Supreme Court justices are hammering out their final opinions of the term, fielding emergency litigation, and contemplating which new cases to add to their docket for next term.
The latest Cases and Controversies episode highlights an issue that’s been piling up on the high court’s docket: qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields law enforcement from liability even after the most egregious allegations of civil rights violations.
The Cato Institute’s Jay Schweikert has been fighting against the doctrine at the court and he joins hosts Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin to explain why, in his view, it puts plaintiffs in a hopeless “Catch-22" when trying to vindicate their rights, and why the time has come for the justices to take another look at immunity.
The hosts also discuss a variety of high court action, including litigation over the release of the full Mueller Report, as well as the court’s most recent opinion, in a suit over the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa more than two decades ago.
Producers: David Schultz and Josh Block

Qualified Immunity May Be Getting Axed by SCOTUS

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 Greg Stohr.

News

Government

News Commentary

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.

Homeless Dispute Getting Rare Supreme Court Hearing

Arguments in the challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone suggest the Supreme Court will nix the dispute on technical standing grounds.
Justices from across the ideological spectrum suggested the anti-abortion doctors at the center of the case were asking too much.
Cases and Controversies hosts run through the lopsided arguments that focused little on the merits and almost exclusively on whether the doctors could prevent access to the drug nationwide.
They also discuss how the Supreme Court’s action—or inaction—means South Carolina can use an unconstitutional voting map in the upcoming election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court Abortion Pill Argument Light on Merits

Lower court rulings that largely halted Biden administration communication with social media companies to combat misinformation about Covid and the 2020 election faced skepticism from Supreme Court justices.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the March 18 arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo, a second First Amendment fight about alleged government censorship.
They also discuss the legal whiplash over a Texas law that makes it a crime to illegally enter the US through the state.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Qualified Immunity May Be Getting Axed by SCOTUS

Download our free app to listen on your phone