Supreme Court arguments in Colorado’s bid to remove Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot tested a number of legal principles and scenarios.
The justices dove into the potential impact on their deliberations of a case from the 1860s as well as whether state governments have powers to effectively decide a presidential election.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down all the technical arguments from the Feb. 8 special session and where individual justices may be heading before voting takes place on March 5.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Historic Trump Ballot Argument Explored Numerous Paths

Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies brings you the latest from the Supreme Court. Each week we preview oral arguments at the Court or feature in-depth interviews. We explore critical legal issues with Supreme Court advocates, judges, law professors, lawyers, and legal journalists. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler.

News

Government

News Commentary

Cases and Controversies is on hiatus for a bit while we create some great new episodes for you. Until then, we're pleased to offer a special presentation of our ABA Silver Gavel award-winning series, UnCommon Law.
Generative AI tools are already promising to change the world. Systems like OpenAI's ChatGPT can answer complex questions, write poems and code, and even mimic famous authors with uncanny accuracy. But in using copyrighted materials to train these powerful AI products, are AI companies infringing the rights of untold creators?
This season on UnCommon Law, we'll explore the intersection between artificial intelligence and the law. Episode one examines how large language models actually ingest and learn from billions of online data points, including copyrighted works. And we explore the lawsuits filed by creators who claim their copyrights were exploited without permission to feed the data-hungry algorithms powering tools like ChatGPT.
If you like this episode and want to hear part 2, visit news.bloomberglaw.com/podcasts, or search for UnCommon Law in your podcast app.
Guests:

Matthew Butterick, founder at Butterick Law, and co-counsel with the Joseph Saveri Law Firm on class-action lawsuits against OpenAI and others

Isaiah Poritz, technology reporter for Bloomberg Law

James Grimmelmann, professor of digital and information law at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School

Programming Note & UnCommon Law Episode: AI Trained on Famous Authors’ Copyrighted Work. They Want Revenge – Part 1

Donald Trump may still get a victory even if the Supreme Court rejects his claim for blanket immunity from criminal prosecution.
Several key justices seemed inclined during arguments on Thursday to send Trump’s case back to the trial court to determine whether he was acting in his official capacity when he tried to overturn the 2020 election and during the run-up to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot by his supporters.
Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lively and, at times, surprising arguments in Trump’s appeal, and discuss how the court’s decision could delay any future trial until after the November election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Official Act Is Sticking Point in Trump Immunity Claim

The Supreme Court will hear its second abortion case of the term, this time on Idaho’s ban and the reach of federal law in anti-abortion states.
The Biden administration argued that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to provide an abortion when there is a serious risk of harm to the mother.
Alliance Defending Freedom’s John Bursch joins Cases and Controversies to explain why Idaho says its state law requires an abortion only when necessary to save the mother’s life.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Idaho Abortion Ban Getting Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court will consider whether prosecutors went too far in charging Jan. 6 rioters with an Enron-era statute, in a case that could have implications for the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
Former Boston Police officer Joseph Fischer, who participated in the Capitol breach, hopes to tap into concerns by some justices that prosecutors have too much discretion. It's something the court's pulled back on in recent terms.
Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter Suzanne Monyak joins Cases and Controversies to discuss the implications for Jan. 6 defendants, federal courts, and Trump, whose bid for immunity from criminal prosecution over alleged election interference will be heard April 25. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has charged Trump under the same provision, which prohibits interference with an official proceeding.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

US Supreme Court Considers Novel Charges Over Jan. 6

A fight over an Oregon city’s attempt to outlaw homelessness would make headlines in any other term. But the case, said to be the first of its kind in decades and set for argument April 22, has flown under the radar.
The justices are being asked if the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits Grants Pass from enforcing an ordinance that makes it unlawful to sleep on public property.
“This is the first case the Supreme Court has taken up on homelessness in 40 years,” said Antonia Fasanelli, the executive director of the National Homelessness Law Center.
Fasanelli joins Cases and Controversies to discuss what’s at stake in a case that raises an issue of national importance as cities try to find solutions to a rise in homelessness.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Historic Trump Ballot Argument Explored Numerous Paths

Download our free app to listen on your phone