Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Culture Wars & The Spending Clause
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Culture Wars & The Spending Clause
TPPF litigators Laura Beth Latimer, Clayton Calvin, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon play catch-up on the Supreme Court docket, tackling two major "culture war" cases. But don't worry, constitutional nerds—the team balances out the cultural heat with a massive, juicy deep dive into the Spending Clause (which, as Nathan helpfully reminds us, doesn't actually exist in the Constitution).
The crew breaks down Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, an unbelievable religious liberty case that hinges entirely on agency law, and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the highly anticipated Title IX and Equal Protection clash over transgender athletes in school sports.
Grab your highlighters and pocket Constitutions—this one is a masterclass in statutory interpretation, tiers of scrutiny, and why the Supreme Court decides legal questions, not just cases.
In this episode:
- The Spending Clause "Contract": Why federal funding acts more like a simple contract than a blank check for Congress to regulate conduct, and how that core philosophy drove the conservative majority in both of today’s cases.
- Landor v. LDOC (6-3): A Louisiana prisoner had his dreadlocks shaved by guards even as he physically handed them a 5th Circuit opinion protecting his rights. We discuss why RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) doesn't allow him to sue those officers for damages, exploring the downstream consequences of Employment Division v. Smith and basic agency law.
- West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Title IX - 9-0): The court unanimously agrees that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate boys and girls sports teams based on biological sex, adhering to the statute's 1975 original public meaning. We also break down why Justice Gorsuch's famous Bostock opinion doesn't apply here.
- West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Equal Protection - 6-3): We unpack "quasi-suspect classes" and intermediate scrutiny. Does a state law separating sports by biological sex constitute arbitrary discrimination? The conservatives say no; the liberals want more facts.
View all episodes
By Texas Public Policy FoundationTPPF litigators Laura Beth Latimer, Clayton Calvin, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon play catch-up on the Supreme Court docket, tackling two major "culture war" cases. But don't worry, constitutional nerds—the team balances out the cultural heat with a massive, juicy deep dive into the Spending Clause (which, as Nathan helpfully reminds us, doesn't actually exist in the Constitution).
The crew breaks down Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, an unbelievable religious liberty case that hinges entirely on agency law, and West Virginia v. B.P.J., the highly anticipated Title IX and Equal Protection clash over transgender athletes in school sports.
Grab your highlighters and pocket Constitutions—this one is a masterclass in statutory interpretation, tiers of scrutiny, and why the Supreme Court decides legal questions, not just cases.
In this episode:
- The Spending Clause "Contract": Why federal funding acts more like a simple contract than a blank check for Congress to regulate conduct, and how that core philosophy drove the conservative majority in both of today’s cases.
- Landor v. LDOC (6-3): A Louisiana prisoner had his dreadlocks shaved by guards even as he physically handed them a 5th Circuit opinion protecting his rights. We discuss why RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) doesn't allow him to sue those officers for damages, exploring the downstream consequences of Employment Division v. Smith and basic agency law.
- West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Title IX - 9-0): The court unanimously agrees that Title IX permits schools to maintain separate boys and girls sports teams based on biological sex, adhering to the statute's 1975 original public meaning. We also break down why Justice Gorsuch's famous Bostock opinion doesn't apply here.
- West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Equal Protection - 6-3): We unpack "quasi-suspect classes" and intermediate scrutiny. Does a state law separating sports by biological sex constitute arbitrary discrimination? The conservatives say no; the liberals want more facts.