Dissed

What are “navigable waters of the United States”? It’s a question agency bureaucrats and property owners have battled over since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. A Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that could have cleared it up is … about as clear as mud. This term, in Sackett v. EPA, the Court may finally provide the answer.

Thanks to our guests Jonathan Adler and Damien Schiff.

Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bonus episode, the ladies are joined by two fellow SCOTUS watchers to preview the Supreme Court's new term. 

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1996, someone murdered four people in a furniture store in a small town in Mississippi. A year later, Curtis Flowers was convicted of the crime, but the verdict was overturned based on prosecutorial misconduct. The state tried Mr. Flowers again, resulting in another appeal, and yet another reversal. In all, the state would try Flowers six times, with the last conviction making its way to the Supreme Court. While the majority ruled that the state had systematically excluded jurors based on the race, Justice Thomas wrote in dissent that prosecutors should be able to exclude whomever they want, for whatever reason they choose.

Thanks to our guests Sheri Lynn Johnson and Stephen Bright. And thanks to Benjamin Sachrison for research assistance.

Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss the most highly anticipated case of the Supreme Court’s term: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Center, overruling Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion. The ladies dig into other rulings involving the Second Amendment, a praying football coach, and school choice in Maine. Plus, stay tuned for a double dose of “Name that dissent!”

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the story of Tone Dougie, an aspiring rapper who posted rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife and blowing up an FBI agent. Tone Dougie says he didn't intend to threaten anyone and was simply inspired by Eminem. But the federal government saw things differently and prosecuted him for making “true threats.” His case eventually reached the Supreme Court, where only one justice dissented. Were Tone Dougie’s posts protected speech or criminal threats? Tune in to find out!

Thanks to our guests Adam Liptak and John Elwood. Special thanks to our longtime editor John Carter for his rap portrayal of Tone Dougie.

Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bonus episode, the ladies discuss an exciting cert grant and the Supreme Court’s recent opinions and dissents related to the Double Jeopardy Clause, bingo, and Indian tribes. Plus, stay tuned for “Name that dissent!”

Please subscribe, leave us a review, and share with your friends!

Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal

Send comments, questions, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected]

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was being “so wantonly and so freakishly imposed” that it was “cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” But just four years later, the Court reversed course---ruling that with new procedures in place, states could continue executions without running afoul of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote an impassioned dissent arguing that the death penalty is cruel and unusual under any circumstances. After hearing his experiences as a defense attorney in the South, it’s easy to understand why.

Thanks to our guests John Stinneford and Mark Tushnet.

Follow us on Twitter @anastasia_esq @ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this bonus episode, four guests joined us to make the case for why the Supreme Court should overrule Chevron v. NRDC, Kelo v. City of New London, Wickard v. Filburn, or the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hear the arguments and then YOU decide. Cast your vote in the Twitter poll posted by @CaseyMattox_.

Thanks to our guests Daniel Dew, Ilya Somin, Josh Blackman, and Clark Neily. Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the story of Bond. Carole Anne Bond. She discovered her husband and her best friend were having an affair. And her friend was pregnant. What Bond did next led to a federal conviction for using chemical weapons and two trips to the Supreme Court. While all the justices agreed Bond’s conviction could not stand, the majority declined to reach the underlying constitutional issue—leaving it to die another day. But three justices disagreed, arguing tomorrow never dies.

Thanks to our guests Amy Howe and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.

Follow us on Twitter @ehslattery @anastasia_esq @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This episode concerns one of the most vociferous dissents of all times: Justice Antonin Scalia's scathing opinion in United States v. Virginia, which was aimed at none other than his close friend and writer of the majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG's reaction to Scalia's fiery critique? Gratitude. As she put it, Justice Scalia's dissent was instrumental in sharpening her own opinion.

There's a lot to be learned from this case not just about equality before the law, but about searching for common ground when there appears to be none and maintaining a friendship with people who have different views than your own. This episode is not only about the case that brought down single-sex education at the Virginia Military Institute; it's also about the importance of dissent in a society that is less tolerant of opposing viewpoints than ever.

Thanks to our guests: Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution Center and AEI's Christopher Scalia.

Follow us on Twitter: @anastasia_esq@ehslattery @pacificlegal #DissedPod

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.