We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests.

We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests.

Map Guy

What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in little more than a week? We briefly discuss the latest developments in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown. 

What could be more unscheduled and unpredictable than our fourth episode in little more than a week? We briefly discuss the latest developments in the Mountain Valley Pipeline shadow docket dispute, and then revisit ethics controversies. Then, we continue marching through the June cases we missed. We talk about the First Amendment's "true threats" exception in Counterman v. United States, and then ponder the two student loan cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.

Triple Threat

We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States.

We defy all predictions by releasing a third episode in a week. This time, we talk about the intersection of public accommodations law and the First Amendment in 303 Creative and the Confrontation Clause in Samia v. United States.

Dishonorable Tradition

In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper. 

In the spirit of keeping things unpredictable, we're back with a new episode barely days after the last one. This time, we take a deep dive into two jurisdiction-y cases in the Divided Argument wheelhouse: Jones v. Hendrix and Moore v. Harper.

Peak SG

After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned "United States v. Texas." 

After some inevitable self-flagellation for our lengthy hiatus, we catch up on some recent news and debate SCOTUS ethics. We then talk about implications of the Harvard/UNC affirmative action case, revisit Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, and break down the latest case captioned "United States v. Texas."

My Despised World

We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: Haaland v. Brackeen, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and United States v. Hansen, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge.

We record our first inter-continental episode, as Will reports in from a visit to Tel Aviv. We then dive in to two of this month's opinions: <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/demokratia?t=15m39s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Haaland v. Brackeen</a>, which rejects a series of challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, and <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/demokratia?t=1h0m30s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">United States v. Hanse</a>n, which upholds a federal immigration law against a free speech overbreadth challenge.

Demokratia

We discuss a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss Tyler v. Hennepin County, United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., and Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters. 

We discuss a recent effort to identify the least interesting SCOTUS case, and then discuss <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/justified-true-belief?t=16m44s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Tyler v. Hennepin County</a>, <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/justified-true-belief?t=41m12s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc.</a>, and <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/justified-true-belief?t=51m47s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters</a>.

Justified True Belief

We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in Arizona v. Mayorkas. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. 

We debate Justice Gorsuch's unusual "statement" in <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/pale-fire?t=14m55s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Arizona v. Mayorkas</a>. Then, we don't let our complete lack of knowledge of intellectual property law stop us in trying to make sense of <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/pale-fire?t=37m12s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith</a>, the big copyright throw-down between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Pale Fire

After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into National Pork Producers Council v. Ross and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, Percoco and Ciminelli. 

After catching up on news and bemoaning some listener feedback, we look at some opinions that the Court dropped last week. We take a deep dive into <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/break-the-fourth-wall?t=10m27s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">National Pork Producers Council v. Ross</a> and briefly discuss the two fraud cases, <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/break-the-fourth-wall?t=51m32s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Percoco and Ciminelli</a>.

Break the Fourth Wall

We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough.

We talk (and argue) with special guest Steve Vladeck about his new book, The Shadow Docket, just published by Basic Books. Steve explains why it is important to educate the public about the Court's use of unsigned and sometimes unexplained orders, and how it is changing. Will and Dan press him on whether his criticisms go too far . . . or not far enough.

Provocative Subtitle

An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast. Hosted by Will Baude and Dan Epps.

We cover many developments -- Justice Alito's unusual interview in the Wall Street Journal, the release of Justice Stevens' papers, more news on Supreme Court ethics, as well as a new cert. grant on the Chevron doctrine, the mifepristone shadow-docket ruling, and still more jurisdictional news in Moore v. Harper. But first -- an anonymous caller drops a new voicemail song.

We cover many developments -- Justice Alito's unusual interview in the Wall Street Journal, the release of Justice Stevens' papers, more news on Supreme Court ethics, as well as a new cert. grant on the Chevron doctrine, the mifepristone shadow-docket ruling, and still more jurisdictional news in Moore v. