Divided Argument

We have another short administrative law episode, analyzing the Supreme Court's decision about e-cigarettes in FDA v. Wages and White Lion. But first we field some listener pushback about facial challenges in administrative law, and discuss the shadow docket ruling, and ensuing fallout, in Noem v. Abrego Garcia.

Thanks to the Harvard Law Review, we recorded a live episode in the famed Austin Hall at Harvard Law School. While we hoped to discuss merits cases, the Court gave us far too much shadow docket activity to break down.

We are back with an unexpectedly concise episode focused on last week's "ghost guns" decision, Bondi v. Vanderstok. But first we talk about the calls to reconsider the Court's Confrontation Clause doctrine and also return to the number of votes needed to call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG).

We announce the new Divided Argument blog! After discussing the blog and some listener feedback, we break down two recent 5-4 decisions -- the shadow docket fight over USAID funding in Department of State v. Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Section 1983 exhaustion decision in Williams v. Reed (or should we say Rev. Stat. 1979?).

Back in the studio after a couple of fun live shows, we discover that the Court has finally given us too much to talk about. We discuss the new Trump Administration's first shadow docket adventure, a number of interesting solo opinions from the orders list, the decline in summary reversals, and the overall quality of oral advocacy before the Court. We then take a deep dive into the Court's opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma, a capital case with many factual, jurisdictional, and remedial complexities.

Divided Argument is live from the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, hosted by the Northwestern Federalist Society! We discuss whether we are in the middle of a constitutional crisis, the coming demise of Humphrey's Executor, and various shadow docket developments. Then we preview the issues at stake in next month's oral argument about firearms liability, Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos.

Divided Argument is live from Stanford Law School, hosted by the Stanford Constitutional Law Center! We review an unusual summary reversal in a capital habeas case and the latest universal injunction developments, and discuss some of the implications of the change in administration. After that, we are joined by a very special guest to discuss the recent arguments in the excessive force case of Barnes v. Felix.

In unpredictable fashion, we record a shockingly timely episode to reflect the Court's hasty per curiam in the TikTok case. Along the way, we catch up on the shadow docket happenings, manage not to get derailed by an ethics discussion, discover a surprising opinion revision in real time, and break down the Court's opinion in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most importantly, Dan—with help from loyal listeners—collects on a bet Will unwisely made years ago.

After an unpredictably long hiatus, we're back to break down what we missed. We debate the off-the-rails FedSoc panel Dan was on, work through some shadow docket happenings and the Court's two recent DIGs, ponder the implications of the election on the Court, and briefly discuss the first merits opinion of the Term, Bouarfa v. Mayorkas.

After a long hiatus, we're particularly unpredictable with an episode that isn't about the Supreme Court. We're joined by NYU law professor Daryl Levinson to talk about his exciting and important new book on constitutional theory, Law For Leviathan: Constitutional Law, International Law, and the State. Listen to learn why the Supreme Court's constitutional pronouncements on separation of powers might not matter as much as you thought—and along the way you'll find out what might happen to Will if he starts breaking into his colleagues' cars at the University of Chicago parking lot. Law for Leviathan: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/law-for-leviathan-9780190061593?cc=us&lang=en&

We take a long last look at two more end-of-term cases, where the Court made news with what it did NOT decide: Moyle v. United States (the abortion/EMTALA case), and Moody v. Net Choice (state regulation of social media). But first, a bit of debate about some prominent figures in constitutional history.

Unpredictably, our recent torrent of episodes continues. We take a deep dive into Moore v. United States, which addressed the scope of Congress's constitutional power to tax.

We continue our breakneck pace and dig into two substantive criminal law opinions: Fischer v. United States and Snyder v. United States.

We're back just a few days after our last episode to dive in to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, a 5-4 decision about the power of the bankruptcy system to release claims against third parties.

As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes.

After a vacation-related hiatus, we're back to discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling Chevron) and Corner Post v. Board of Governors (time limits for challenges to regulations). We try to figure out just how disruptive these decisions will be for the administrative state and somehow manage not to waste half the episode debating Supreme Court ethics.

Will makes Dan interrupt his vacation to talk about the case you've all been clamoring for: Trump v. United States.

We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

We cut to the chase with extended discussions of two of last week's cases: United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun law against Second Amendment challenge and produced six concurring and dissenting opinions; and Erlinger v. United States, a case about the jury's role in sentencing that continues a line of cases starting 25 years ago in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

After another discussion of Supreme Court ethics and legitimacy (hopefully our last for a long time), we discuss three of last week's decisions. We cover issues of statutory interpretation in Garland v. Cargill (the bump stock case), of standing in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the mifepristone case), and of constitutional remedies in US Trustee v. John Q Hammons (a bankruptcy case).