SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

• A Constitutional Clash: Trump's Tariffs and the Separation of Powers

  OverviewThis episode examines the Supreme Court's September 9, 2025 Order that expedited review of two consolidated cases challenging President Trump's authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), representing a constitutional clash over the separation of powers and presidential trade authority.RoadmapOpening: Explosive Constitutional QuestionsSeptember 9, 2025 certiorari grant and consolidation orderExpedited briefing schedule for November 2025 oral argumentsStakes: Presidential power to tax trillions in trade and reshape the economyBackground: The Trump Tariff OrdersReciprocal Tariffs: 10% on virtually all imports, higher rates for 57 countriesTrafficking Tariffs: Levies on Mexico, Canada, and China for drug enforcementIEEPA as claimed statutory authority for both tariff schemesNational emergency declarations underlying the ordersThe Central Legal QuestionDoes "regulate" in IEEPA include power to impose tariffs?Constitutional separation of taxing vs. regulating powersArticle I distinctions between taxation and commerce regulationHistorical significance: "No taxation without representation"Lower Court JourneyMultiple simultaneous lawsuits in different courtsDistrict court and Court of International Trade conflicting approachesFederal Circuit en banc decision striking down tariffsJudge Taranto's influential dissent supporting tariff authorityReferenced CasesTrump v. V.O.S. Selections | Case No. 24-1286 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose these specific sweeping tariffsGovernment Arguments:"Regulate" includes power to impose tariffs as lesser-included authorityHistorical practice supports broad executive trade power during emergenciesMajor questions doctrine doesn't apply in foreign policy contextsV.O.S. Arguments:Constitutional separation requires clear authorization for taxation"Regulate" and "tariff" are distinct powers with different purposesMajor questions doctrine requires explicit congressional authorizationLearning Resources v. Trump | Case No. 24-1287 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether IEEPA authorizes any presidential tariffs whatsoeverLearning Resources Arguments:"Regulate" means control behavior, "tariff" means raise revenue - fundamentally differentNo historical practice of IEEPA tariffs in nearly 50 yearsConstitutional avoidance: IEEPA covers exports where tariffs are prohibitedGovernment Arguments:Plain text of "regulate importation" naturally includes tariff authorityYoshida precedent shows Congress ratified tariff interpretationPresidential action deserves greater deference than agency actionKey Legal Precedents ExaminedHistorical Foundation CasesGibbons v. Ogden (1824):...

  --------  

  18:12

  --------

  18:12
• Road Work Ahead: How Four 2024 Cases May Be Reshaping First Amendment Scrutiny

  This episode examines how the Supreme Court's 2024-25 term may be quietly reshaping First Amendment doctrine through four cases that suggest new approaches to constitutional scrutiny levels.We analyze how the Court appears to be moving away from the mechanical application of strict, intermediate, and rational basis review established in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, instead developing more contextual approaches that consider traditional government authority, institutional expertise, and competing constitutional values.The episode explores Catholic Charities Bureau's traditional strict scrutiny analysis of denominational discrimination, TikTok's content-neutral treatment of national security regulations, Free Speech Coalition's novel "partial protection" theory for age verification requirements, and Mahmoud's expansion of religious liberty protection in public schools.Cases Covered:Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission | Case No. 24-154 | Opinion Summary: Here;TikTok Inc. v. Garland | Case No. 24-656, 24-657 | Opinion Summary: Here;Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton | Case No. 23-1122 | Opinion Summary: Here; andMahmoud v. Taylor | Case No. 24-297 | Opinion Summary: Here.Key Precedents Referenced:Reed v. Town of Gilbert;Employment Division v. Smith;Wisconsin v. Yoder;Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC; andLarson v. Valente.

  --------  

  20:16

  --------

  20:16
• The Bostock Bounce Back? How Skrmetti's Retreat from Bostock Sets Up a SCOTUS Sports Showdown

  This episode revisits the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock decision and examines how the Court's recent retreat from Bostock in United States v. Skrmetti sets up a constitutional showdown over transgender rights in school sports. We analyze the methodical legal reasoning behind Bostock's landmark ruling that Title VII protects gay and transgender employees, then explore how each faction of justices treated Bostock differently in Skrmetti's constitutional challenge to Tennessee's transgender healthcare ban. The episode concludes by examining how both sides strategically deployed Bostock and anticipated Skrmetti's outcome in their cert petitions for the upcoming transgender sports cases, revealing fundamental disagreements about statutory interpretation, constitutional methodology, and the scope of civil rights protections.Cases Covered:Bostock v. Clayton County | Case No. 17-1618, 17-1623, 18-107 | Opinion: HereUnited States v. Skrmetti | Case No. 23-477 | Opinion: HereState of West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-735 | Docket Link: HereLittle v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: HereWest Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: HereEpisodes Referenced:August 5th Roundup: Presidential Power Crushes Agency Independence, Court Places Voting Rights Act in Crosshairs and Maryland v. Shatzer, a Case That Evolved Beyond Its Origins | Link: HereJuly 7th Roundup: New Certs: Transgender Rights in Schools and Religious Liberties | Link: HereOpinion Summary: United States v. Skrmetti | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23-477 | Link: HereOral Argument: United States v. Skrmetti | Case No. 23-477 | Date Argued: 12/4/24 | Link: Here

  --------  

  18:15

  --------

  18:15
• August 5th Roundup: Presidential Power Crushes Agency Independence, Court Places Voting Rights Act in Crosshairs and Maryland v. Shatzer, a Case That Evolved Beyond Its Origins

  This episode catches up on recent Supreme Court developments in the regular and emergency dockets.We examine how the Court may be preparing to reshape voting rights law through Louisiana v. Callais, then dive into the contentious emergency docket battle in Trump v. Doyle over presidential firing power and agency independence. The second half features an in-depth analysis of Maryland v. Shatzer (2010), exploring how a seemingly narrow Miranda ruling about re-invoking counsel rights later became a foundation for broader limitations on constitutional protections, while showcasing the fractured judicial philosophies of Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas on court-made constitutional rules.Case Covered:Trump v. Boyle | Case No. 25A11 | Docket Link: HereLouisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Docket Link: Here | Supplemental Briefing Order: Here (Consolidated with Robinson v. Callais | Case No. 24-110 | Docket Link: Here)Maryland v. Shatzer | Case No. No. 08-680 | Opinion: HereVega v. Tekoh | Case No. 21–499 | Opinion: HereEpisodes Referenced:Order Summary: Trump v. Wilcox | Order Date: 5/22/25 | Case No. 24A966 | Episode Link: HereTimestamps:[00:00:00] Introduction[00:01:58] Regular Docket Update: Louisiana v. Callais[00:03:09] Emergency Docket Drama: Trump v. Boyle[00:07:24] Deep Dive: Maryland v. Shatzer Analysis[00:08:20] Shatzer's Case Details and Supreme Court Ruling[00:19:42] Implications and Evolution of Miranda Rights[00:21:42] Conclusion

  --------  

  21:54

  --------

  21:54
• August 5th Roundup: Presidential Power Crushes Agency Independence, Court Places Voting Rights Act in Crosshairs and Maryland v. Shatzer, a Case That Evolved Beyond Its Origins

  This episode catches up on recent Supreme Court developments in the regular and emergency dockets.We examine how the Court may be preparing to reshape voting rights law through Louisiana v. Callais, then dive into the contentious emergency docket battle in Trump v. Doyle over presidential firing power and agency independence. The second half features an in-depth analysis of Maryland v. Shatzer (2010), exploring how a seemingly narrow Miranda ruling about re-invoking counsel rights later became a foundation for broader limitations on constitutional protections, while showcasing the fractured judicial philosophies of Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas on court-made constitutional rules.Case Covered:Trump v. Boyle | Case No. 25A11 | Docket Link: HereLouisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Docket Link: Here | Supplemental Briefing Order: Here (Consolidated with Robinson v. Callais | Case No. 24-110 | Docket Link: Here)Maryland v. Shatzer | Case No. No. 08-680 | Opinion: HereVega v. Tekoh | Case No. 21–499 | Opinion: HereEpisodes Referenced:Order Summary: Trump v. Wilcox | Order Date: 5/22/25 | Case No. 24A966 | Episode Link: HereTimestamps:[00:00:00] Introduction[00:01:58] Regular Docket Update: Louisiana v. Callais[00:03:09] Emergency Docket Drama: Trump v. Boyle[00:07:24] Deep Dive: Maryland v. Shatzer Analysis[00:08:20] Shatzer's Case Details and Supreme Court Ruling[00:19:42] Implications and Evolution of Miranda Rights[00:21:42] Conclusion

  --------  

  21:54

  --------

  21:54

Meer Onderwijs podcasts

Trending Onderwijs -podcasts

Over SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions: Podcasts in familie