Beyond The Judgement

Happy Monday, everybody! On today's episode, Eva chatted with Judge Andrea Wolfson of Florida's Eleventh Circuit. We had a wonderful conversation about Judge Wolfson's long tenure in criminal law, as well as her insights about the challenges approaching the legal field today. We hope you enjoy this episode and see you soon for another :)

On today's episode, Pari spoke with Judge Amy Eddy who is running for Montana Supreme Court. You can learn more about her and her campaign here: https://amyeddyforjustice.com/. Thank you so much!

Hello everyone!! On today's episode, Eva chatted with Judge Lisa Walsh of the the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida. We had a fantastic conversation about her background, emerging threats to judicial security and safety, and more. We'll see you soon for another episode!

Hey y'all!On today's episode, Pari was joined by Judge Houghton of the New Mexico Court of Appeals. This year, Judge Houghton is running to keep his seat on the court. You can learn more about him and his campaign here: https://keepjudgehoughton.com/. Thank you for listening!

Happy Monday! On today's episode of BTJ, Eva interviews Judge Sara Doyle of the Georgia Court of Appeals. See you in two weeks!

Hi everyone!On today's episode, Pari spoke with the Honorable Judge Chris McFadden of the Georgia Court of Appeals. We hope you enjoy this episode!

Happy Monday! Tune in to hear Judge Toby Hampson of the NC Court of Appeals chat with Eva about his background, legal career, why he’s running again, and where he believe courts get their power.  We hope you enjoy this conversation and we’ll see you next time for another interview! 

Tune in to hear Judge Chris Brook discuss his experience on the NC Court of Appeals and more with Pari!

Happy Monday! On today’s episode, Eva chatted with Judge Allegra Collins of the NC Court of Appeals. We talked about her journey to bench, advice for aspiring lawyers, experience as a world class athlete, and decision not to run for reelection in 2026. We had a fantastic time talking and hope you enjoy this episode. Judge Collins is active on LinkedIn, so visit her page here to learn more.

On today's episode I spoke with Justice Robin Hudson who served on the North Carolina Supreme Court! Justice Hudson mentioned the Informed Voters Project which you can check out here: https://nawj.org/catalog/community-outreach-programs/informed-voters-fair-judges-project.

Hey there! Welcome back to Beyond the Judgement. Today, Eva chatted with Chief Judge Chris Dillon of the North Carolina Appellate Court. Judge Dillon has been on the court for over ten years now. We hope you enjoy this conversation, and we’ll see you in two weeks for the next interview! 

Hey y'all!On today's episode Pari spoke with Judge Christine Walczyk who has been a district court judge for over 18 years and is now running for the NC Court of Appeals. You can learn more about her and her campaign here: https://www.judgechristine.org/. We are so grateful and honored to have had her on!

Hey y'all! On the first episode of Beyond the Judgement we had the honor of speaking with NC Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls. Justice Earls is running for re-election in 2026 and you can learn more about her and her campaign here: https://earls4justice.com/. Stay tuned for our next episode in 2 weeks!

Hey y'all!We are so excited to announce a new chapter of "Tiers of Scrutiny." We cannot wait to speak with judges and justices across the country about why they do what they do and how. If you're interested in joining us as a speaker please email us at [email protected]. See you next week for our first episode!- Eva and Pari

On today's episode Eva and I discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. You can read more about the facts of the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/22-7466 . Here are the resources we used for this episode: - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/22-7466_5h25.pdf- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/opinion/courts-execution-mistakes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

In this episode, Pari and I break down the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Skrmetti, where the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. We chat about the majority’s rationale, the fierce dissent, various concurrences, and what this ruling might mean for the future of LGBTQ+ rights. We also discuss how Skrmetti fits into the broader post-Dobbs judicial landscape. Additional analysis on the case can be found in the "Gender-Affirming Care (US v. Skrmetti)" episode released on March 10th. As usual, our sources are listed below. If interested, ACLU-NC, GSA Network, Human Rights Campaign, and Rainbow Collective for Change are hosting a virtual town hall discussing this SCOTUS decision TODAY (Monday, June 23rd at 6 PM EST)! Sources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdfhttps://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-maphttps://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/united-states-v-skrmetti/

On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Louisiana v. Callais, a case that the Supreme Court heard arguments for in late March. After a federal court ordered Louisiana to fix a Voting Rights Act violation, the new map—drawn to empower Black voters—sparked backlash from non-Black plaintiffs claiming racial gerrymandering. When, if ever, is racial gerrymandering a legitimate remedy? What does this mean for the future of the VRA? We discuss these questions and more in this episode. As always, sources below. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/louisiana-v-callais/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-109https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/335630/20241219161939870_24-109%20Brief-updated.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/339741/20250121131829124_24-109%2024-110%20Brief%20for%20Appellees.pdf

In this episode, we dive into one of the most talked-about education and religious liberty cases of this term: Mahmoud v. Taylor. At the heart of the case? A Maryland school district's decision to include LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks in the elementary curriculum—and to eliminate the opt-out policy that once allowed parents to excuse their children from these lessons on religious grounds.We explore the constitutional questions raised by Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian families who say their religious rights were sidelined, and the school district’s rationale that maintaining opt-outs was unworkable and potentially stigmatizing. What does the First Amendment really protect when it comes to public education, religious upbringing, and curriculum decisions? Tune in as we unpack the legal arguments, the court’s reasoning, and what this case could mean for schools and families across the country.Here are our sources: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-297- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf: - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/351193/20250304160341072_Mahmoud%20Merits%20Opening%20Brief%20FINAL%20REVISED.pdf- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-297- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor/

Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! This week, Pari and I discussed Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos--a case where the Mexican government takes American gun companies to court. Some relevant resources: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1141https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/smith-wesson-brands-inc-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1141/332815/20241126130359423_23-1141%20ts.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1141/337036/20250110145559191_Mexico%20Response%20Brief%201-10-25%20Final.pdfhttps://www.culawreview.org/current-events-2/smith-amp-wesson-brands-inc-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos-and-the-future-of-transnational-gun-trafficking-liability

Hi everyone! On today's ToS episode, Pari and I discuss Oklahoma State Charter School Board v. Drummond. This case raises various questions about the First Amendment's relationship to state-funded religious schools. Is it possible that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits states from excluding religious schools from charter-school programs? Alternatively, does the Establishment Clause require states to exclude these schools? We chat about these questions, as well as a few others here. As always, resources are listed below--thank you for tuning and we'll see you in two weeks!https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-394https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/351350/20250305181244391_24-396%2024-394%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdfhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-394/334661/20241209162142824_Board%20BIO%20MAIN%20E%20FILE%20Dec%209%2024.pdf

Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss US v. Skrmetti. Here are the resources we used: - https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2793977- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618-  https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-477- https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/united-states-v-skrmetti/#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20v.,Clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment-  https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0001.pdf- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/300984/20240220190248213_23-477%20United%20States%20v.%20Skrmetti%20-%20final.pdf- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/299674/20240202161645864_23-466%20-477%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf

On today’s episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Barnes v. Felix, a case concerning the “moment of threat doctrine”--a legal principle limiting review of police officers’ use of force to only the “moment of threat” in which they perceived a threat. Opponents of the doctrine call for an evaluation of “totality of circumstances”--arguing that courts must review any and all actions leading up to the moment of threat. Barnes v. Felix is named for Ashtian Barnes, a Black man who was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop in 2016. Listed below are relevant resources: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/barnes-v-felix/https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/barnes-v-felix/https://www.forcescience.com/2024/10/officer-created-jeopardy-a-legal-theory-that-threatens-effective-policing-will-the-supreme-court-restore-limits/https://abc13.com/post/us-supreme-court-reviewing-2016-case-where-pct-5-deputy-constable-roberto-felix-fatally-shot-ashtian-barnes-during-traffic-stop/15409623/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1239/331758/20241113164932983_Barnes%20Merits%20Brief%2011-13-24%20Final.pdfhttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1239/335125/20241213165012756_Felix%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf

In this episode, we dive into the legal battle between e-cigarette manufacturers and the FDA—a case that’s making waves all the way to the Supreme Court. Back in 2009, Congress put vaping under FDA oversight, but fast forward to 2021, and manufacturers claim the agency pulled a last-minute rule change, shutting down their applications without warning. The FDA says it’s just doing its job to protect public health—especially kids. So, did the agency play fair, or did it pull a “regulatory switcheroo,” as the Fifth Circuit called it? We break down the arguments, the legal implications, and what this case means for government transparency, corporate accountability, and the future of flavored vapes.Tune in as we unpack the puffs, politics, and procedures behind this high-stakes case!Here are our sources:https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1038https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/food-and-drug-administration-v-wages-and-white-lion-investments-llc/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/12/justices-hear-fda-case-on-flavored-vapes/https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/323413/20240826164114741_23-1038tsFDA.pdf https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-dohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/327672/20241007153644875_23-1038%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf

Happy Monday, folks! On today's episode, Pari and I discuss Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case in which SCOTUS must decide the correct scrutiny test to apply to age verification laws on porn sites. Other questions we touch on...Should governments be able to require that porn websites verify viewers' ages? Do such laws infringe on First Amendment protections and anonymity? This is a case that will have significant implications for free speech protections regarding sexual/obscene content. We recorded this episode before the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case, so we've linked the January 15th arguments for you below--alongside a host of resources if you're interested in learning more. See you in two weeks! Eva & Pari https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1122 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1122 https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/ https://ballotpedia.org/Free_Speech_Coalition,_Inc._v._Paxton#:~:text=Ketanji%20Brown%20Jackson-,Free%20Speech%20Coalition%20v.,court's%20October%202024%2D2025%20term.&text=The%20issue%3A%20The%20case%20concerns%20people's%20access%20to%20protected%20speech https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/scotus-attorney-general-ken-paxton-defends-texas-law-requiring-age-verification-measures-pornography#:~:text=Attorney%20General%20Ken%20Paxton%20filed,children%20from%20obscene%20online%20material https://www.aclu.org/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/326045/20240916160337719_Petitioners%20Merits%20Br.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/311950/20240530120355427_23-1122%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1122/326689/20240923183221800_23-1122tsacUS_Free_Speech_Coal_Final.pdf

Hello listeners! In this episode, Pari and I discuss Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a SCOTUS case that concerns Hungarian Holocaust survivors suing the Republic of Hungary in pursuit of compensation for seized property. Pari was actually lucky enough to be present in the chamber during oral arguments for this case! Listen for her observations about the justices' statures, behaviors and body languages during arguments, and more. As always, we've linked some information for you below and we'll see you in two weeks! https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/case-preview-foreign-sovereign-immunity-comity-and-the-holocaust/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/309743/20240514121241293_Republic%20of%20Hungary%20v.%20Simon%20-%20Brief%20for%20Respondents%20FILE.pdf https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-867 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/323352/20240826122931272_23-867%20Petitioners%20Opening%20Brief.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/324002/20240903185425980_23-867tsacUnitedStates.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/309743/20240514121241293_Republic%20of%20Hungary%20v.%20Simon%20-%20Brief%20for%20Respondents%20FILE.pdf https://tlblog.org/hungary-v-simon-offers-supreme-court-stark-choice/

Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss the SCOTUS case about the Tik Tok ban. Here are the sources we used: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336151/20241227163400981_2024-12-27%20-%20TikTok%20v.%20Garland%20-%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20President%20Donald%20J.%20Trump.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/335387/20241217150212414_24A587%20Amicus%20Brief%20PDFA.pdf) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336144/20241227161148472_24-656tsGovt_final.pdfhttps://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336136/20241227160309446_24-656%20ts.pdf https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-tiktok-ban-law/ https://www.wral.com/story/republican-nc-supreme-court-candidate-wants-gop-led-high-court-to-toss-ballots-after-elections-board-rejects-protest/21774323/

In today's episode, Eva and I discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case is about Richard Glossip who has been sentenced to the death penalty despite the prosecution hiding information about a key witness' mental health and that same witness admitting that he lied on the stand. We dive into the ethical implications of what will happen if the Supreme Court decides to uphold Glossip's sentence. Here are the sources we used: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/22-7466 - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/opinion/courts-execution-mistakes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/308603/20240429163200162_22-7466%20ts.pdf - https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/ - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/270450/20230705170639604_GlossipRes%20MAIN%20%20E%20FILE%20Jul%205.pdf - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-7955

