On today’s episode, David and Sarah break down the most interesting Supreme Court argument of this term and what it means for the future of double jeopardy law. But first, they have to shout out the dating site that is the AO comment section. Also on the docket:
-Mistrials vs. double jeopardy
-Federal rights and state interpretations
-The coolest word you've never used
-David calls for thoughtful comments
-How to lose with valor at SCOTUS
-Fifth circuit on the brain
-A second bite of the Rahimi apple
-Revealing AO's next long-awaited guest

Show notes:
-SNL: Weights and Measures with Nate Bargatze
-McElrath v. Georgia
-Blockburger v. United States
-Fifth Circuit and Rahimi
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Inconsistent and Repugnant

Advisory Opinions is a new podcast from The Dispatch. Hosts David French and Sarah Isgur have a weekly conversation about the law, culture, and why it matters.

News

Politics

Judge Edmund Sargus from the Southern District of Ohio joins Sarah and David to take on originalism and different means of constitutional interpretation.
The Agenda:
—Brown v. Board of Education and the different judicial philosophies that can be applied to the case
—Originalism vs. common law traditionalism
—Challenges and limitations of textualism and originalism
—Landmark cases and the Supreme Court’s decisions shaping societal progress
—Interpreting ambiguous constitutional terms like ‘equal protection’ and ‘due process’
—Thus ends DEI
Show Notes:
—Plessy v. Ferguson
—Rutan v. Republican Party
—Bostock v. Clayton County
—Loving v. Virginia
—A blast from the past: Rep. James A. Traficant found guilty of corruption
—David for the NYT: The Magic Constitutionalism of Donald Trump
—Seceding from Secession: The Civil War, Politics, and the Creation of West Virginia
—Fifth Circuit opinion from Judge Andrew Oldham
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Originalism v. Common Law

It’s a silent spring in Texas as Pornhub pulls out of the state in an act of protest over a law requiring age verification measures. Sarah and David go through the legal battle between the explicit site and Texas AG Ken Paxton.The Agenda:
—Sarah’s high
—Texas law requiring age verification to access pornography online
—The tiers of scrutiny in constitutional law
—The role of text, history, and tradition
—Going through the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023
—Understanding the differences between Medicare and Medicaid can be challenging, even for lawmakersShow Notes:
—Sarah’s Remnant episode
—Jacobellis v. Ohio
—Ginsberg v. New York
—Ashcroft v. ACLU
—Child Online Protection Act
—Wickard v. Filburn Wilker
—United States v. Carolene Products Company
—David for NYT: Ban Online Porn for Kids
—David for NYT: One Party Has a Serious Foreign Policy Problem. The Other Has a Tantrum.
—A class-action lawsuit against Columbia
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tears of Scrutiny

David returns after a brief food poisoning hiatus to discuss two oral arguments heard before the Supreme Court: Trump’s immunity case and Idaho’s case on abortion bans. But first, a request from The Dispatch’s resident Wilson-hater.
The Agenda:
—Are solo podcasters sociopaths?
—Proposals for changes on the Israeli Supreme Court
—Absolute immunity for presidents
—The role of the executive vesting clause
—Reviewing Idaho’s abortion ban
—Time, place, and manner restrictions on college campuses
—Answering questions and issuing corrections
Show Notes:
—Previous AO episode
—South Dakota v. Dole
—NFIB v. Sebelius
—Dr. Martin Luther King on “civil disobedience”
—Columbia University banned student protester over saying “Zionists don’t deserve to live”
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pressing the SCOTUS Panic Button

The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments for Donald Trump’s immunity case, and David has thoughts. However, he was too sick to join today so Sarah had to go solo (Ruminant style!), recapping the legal and political implications of the case, assessing the strength of the arguments and their significance for the future of our political system, and trying to imagine where we go from here in this bizarre election cycle.
The Agenda:
—Good and bad news for Trump
—What presidential acts are immune?
—Impeachment and conviction
—Going through the specific charges
—Can Trump stage a coup?
—ANSWER THE HYPOTHETICALS!
—Defining official acts
—The effect on Trump’s other cases
—The effect on SCOTUS as an institution
Show Notes:
—Bonus Collision newsletter
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Indictment Watch: Supreme Court Hears Trump’s Immunity Case

Sarah and David discuss oral arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a Supreme Court case addressing the issue of homeless people camping on public property, as well as and the 4th Circuit ruling that blocked West Virginia's law blocking transgender athletes from participating in sports.
The Agenda:
—SCOTUS hears Grants Pass v. Johnson
—Necessity defense and cannibalism
—4th Circuit ruling on trans sports ban in West Virginia
—SCOTUS rules on Title VII case
—Biden expands Title IX ruling
—Campus due process and Columbia protesters
Show Notes:
—Casey Mattox on local governments stopping churches from helping the homeless
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Inconsistent and Repugnant

Download our free app to listen on your phone