This week's guests address the biggest issues ruled on in this last week of SCOTUS activity before the summer recess, and preview a couple of looming cases granted for next term.

SCOTUS slaps down California's 'sliding scale' approach to specific personal jurisdiction, explains Blaine Evanson (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher); and as Justice Thomas expresses 'skepticism' over qualified immunity in Ziglar v. Abbasi, Professor William Baude (Univ. of Chicago Law) argues that the doctrine's uncertain legal foundations are ripe for reconsideration.

Original airdate: June 23, 2017

This week the state high court debates Prop 66, passed narrowly in November and designed to quicken California's criminal executions; Professor Elisabeth Semel (UC Berkeley Law) and LA Deputy District Attorney Michele Hanisee (President, LA Assn of DDAs) offer opposing views on the legal and policy considerations that surround a swifter death penalty

Original airdate: June 9, 2017

52: CFPB's Constitutionality; EDTX Patent Monopoly No More by

51: Party ID Proxy for Race? SCOTUS Cert Denial Means.. Maybe? by

50: What's in a Week? SCoCA Decides Day-of-Rest Question by

49: SCOTUS' Turn on Net Neutrality? SCoCA on Long-Range Climate Targets' Impact on CEQA by

48: A Sliding Scale Approach to Specific Personal Jurisdiction? by

Professor David Engstrom explains CalPERS v. ANZ Securities, which entails Neil Gorsuch's first day of oral argument and represents SCOTUS' latest treatment of class action procedure; Audra Ibarra discusses why, after abran v. Sharp Memorial Hospital, not all mandatory rules are jurisdictional, and how that impacts your next motion for new trial

Is it a tax or a fee? Adam Hofmann (Hanson Bridgett LLP) explains how the answer in Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara could dramatically impact California cities; Ben Davidson (Davidson Law Group) discusses why SCOTUS' decision rendering the laches defense unavailable in patent claims makes defendants unduly vulnerable