On November 9th, the Court heard argument in Ramirez v. Collier, a case which concerned Texas’ decision to allow Ramirez’s pastor to enter the execution chamber, but forbid the pastor from laying his hands on his parishioner. Joining today to discuss this decision in two parts is Jennifer Lichter, Deputy General Counsel of the Catholic University of America. Mrs. Lichter has served on the Domestic Policy Counsel, in the Office of Legal Policy, and as in-house counsel for the Archdiocese of Washington.

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, on the question of whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. This distinguished panel will review the oral arguments, explore the legal issues involved, and anticipate where the law might be headed.

Featuring:
- Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
- Prof. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School
- Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
- Prof. Richard Re, Joel B. Piassick Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
- Prof. Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law

On November 3rd, the Court heard argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, a case which concerned whether New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violates the Second Amendment. Examining oral argument today, we have Professor Adam Winkler, the Connell Professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, and Professor Robert Leider of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School.

On November 1, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson on whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that may prohibit the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the public the authority to enforce that prohibition; and in United States v. Texas on the authority of the federal government to bring suit and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against a state, state court judges, and other states officials or all private parties to prohibit SB 8, a Texas abortion regulation, from being enforced.

A distinguished pair of scholars joined us to discuss the cases, their history, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.

Featuring:
Prof. Stephen Sachs, Antonin Scalia Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Prof. Howard Wasserman, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

On November 8th, the Court heard argument in Unicolors, Inc. V. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Zvi Rosen of Southern Illinois University School of Law.

On November 30, the Court heard argument in American Hospital Association v. Becerra, a case which asked: "Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council permits the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates based on acquisition cost and vary such rates by hospital group if it has not collected adequate hospital acquisition cost survey data; and (2) whether petitioners’ suit challenging HHS’s adjustments is precluded by 42 U.S.C. § 1395l(t)(12)." Joining today to discuss this case is Ilya Shapiro, Vice President and Director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.

On October 6th, the Court heard oral argument in United States v. Zubaydah, a case which concerned "whether the 9th circuit erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C 1782(a) against former CIA contractors on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities." Joining today to discuss this case in two parts is Kate Comerford Todd, managing partner at Ellis George Cipollone in Washington, DC.

On October 12, 2021 the Court heard oral argument in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, a case which concerned whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law. Joining today to discuss this argument and its implications is Elbert Lin, Partner and co-chair of the Issue and Appeals practice at Hunton Andrews Kurth.

We begin this October term with Wooden v. United States, argued October 4, 2021, a case which concerned the Armed Career Criminal Act. Nine justices convened, in person, to examine the issue of whether offenses that were committed as part of a single criminal spree, but sequentially in time, were “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement. With me today to discuss this case is Jennifer Barrow, Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. Ms. Barrow is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, Harvard Law School, and has served as a Supreme Court Fellow, placed at the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

We conclude the October sitting with United States v. Tsarnaev, argued on October 13th, 2021, a case which concerned procedural elements of Dzhokar Tsarnaev's capital sentences pertaining to the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. Joining today is Richard Broughton, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law at Detroit Mercy.