Aughie and Nia follow up an earlier podcast (Electoral College) with the rulings that were pending at that time. In a unanimous decision, the SCOTUS held that electors must follow the rules their states have set out for voting in the electoral college. The SCOTUS also held that states could punish electors that "go rogue". Discussion ensued on the long term effect this may have on the functioning of the Electoral College. 

In the rulings for these two cases, Aughie and Nia wrestle with the competing interests of the 1st Amendment's causes regarding religion, civil rights, and moral exceptions for employers.  In the first case, the SCOTUS ruling upholds the moral or religious exemption from being required to cover their employees' contraception. In the second case, the question of the ministerial exception is explored.

In this long episode, Nia and Aughie talk about three Supreme Court rulings: Seila Law, June Medical, and Espinoza. The Seila ruling considers whether a government official can fine companies, when that official's position may or may not be constitutionally guided. The June Medical ruling concerned the question of undue burden for women seeking abortions. Nia and Aughie disagree on the third ruling, Espinoza (regarding charitable donations and religious schools), but do so civilly.  

In this episode, Nia and Aughie discuss three SCOTUS rulings: the pipeline ruling under the Appalachian Trail, the sanctuary city ruling, and the declination to take a Second Amendment case from the 10 proposed. Each of these rulings have long-term implications for federal and state powers. 

Nia and Aughie discuss the meaning of "sex" as written into Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, considering how it may pertain to being fired for being homosexual or transgender. They also talk at length about the concepts of Constitutional textualism, as interpreted by several justices.

Aughie and Nia discuss this Second Amendment case, originally opposing the travel ban on guns outside of going to firing ranges, as set by New York City. The case eventually is eventually declared moot (as the city rescinded the law), but there is a lingering question of lower court's application of SCOTUS Second Amendment precedent.

In this episode, Aughie and Nia discuss the Georgia v Public Resource case decided before the Supreme Court, October term, 2019. The holding: Under the government edicts doctrine, the annotations beneath the statutory provisions in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are ineligible for copyright protection (SCOTUSblog).  

In this episode, Nia and Aughie discuss the application for a hearing before the Supreme Court, called a writ of certiorari. Aughie details the division of labor, brief building process, and clerk work of the Supreme Court, leading to the Justices' decisions about taking a case.  

Nia and Aughie discuss the new rules for oral arguments as the Court adjusts to meeting under social distancing guidelines. Mention is made of the problems created by using a zoom-like software to hold arguments (and the flush heard around the legal world).

Nia and Aughie are spending the next several weeks focusing on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). This episode explains the case Marbury v Madison, which led to judicial review, and set the tone for the importance of the SCOTUS going forward. Learn about the maneuvering of Madison, Marshall, Adams and Jefferson as the third branch of government finds its feet.