On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Vannoy. The issue was whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding, “The jury-unanimity rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.”Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Edwards v. Vannoy - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast

News

Politics

On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pulsifer v. United States. The Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?" At issue was the meaning of the word "and" in the statute, and whether text and context required "and" in this case be read as "and" to mean "or". Join us to hear Vikrant Reddy break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling. Featuring: Mr. Vikrant Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

Pulsifer v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Garland v. Cargill. The Court considered whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code.Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Institute(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

Garland v. Cargill - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. Anderson. At issue was whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot; the Court held that Colorado did err in excluding Trump from the ballot. Join us to hear Professor Muller break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling. Featuring: Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

Trump v. Anderson - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA. The Court considered whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislationPlease join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.  Featuring:David Lanferman, Partner, Rutan & Tucker LLPNancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On January 17, 2024 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The Court considered whether it should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Edwards v. Vannoy - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Download our free app to listen on your phone