Relitigated

In the season 2 finale we re-argue the Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp.WM, a Black man, was sentenced to death for murder. On appeal, he submitted statistical evidence to show that the race of the victim (and, to a lesser extent, of the defendant) is associated with whether the defendant gets sentenced to death or not.The question before the court: does statistical evidence of racial disparities in a state’s capital sentencing system prove racism? Does the evidence make that system unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th amendments?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.High school students wrote and edited articles as the staff for their school newspaper. One day, they found that their articles about divorce and teen pregnancy had been removed from their newest issue. The principal cut them because he thought they were “inappropriate.” That’s a violation of the First Amendment, right?

In this special episode we bring you the first ever edition of Objection! The Relitigated Game Show.3 of our justices, Sarah, Adam, and Preston, compete for points to see who will be crowned the official Chief Justice of Relitigated and earn the commemorative gavel. To make things spicy, contestants can object when they believe a colleague is wrong and wager points to get either a boost or a setback. With 6 rounds of questions on the most recent Supreme Court term, and some of the, honestly, most unfair questions ever asked in a multiple-choice trivia game, the contestants have their work cut out for them.Who will be victorious and crowned the official Chief Justice of Relitigated?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Company.In the wake of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in employment, a major company changed its hiring and promotion policies and implemented alternate requirements. Black employees, who largely did not advance, complained of continuing discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated and substantiated their allegations. The employer denied.The question before the court: did the company’s promotion requirements violate the Civil Rights Act?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Watts v. U.S.At a protest, a young man made a statement about getting the president in the sights of his rifle, and was convicted of threatening the life of the president. Was he, though?The question before the court: Was his statement actually a threat? Was it prohibited by the law?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins.A man is arrested, informed of his rights, and interrogated. But for two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, he is mostly silent. At trial he argued that he was exercising his right to silence under Miranda v. Arizona, and police should have stopped the interrogation. The Appeals Court thought so, too.The question before the court: was the Appeals Court correct in its interpretation of the right to remain silent?---For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/29/15-berghuis-v-thompkins/.

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Butler.A man is arrested by the FBI, who gave him both a verbal and written notification of his rights. WB refused to sign a form indicating that he wished to waive his rights. Statements to the agents were included in evidence against him at trial. He was convicted, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction, and the State cried foul.The question before the court: can a suspect’s statements be used against him if he did not explicitly say he was waiving his Miranda rights?---For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/23/14-north-carolina-v-butler.

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Paul Lombardo, Regents’ Professor and Bobby Lee Cook Professor of Law at Georgia State University. He is a historian and legal scholar who has written on eugenics, medical ethics, and Buck v. Bell. He tells us about Carrie Buck, those at the Virginia Colony who drove her case to the Supreme Court, and the impact of the Court’s decision.---For more information about Dr. Lombardo's book Three Generations, No Imbeciles, visit https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12262/three-generations-no-imbeciles.---For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/16/13-reflections-on-buck-v-bell-an-interview-with-dr-paul-lombardo.

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell.A young woman was committed to an institution, due to the state’s concerns about her disability and vulnerability. After a formal legal proceeding, it is determined that she should be sterilized.The question before the court: is the law authorizing sterilization of a disabled person valid under the 14th Amendment?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Colorado v. Connelly.A man walked up to a police officer who was minding his own business and announced that he wished to confess to a murder. The police repeatedly informed him of his rights, and he insisted upon making his statement. It turned out this man was experiencing acute symptoms of mental illness.The question before the court: did taking FC’s statements and using them as evidence against him violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Hi there fans of Relitigated. It’s been a while, but we have great news! Our podcast returns with season 2 on July 2nd; just in time for Independence Day. Be ready for more jurisprudence and, as always, shenanigans. We might even have some surprise guests joining us this season. We’ve been hard at work and we can’t wait for you to hear what we have in store for you next.As always, we’d love to hear from you. You can find us on YouTube, Instagram, and BlueSky at the handle @relitigatedpodcast.------Research by NikkiAudio mixing and producing by JarretMusic Credits:Risk by StudioKolomna (https://pixabay.com/users/studiokolom...)2ALKblkJn1mSd2O02Zts

In this episode we step down from the U.S. Supreme Court to visit the Georgia Court of Appeals. Here, we re-argue the case Christy Brothers Circus v. Turnage.An evening at the circus suddenly turned an unsuspecting audience member into part of the show.The question before the court: can a victim collect damages for emotional distress without physical injury?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby.A couple bought property, where they made their home and ran a chicken farm. Their property was less than half a mile away from an airfield, which the U.S. government began using. The family’s farm (and their nerves) were then destroyed by lots of large military aircraft flying less than 100 feet overhead day and night. They sued the government.The question before the court: was their property taken by the government without just compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.HA was charged with First-Degree Murder, a capital offense in North Carolina. There was a lot of evidence against him, so his lawyer recommended he plead guilty. HA ultimately agreed to plead guilty to Second-Degree Murder, but when he went before the judge, HA testified he didn’t commit the crime and was only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later appealed, stating that he had been coerced into the guilty plea because of the prospect of the death penalty.The question before the court: is a guilty plea invalid when the defendant is also claiming innocence and is only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts.Massachusetts  has adopted child labor laws prohibiting children from selling  periodicals on the street, and prohibiting adults from making children  work illegally. SP is a Jehovah’s Witness who would distribute religious  literature on the street. Her children and her niece begged and cried  to join her. SP was confronted by authorities, charged, and ultimately  convicted of violating child labor laws. SP says that the government is  using inapplicable law to interfere with her parental rights, and her  and the child’s religious freedom.The question before the court: do the state laws prohibiting child labor interfere with parental rights and religious freedoms?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.The U.S. is at war. CS took part in printing and mailing leaflets criticizing the war and the draft. The leaflets also encouraged young men to resist the draft. He was arrested and convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.The question before the court: did CS’s conviction for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, Douglas Packing Company, Claimant.The Douglas Packing Company is selling a product that they have labeled as apple cider vinegar. However, the feds have an issue with the fact that sometimes the company presses fresh apples, and at other times they press dehydrated and rehydrated apples without informing consumers of the difference. Does this still count as “apple cider vinegar”? Neither the company, the feds, nor the lower courts can agree.The question before the court: was the apple cider vinegar misbranded under the provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.One evening, police arrived at the home of DM and demanded to be let in to conduct a search. After calling her lawyer, DM declined to allow police to enter her home without a search warrant. Police eventually broke down her door and searched her home despite not having a search warrant. DM was later tried and convicted for possession of obscene material. She appealed her conviction.The question before the court: are state courts subject to the same constitutional requirements as the federal courts?This is episode 3 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Wolf v. Colorado.Police investigating illegal abortions searched a doctor’s office without a search warrant and took a log of patients. After interviewing his patients, police charged JW and others. The results of the search were used as evidence and JW was convicted. JW appealed his conviction.The question before the court: do 4th Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures apply to criminal cases in state courts? Or do state courts get to make their own rules?This is episode 2 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

In this episode we re-argue the landmark case Weeks v. United States.Local law enforcement entered and searched FW’s home without a search warrant. At the same time, other officers arrested FW at work. Afterward, a federal marshal conducted a second search of FW’s home without a warrant. Using the evidence from the search, the prosecution secured a conviction against FW, who appealed his conviction.The question before the court: under the 4th and 5th Amendments, can the feds use evidence obtained without a search warrant (and in violation of an individual’s civil rights) at federal trials?This is episode 1 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

In the pilot episode of the Relitigated Podcast, hosts Jarret and Nikki invite 3 friends on and re-argue Deshaney v Winnebago County DSS.TRIGGER WARNING: discussions of child abuse.As this is our first episode, we are still working through tuning our equipment and our delivery. There's some roughness here we sanded down in subsequent episodes, so we encourage you to stick around. That said, we are still proud of this first episode, and we hope you enjoy it and come back to see how much we improve in the next episode, too.------Relitigated is a podcast made by non-lawyers for the entertainment and education of anyone interested in law. Each episode we select one real case, usually from the Supreme Court, and bring it to our invited guests to rule on as justices. We start with recounting the facts of the case before the hosts take turns presenting the arguments for each side. When the arguments are complete, the justices discuss and present their own opinions. Once we have a ruling from our justices, we present the actual results of the case and discuss how the case impacts us today.None of the participants in this episode are lawyers and nothing we say should be taken as legal advice.