In this episode, we delve into the Supreme Court case that challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) 2022 revisions to the Gun Control Act of 1986. These revisions introduced new definitions of key terms like "firearm," "firearm frame," and "receiver" that could have far-reaching implications for gun regulations across the country. The case revolves around whether the ATF has overstepped its authority by redefining these terms and altering the legal landscape for gun owners, manufacturers, and regulators. Join us as we break down the legal arguments, the historical context of the Gun Control Act, and the potential consequences of this case for the future of firearms law. Here are the sources we used: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-852/315742/20240625172334020_23-852%20VanDerStok.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-852/302555/20240307152938802_23-852%20VanDerStok%20cert%20resp%20Final.pdf https://apnews.com/article/biden-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-gun-politics-5f0f26cdb5d3bcbc6f9c5daf471c118d https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-852 https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-852

Hello everybody! We are on to business as usual, updating you on U.S. v. Rahimi. This is a case about the permissibility of 2nd amendment restrictions. If you need additional background, we recommend you go back and listen to the original U.S. v. Rahimi episode, as well as the NY State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen episode. Linked below are some resources on the Rahimi case for your viewing! Thanks for tuning in. As for the NC Supreme Court race, Justice Allison Riggs appears to have won by a slim 625 votes. There will likely be a recount. If you want to learn more about her, we recommend that you go back and listen to our interview with her, entitled "Campaigning with Conviction". https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-domestic-violence-d63ee828e51911cc5e5a01780820f224

Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss 3 key decisions that the Supreme Court made about the upcoming election. If you have not made a plan to vote yet visit iwillvote.com to get all the information you need to vote tomorrow. Here are all the resources we used in compiling this episode: - https://www.npr.org/2024/11/01/g-s1-31054/supreme-court-pennsylvania - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/30/us/supreme-court-virginia-purge-voter-registration.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/30/virginia-voter-purge-justices/ - https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/noncitizen-voting-missing-millions - https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4960129-election-lawsuits-supreme-court/

In today's episode Eva and I discuss Moody v. Net Choice. The case is about social media and whether or not states can impose regulations on whether social media platforms can engage in censorship. Here are the resources we used: - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-555 ​​https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/court-sends-social-media-moderation-cases-back-to-lower-courts/ - https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/differences-between-facial-and-as-applied-challenges-to-the-constitutionality-of-a-statute

Hey y'all! On today's episode, Eva and I discuss Moyle v. United States. Here are the resources we used: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-726 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf https://www.lwv.org/legal-center/united-states-v-idaho-consolidated-moyle-v-united-states

Hi everyone! On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, we discuss Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Here are the sources we used: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-807 - https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Id4cf195cf3ad11e28578f7ccc38dcbee/Clear-Error?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)#:~:text=When%20reviewing%20mixed%20questions%20of,Ass'n%20v. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-807_3e04.pdf - https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/rucho-v-common-cause

On today's episode, Pari and I discuss the landmark case regarding presidents' immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. As always, thanks for tuning in! Additional resources: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939

On today's episode, we discuss Murthy v. Missouri, a case regarding freedom of speech and government censorship on social media platforms. Here are the sources we used: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-1/ALDE_00012992/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-side-with-biden-over-governments-influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/

On today's episode, we discuss the fall of a judicial doctrine known as "chevron deference." in a case called Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. Here are all the sources we used: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_procedure_act https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-administrative-procedure-act https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/climate/supreme-court-climate-chevron.html https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-biden-presidents-00165234 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-fishermen-landmark-case-deciding-fate-administrative-state https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-1219

On today's episode, Pari and I update you on a case we've previously covered: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson. The question at hand--whether or not cities can penalize unhoused people for sleeping in public areas? We briefly preview the case, discuss the Court's decision, and give you some of our thoughts. As always, resources linked below. Thank you tuning in! https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-175_19m2.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-grants-pass-oregon-v-johnson/

On today's episode, we have an exciting interview with North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs. As she looks ahead to 2024 and beyond, we wanted to learn more about her background, convictions, and her vision for the future of our democracy. Listen to this episode to learn more about Justice Riggs, the NC Supreme Court, and the importance of voting in 2024. You can learn about Justice Riggs and her campaign here: https://www.riggsforourcourts.com/!

Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! Listen here to learn about NRA v. Vullo, a case in which the NRA accuses New York's Department of Financial Services' Superintendent of suppressing their speech. Linked below are additional resources regarding this case. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2023/12/11/scotus-adds-two-additional-gun-rights-cases-to-docket/

Wondering about the nitty gritty of former President Donald Trump's conviction last week? We were too. Listen here for a discussion of Trump's actions, the charges, the trial, the verdict, and the response. Read more here: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted https://time.com/6985067/donald-trump-felon-travel-guns-voting/ https://www.vox.com/scotus/353561/supreme-court-donald-trump-nullfy-conviction https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0

Hey y'all! We hope you enjoy today's episode. You can read more about the case here: - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-175: - https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-preview-city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-175_6kh7.pdf - https://www.culawreview.org/journal/evolving-standards-of-decency-on-the-abolition-of-capital-punishment#:~:text=As%20highlighted%20in%20Weems%20v,cruel%20and%20unusual%20standards%E2%80%9D%20clause.

On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny Eva and I discuss Trump v. US, the SCOTUS case about former President Trump's immunity in the January 6th trial. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300410/20240212154110541_2024-02-12%20-%20US%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables%20and%20Appendix.pdf https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-takes-up-trump-immunity-appeal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/06/trump-immunity-supreme-court-argument-date/

Hey y'all! We hope you are doing well. On today's episode Eva and I discuss the Tik Tok Ban which was passed by the House of Representatives on March 13th. Here are the sources we used for the episode: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/technology/tiktok-ban-bill-senate.html https://time.com/6958140/tiktok-ban-jeff-jackson-vote-apology/ https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849 https://apnews.com/article/florida-social-media-ban-desantis-fd07f61e167bd9109a83cd7355b5f164 https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-national-tiktok-ban-and-the-first-amendment#:~:text=The%20judge%20was%20presented%20with,in%20the%20least%2Drestrictive%20manner.

On today's episode, Eva and I cover Texas v. United States (2024). This case regards SB4 (an immigration law) and Article 1, Section 10. Here are the sources which we used: - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/texas-immigration-law.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb - https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-law/#:~:text=Texas%20has%20argued%20the%20law,own%20%E2%80%9Cunless%20actually%20invaded.%E2%80%9D - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sb4-texas-immigration-law-blocked-again-after-supreme-court-allowed-state-to-arrest-migrants/ - https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-allows-strict-texas-sb4-immigration-law/story?id=108248478

Tune in to hear us discuss the Supreme Court's per curial opinion in Trump v. Anderson. We also delve into Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as states' inability to remove federal office holders from elections. Read the Court's opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Hi everyone! On today's episode we discuss Net Choice v. Paxton, LLC. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-555). Here are our sources for the episode: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/netchoice-l-l-c-v-paxton-5th-circuit-sets-up-supreme-court-battle-over-content-moderation-authority-of-social-media-giants https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/candeub2.pdf https://www.cato.org/blog/fifth-circuit-gets-right-editorial-freedom-very-wrong https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-rcfp-urge-supreme-court-to-block-two-state-laws-that-would-allow-the-government-to-regulate-editorial-discretion-on-social-media https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/netchoice

The episode title is a play on today's case: NRA v. Vullo. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842. Here are our sources for today's episode: - https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-to-decide-a-variety-of-gun-cases-this-term - https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2023/12/11/scotus-adds-two-additional-gun-rights-cases-to-docket/ - https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/national-rifle-association-v-vullo-gives-scotus-an-opportunity-to-resolve-a-key-first-amendment-circuit-split

Hi everyone! On today's episode, I am covering Moore v. United States. This case involves an investment into a foreign company and a taxation on that investment. Although the case itself may seem boring, the wider implications of a decision are fascinating. You can learn more here!

Hi everyone! On today's episode, Eva and I discuss Murthy v. Missouri. The case is about the First Amendment and when, if at all, the government can step in to restrict speech on social media. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411! As always, please let us know if you have any comments or questions.

On today's episode we discuss the new ethics code that Justices will be following. You can read the code here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf