The U.S. Supreme Court surprised many legal watchers this week when it agreed to hold a slate of telephonic oral arguments in light of the pandemic. The team breaks down what to expect, before diving into a new high court challenge to the Trump administration’s “wealth test” spurred by COVID-19.

This week, the team discusses the Supreme Court’s first coronavirus-related ruling in a case involving Wisconsin’s election, which highlighted how the court’s partisan division may play out through the deadly pandemic. We also dive into the latest oral argument postponements, and a pair of additional opinions handed down this week that have 4th Amendment and employment discrimination implications.

This week, the team discusses how the coronavirus is affecting life at the U.S. Supreme Court, from tech troubles during an opinion announcement to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s famous workout routine. Plus, there’s a special conversation with Cate Stetson, co-director of Hogan Lovells LLP’s appellate practice, on what the pandemic means for Supreme Court lawyers.

This week’s episode looks at how the U.S. Supreme Court is keeping its gears in motion amid the pandemic, how the stimulus bill could help further remote working at the court and, on a lighter note, the team looks at some of the justices’ travel perks before self-isolation became the new norm.

The Supreme Court has closed to the public and, for the first time in a century, postponed oral arguments because of a public health crisis. This week, the team discusses how the spreading novel coronavirus has upended the current term -- and what may lie ahead for the justices.

The phrase “Equal Justice Under Law” is engraved on the front of the Supreme Court, but a new book by journalist and lawyer Adam Cohen argues that the court’s decisions over the last 50 years have disfavored the poor. Cohen joins this week’s Term to discuss the court’s changing composition, key Supreme Court cases that have impacted the poor and the issue of economic diversity on the bench. Also this week, a new juvenile life sentence case taken up by the justices, and a decision to let the Trump administration continue sending migrants back to Mexico while their immigration court cases proceed.

The U.S. Supreme Court saw a headline-grabbing week with arguments in two heavily watched cases, and the drama only escalated after a senator’s remarks on an abortion case earned a sharp public rebuke from the chief justice. We dive into that dust up on this week’s show, plus hit the highlights from the week including oral arguments in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case with Law360 Senior Banking Reporter Jon Hill, and the high court’s decision to again weigh in on whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which was busy putting out a number of opinions and adding to its docket this week, is set to hear a blockbuster abortion rights case in the coming days. On this week’s Term episode, we break down what to watch in that case.

The U.S. Supreme Court will be back in session next week, so on this week’s Term we preview key arguments scheduled for the returning justices, including a dispute over a national trail that is threatening a $7 billion gas pipeline project and whether a $4.2 billion judgment in a terrorism case can stand.

This week we’re joined by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who explains why he believes a high-stakes case over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an example of “dark money” influencing outcomes at the U.S. Supreme Court. The senator also discusses reaction to his amicus brief in a high-profile gun case and his thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts' role in the Senate impeachment trial.