossed the border or are a threat to public safety.

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

In upholding a landmark measure meant to keep adopted American-Indian children with tribal families, the Supreme Court again declined to embrace a colorblind view of federal law.

The conservative argument that race should almost never be a factor in setting and interpreting federal law hasn’t fared well this term. But that could change with decisions pending in challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

In a 7-2 ruling on Thursday in Haaland v. Brackeen that kept in place the decades-old Indian Child Welfare Act, the justices dismissed race-related claims on technical grounds.

And the color-blind arguments were explicitly rejected in the justices’ surprise ruling June 8 in Allen v. Milligan. The 7-2 court there said claims under the Voting Rights Act didn’t have to be “race-neutral.”

But Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler explain why the outcome could be different the affirmative action cases, which the court is expected to hand down before the end of June.

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 declined to make it harder to bring racial challenges to voting rules, shocking court watchers who expected the majority conservative court to make major changes to the law.

Goodwin's William Jay joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the reasons why Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh refused to go along with their conservative colleagues, and what, if anything, it might signal about the upcoming affirmative action cases. Along with co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler, Jay also discusses two IP cases in front of the justices—one a trademark dispute decided by the justices Thursday and the other a case to be heard next term involving a phrase that alludes to the size of former President Trump's hands.

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