Divided Argument

The big opinions are starting to drop, and we're doing our best to keep pace. We first discuss Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, which concerns religious liberty, the scope of Congress's power to create remedies against individuals under the Spending Clause, and whether there's any redress if government officials literally throw your rights into a trash can. We then turn to United States v. Hemani, where the Court found that a federal law barring gun possession by unlawful drug users violated the Second Amendment and revealed that some of the Justices are surprisingly open-minded about marijuana's role in American society.
Key Topics
[00:07:07] - Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections
[00:08:02] - The facts of Landor’s case and the prison’s decision to ignore prior religious-hair protections
[00:10:52] - RFRA, RLUIPA, and the path from Employment Division v. Smith to modern religious-liberty litigation
[00:14:54] - The Spending Clause theory behind federal funding conditions and why the remedy question matters
[00:19:54] - The majority’s reasoning: why money-damages suits against officials were held unconstitutional here
[00:21:33] - Sabri, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the debate over third-party liability
[00:26:04] - The parade of horribles: transgender sports, vaccines, and other funding-condition hypotheticals
[00:33:03] - The constitutional background: “general welfare,” the spending clause, and the comma-versus-semicolon debate
[00:38:49] - Why the Court granted the case and whether the facts pushed the legal outcome
[00:42:13] - Hemani and the federal statute banning gun possession by unlawful drug users
[00:44:05] - Historical analogies, habitual drunkards, and how Bruen and Rahimi are functioning together
[00:47:17] - Discussion of the Court’s analogical method and its practical limits in lower courts
[00:54:26] - Justice Thomas’s concurrence on jurisdictional hooks after Lopez
[00:55:31] - Justice Jackson’s concurrence on Bruen and Justice Alito’s surprising marijuana comparison
[00:57:51] - The real-world use of marijuana versus alcohol at the founding, and why the analogy is controversial
Relevant Links
Divided Argument: https://www.dividedargument.com/

Podcast merchandise: https://store.dividedargument.com/

Podcast commentary and blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/

RLUIPA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rluipa

RFRA overview (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/religious_freedom_restoration_act

District of Columbia v. Heller (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/554/570

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/597/1

United States v. Rahimi (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/602/230

South Dakota v. Dole (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/203

Sabri v. United States (Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/541/600

We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, a 9-0 judicial-estoppel case that lets us ask where the doctrine even came from (Tennessee, 1857, apparently), and Abouammo v. United States, the venue case about a former Twitter employee who fabricated a document while the FBI sat downstairs. The venue talk wanders, happily, into the Yellowstone "zone of death," a C.J. Box thriller, Jim Comey's second career as a novelist, and an extended appraisal of watch brands.
Highlights
[00:00:53] - Podcast update, SCOTUSblog partnership, and listener reviews
[00:01:49] - Justice Thomas's "foot fault" joke
[00:03:48] - Sam Bray citation discussion (Aldridge v. Regions Bank)
[00:05:02] - Justice Alito retirement speculation and clerk rumors
[00:17:23] - Vacation schedule and the upcoming opinion gap
[00:21:03] - June 11 merits decisions overview
[00:23:17] - Landor and the still-outstanding big case of the term
[00:27:49] - Justice Sotomayor's statement respecting denial of cert on ineffective assistance
[00:29:53] - Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction: bankruptcy and judicial estoppel
[00:36:10] - The Fifth Circuit's rule on inadvertence and mistake
[00:38:47] - Justice Jackson's majority opinion
[00:40:29] - Justice Thomas's concurrence and the history of judicial estoppel
[00:48:42] - Justice Sotomayor's concurrence and totality-of-the-circumstances approach
[00:52:11] - Abouammo v. United States: Article III venue and criminal prosecution location
[00:55:09] - Yellowstone's "zone of death" and vicinage problems
[00:59:21] - The fake invoice, FBI investigation, and venue dispute
[01:06:33] - Venue, personal jurisdiction, and extraterritorial conduct
[01:10:22] - Statutory venue rules and unresolved constitutional questions
[01:12:30] - Reprosecution after a venue reversal and double jeopardy

After puzzling over an interesting follow-up question about Pitchford v. Cain, we unpack a summary vacatur in Whitton v. Dixon. We then spend a while breaking down the latest developments in Allen v. Milligan line, in which we discuss the future of the Purcell principle and whether the Court should be unusually attentive to public appearances in election cases. We finish with Sripetch v. Jarkesy, where the Court rejects a requirement that the SEC prove victims suffered pecuniary loss before seeking disgorgement, with specific attention to the interesting Seventh Amendment question raised in Justice Thomas's concurrence.
Key Topics
[00:03:23] - Listener question on Pitchford v. Cain, AEDPA, and procedural default
[00:08:12] - Whitten v. Dixon: summary vacatur in a capital case and harmless-error review
[00:12:44] - Justice Thomas’s dissent and the critique of selective error correction
[00:22:46] - Allen v. Milligan / Alabama redistricting and the stay of the lower court injunction
[00:27:24] - The Court’s restatement of Milligan and discussion of “colorblind constitution” language
[00:32:30] - Purcell, election timing, and whether the doctrine is really about federal court intervention
[00:41:20] - Merits and legitimacy concerns in election-law cases
[00:53:27] - SEC v. Sripetch and the disgorgement remedy
[00:58:42] - Justice Thomas’s concurrence on disgorgement, equity, and the Seventh Amendment
[01:03:36] - Broader implications for administrative law and jury-trial rights

The Court has been busy, and we somehow manage to cover a number of developments with unpredictable efficiency. We talk about the Court's latest summary reversal on the "party presentation principle"; Justice Kavanaugh's vindication of his law journal student note in Pitchford v. Cain; Rutherford and Fernandez, two related cases about the intersection of compassionate release and habeas; and the DIG in Hamm v. Smith, a case about capital punishment and intellectual disability. Along the way, we also get into backlash against a certain SCOTUS advocate's TED talk and further Alabama redistricting fallout.

Key Topics
[00:02:25] - The infamous tweet and TED talk
[00:14:56] - Alabama redistricting developments
[00:19:07] - Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges and the Court’s renewed emphasis on the party presentation principle
[00:29:02] - Pitchford v. Cain and Batson
[00:35:56] - Justice Kavanaugh’s Yale Law Journal note on Batson procedure and how it connects to the case
[00:40:40] - Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States: compassionate release, retroactivity, and innocence claims
[01:03:34] - Hamm v. Smith, the post-argument DIG, and the future of the Atkins rule
Relevant Links
SCOTUSblog: https://www.scotusblog.com/

Divided Argument website: https://www.dividedargument.com/

Divided Argument blog: https://blog.dividedargument.com/

Divided Argument store: https://store.dividedargument.com/

Ethan Lowen's article on interstate extradition: https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2026/04/4-Lowens-–-Camera-ready.pdf

We are joined by guest co-host Professor Pam Karlan at the American Law Institute Annual Meeting for the last live show of season 6. We work through a busy stretch of the interim docket: the Alabama GVR in Allen v. Caster and what Callais has done to Section 2; the denied stay in the Virginia redistricting fight, Scott v. McDougle; and the mifepristone cases, Danco and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, where Thomas rides the Comstock Act alone and Alito takes it personally. Then a turn to executive power and the term's looming merits decisions—birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve, Humphrey's Executor—before audience questions on state voting rights acts, fixing the single-member-district statute, and whether you can wish yourself more wishes.
Key Topics
[00:00:11] - Live show introduction at the American Law Institute with guest host Pam Karlan
[00:02:30] - Fallout from Louisiana v. Callais and the Alabama redistricting order
[00:06:26] - Purcell principle, mid-election rule changes, and discriminatory intent findings
[00:17:32] - Virginia’s redistricting amendment case and why the Supreme Court declined to intervene
[00:32:41] - Danco Laboratories / GenBioPro and the mifepristone stay
[00:39:56] - Justice Thomas, the Comstock Act, and Justice Alito’s dissent
[00:47:15] - Big-picture trends in executive power and the Court’s posture toward the administration
[01:00:54] - Audience Q&A on Congress, district design, and gerrymandering reform
[01:05:47] - The President’s public attacks on the Court and possible effects on future cases