
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
By Akhil Reed Amar4.5
376376 ratings
The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

3,546 Listeners

2,272 Listeners

1,116 Listeners

2,024 Listeners

6,310 Listeners

6,616 Listeners

7,242 Listeners

5,867 Listeners

575 Listeners

3,953 Listeners

3,364 Listeners

817 Listeners

16,587 Listeners

745 Listeners

8,462 Listeners