The Supreme Court stayed busy this week despite oral arguments, issuing a pair of rulings on Monday that granted qualified immunity to law enforcement officers involved in alleged violations of civil rights. On this week’s episode, we welcome guest Jay Schweikert, an attorney and research fellow with the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, to discuss what the rulings mean for the future of the controversial doctrine. Also this week, an update on the latest round of briefs filed at the high court over Texas’ 6-week abortion ban and a deeper dive into why President Joe Biden’s bipartisan commission is at loggerheads over a draft report condemning court-packing proposals.

S3, E4: Why Qualified Immunity Seems Here To Stay

The Term is a podcast from Law360 for the busy U.S. Supreme Court watcher. Give us about 15 minutes each week and we'll catch you up on all the big action at the nation's highest court, along with a list of what to watch in the coming sessions. Hosts senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City cut through a busy docket to focus on the key cases and developments everyone will be talking about.

News

Another U.S. Supreme Court season is in the books, and while the final week of opinions featured some supermajority holdings along party lines on divisive issues like affirmative action and gay rights, we also saw a number of decisions with unexpected lineups on issues like voting rights and religious freedom. This week, the hosts of both Pro Say and The Term team up to discuss the surprising unanimity we saw in many of the justices’ opinions, the impact we should expect following some of the blockbuster opinions handed down in the final week, and finally what, if anything, we can take away from the ethics conversation that dominated the headlines throughout the term.

S4 FINALE: United Or Divided? A Podcast Roundtable On The High Court

The U.S. Supreme Court wrapped up its term on Friday with a pair of monumental opinions. First, the court ruled that a Christian website designer in Colorado can refuse services for same-sex weddings on account of her protected free speech rights, and in a second case struck down President Joe Biden’s ambitious student loan forgiveness plan. We welcome Holland & Hart partner Christopher Jackson as a guest to give us the highlights from the blockbuster 303 Creative v. Elenis decision before digging further into why the justices said the Biden Administration lacked the authority to forgive more than $400 billion in federal loans.

S4, E37: The Court Closes With LGBTQ Rights And Biden Debt Plan

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dismantled affirmative action in a 6-3 majority opinion which held that race-based admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Law360 senior Boston courts reporter Chris Villani joins us to discuss the monumental ruling and its sweeping implications for academia and a potentially broad swath of the workforce. Also this week, we welcome Columbia law professor and voting rights expert Richard Briffault to discuss Tuesday’s blockbuster election law opinion.

S4, E36: The Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action

The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a pair of important immigration questions Friday morning, deciding in one opinion to uphold a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage illegal immigration, and in another opinion reviving the Biden Administration’s selective deportation policy over challenges from the state of Texas and others. On this week’s episode of The Term we welcome Law360 senior immigration reporter Britain Eakin who spent the day getting reactions from the immigration law community about what these opinions mean moving forward. Also this week, two big administrative law rulings related to habeas challenges and arbitration proceedings, as well as denied water rights for Navajo Nation.

S4, E35: The Court Delivers Its Immigration Blockbusters

The Indian Child Welfare Act, a 1978 federal law designed to stop the state and federal practice of removing Native American children from their communities, survived the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday after a 7-2 majority held that the law does not illegally tread on state authority in regulating child custody programs. The justices stopped short of deciding the question of whether the law discriminated against non-native parents, but the opinion was hailed nonetheless as a major victory for Native American rights. On this week’s episode of The Term, we welcome Law360 reporter Caleb Symons who has been closely tracking this case to explain the majority opinion and the implications it has for Native American sovereignty.

S3, E4: Why Qualified Immunity Seems Here To Stay

Download our free app to listen on your phone