Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to draw notice on the Supreme Court, this time writing the first solo dissent from a first-term justice since Clarence Thomas in 1991.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss Jackson’s dissent in the labor case, and how she’s handled herself since joining the court in October.

They’ll also analyze some of the 27 cases still outstanding with the term nearing an end, and how a few of the big ones might play out.

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

· Court clips EPA authority over clean water

· Chides local government on home seizure

Although Supreme Court justices were unanimous in backing landowners in a Big EPA case, their reasoning in the latest check on administrative authority shows there is still deep division.

Styled as a concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Sackett v. EPA on how to determine whether the agency can regulate certain bodies of water read more like a dissent. Joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh accused the five other conservatives of creating a test that is “overly narrow and inconsistent with the Act’s coverage of adjacent wetlands.”

The progressive-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center’s Miriam Becker-Cohen joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss that case and the other May 25 rulings.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr

Guest: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Constitutional Accountability Center

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

Ketanji Brown Jackson made her mark on US Supreme Court arguments like no other new justice in memory.

Her historic confirmation as the first Black woman justice was followed by seven months of oral arguments in which she spoke almost twice as much as any other of her colleagues, according to Empirical SCOTUS’ Adam Feldman. Jackson so far has defied the norm of junior justices taking a back seat during their first few terms.

Latham & Watkins’ Roman Martinez joins the podcast to look at Jackson’s first term as well as what the future might hold.

Co-hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also breakdown the court’s most recent opinions, including a highly anticipated copyright case and a sigh of relief for social media companies.

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler

Guest: Roman Martinez, Latham & Watkins

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The Supreme Court kicked off opinion season with five rulings, leaving 39 more to get out before the term wraps up in June.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr break down decisions covering immigration, public corruption, and state morality laws. 

Supreme Court veteran Daniel Geyser, of Haynes and Boone, also joins the podcast to look back on changes to high court arguments post-pandemic, including some sessions that now go way beyond the scheduled time.

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 hasn’t released an opinion in weeks, but it did add a major case on May 1 to its docket looking at the power of administrative agencies.

A dispute that started over a federal rule for companies fishing for herring off the Atlantic coast could wipe out a legal doctrine that tells courts they should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation when the law they’re administering is ambiguous.

Jonathan Adler, who teaches administrative and constitutional law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the court next term could narrow the Chevron doctrine without overruling it.

Hosts Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr also update listeners on the latest report on Justice Clarence Thomas and ethics.

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

With scheduled arguments over for the term, Supreme Court justices now turn their attention to their remaining opinions, and it’s going to be a heavy lift over the next two months.

The court has worked at a historically slow pace with just 15 opinions out and 75% of their cases remaining. Those include potential blockbusters on affirmative action, voting rules, and LGBT rights.

Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells bookended the argument schedule, appearing on the first and last days of the term. Now with his 50th argument in the books, Katyal joins Cases and Controversies to talk about his experiences before the court, and to offer his view on what’s ahead this spring.

Katyal said there are a number of potential reasons for the slow pace of opinion production, but that it’s likely not due to internal friction.

“I haven’t detected any greater animosity among the justices,” he said.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr update listeners on activities off the bench, including Justice Samuel Alito’s view of who’s behind last year’s draft abortion opinion leak, and the flurry of letters between Congress and the chief justice over high court ethics.

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 enters its final week of scheduled arguments, rounding out the calendar to date with a property case that plaintiffs say amounts to home equity theft by local governments.

Pacific Legal Foundation’s David Deerson joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss his 94-year-old client’s challenge to a practice in a handful of states that has previously led to local governments taking homes to satisfy tax debt equivalents to a fast food burrito.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also update listeners on the abortion pill litigation, congressional pressure over Supreme Court ethics, and a high-profile death penalty case.

Another Texas abortion case headed the justices’ way and a bombshell report on Clarence Thomas and his luxury vacations upended a usual quiet spring break from Supreme Court arguments and opinions.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson explains the fast-moving district and appellate rulings over the abortion drug mifepristone, a case that’s now on the high court’s doorstep. She also explains the latest controversy over Supreme Court ethics controversy drawing scrutiny in the Senate.

And finally, Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic joins the podcast to discuss her latest book, “Nine Black Robes,” and how the “Trump effect” has put the spotlight on One First Street.

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

An Evangelical Christian postal carrier in Pennsylvania, who says he was forced out of the job for refusing to work on Sundays, wants the US Supreme Court to do more to accommodate workers’ religious practices.

Cases and Controversies explores the issues around faith in Groff v. DeJoy, which is set for argument April 18.

The justices are being asked to overturn a ruling that said employers aren’t required to bear more than a “de minimus” cost in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on someone’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It’s a decision some of the court’s conservatives have been eager to revisit.

Joshua Matz filed a brief on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Lambda Legal in support of the US Postal Service. He joins the podcast to discuss why the court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison should be revised.

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 set to hear a free speech case that tests when statements are considered true threats not protected by the First Amendment.

The justices are being asked in Counterman v. Colorado if the government has to show at trial that the speaker knew or intended the statement to be threatening in nature to secure a conviction, or if it’s enough to show an objective “reasonable person” would view that statement as a threat of violence.

At the center of the dispute scheduled to be argued on April 19 is Billy Counterman, who was charged with stalking a Colorado musician after he sent her Facebook messages over the course of two years that frightened her. Counterman claims his messages were protected speech because they weren’t true threats.

Elena Cordonean of Southwestern Law School joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss why the court should adopt a dual standard that considers the context of the speech and the speaker’s intent.

Special thanks to Southwestern professor Norman Garland

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