On February 24, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lange v. California. The question before the court was whether the pursuit of a person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant. In this case, Arthur Lange was driving home on the highway in Sonoma, California when police pursued Lange with the intention of conducting a traffic stop. Police followed Lange home and activated their overhead lights once Lange pulled into his home's driveway. Lange pulled into his garage and the garage door began closing behind him. Police approached Lange and stopped the garage from closing with his foot. After brief questioning as to whether Lange knew he was being pursued, police stated they smelled alcohol on Lange's breath and charged Lange with driving under the influence.
The trial court concluded that the officer had probable cause, denied the motion to suppress, and issued a conviction for Lange. Later, a civil court ruled that Lange's arrest was unlawful and an appellate court ruled that the arrest was lawful. On appeal to the California First District Court of Appeal, the court affirmed the conviction.
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute and Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute, join us today to discuss this argument and its implications.

On February 22, 2021, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court denied cert in Repubulican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid. There were two questions presented, which the Court decided not to entertain. The first was whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing electors for president and vice president under Article II of the Constitution, as well as the assembly’s broad power to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections under Article I, when the court issued a ruling requiring the state to count absentee ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day as long as they are not clearly postmarked after Election Day. The second question was whether that decision is preempted by federal statutes that establish a uniform nationwide federal Election Day. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito dissented from the cert denial. All three Justices acknowledged that hearing this case would not alter the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election but would be important in the event that similar issues occurred in upcoming elections.
Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa’s College of Law, joins us today to discuss this cert denial and the three justices’ dissents.

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Briggs. The question presented was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding–contrary to its own longstanding precedent–that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years. Briggs argued on appeal that rape was not “punishable by death” and thus was subject to the five-year statute of limitations for non-capital crimes. The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) rejected his challenge, but upon appeal tp to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the C.A.A.F. reversed the lower court.
Justice Alito wrote for a 8-0 majority, finding that there was no statute of limitations for military rape. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the decision.
Arthur Rizer, Resident Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute, and Prof. Richard Sala, Assistant Professor of Law at the Vermont Law School, join us today to discuss this decision and its implications.

On December 8, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid. The issue presented was whether the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
Megan Brown, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP, and Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law at Boston College Law School, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eight Judicial Circuit Court. The issue presented was whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.
Karen Harned, Executive Director at National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and Jaime A. Santos, Partner at Goodwin Procter LLP, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On January 25, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.. The question presented was whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. This case arose out of a dispute between two dental equipment sales companies. In 2019, the 5th Circuit decided two questions. First, it concluded that the companies’ contract called for arbitration of the “gateway question” of whether a dispute is arbitrable. Second, it concluded that a court (rather than an arbitrator) should determine whether this particular dispute fell within an exception from the contract’s arbitration clause. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
Erika Birg, Partner at Nelson Mullins, and Richard Faulkner, Of Counsel at Bennett Injury Law, join us today to discuss this ruling and its implications.

On January 14, 2021 the Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton. The question presented was whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition. The debtors believe that a different provision of the code, obligated the city to return the cars as soon as they filed for bankruptcy relief. The bankruptcy court agreed, and later, the 7th Circuit affirmed that ruling. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded. Writing for the Court, Samuel Alito indicated that “the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate §362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.”
Justice Alito’s opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Barrett, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
Ralph Brubaker, Carl L. Vacketta Professor of Law at University of Illinois’s College of Law, joins us today to discuss this ruling.

On On January 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project. The question before the Court was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the Federal Communications Commission orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.
Ms. Jane E. Mago, Consultant in Media Policy and Law and former General Counsel of the FCC, Hon. Michael O'Rielly, Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Commissioner of the FCC, Mr. Christopher J. Wright, Partner at Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis and former General Counsel of the FCC, and Mr. Lawrence J. Spiwak, President, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies, join us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On January 19, 2021, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The question presented was whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.
Philip Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, and Washington D.C. Office Managing Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.

On December 18, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The question presented was whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. The Fifth Circuit stated that an agreement that exempts certain disputes from arbitration does not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitrability to the arbitrator for disputes that fall within the exception.
Erika Birg, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, joins us today to discuss this ruling.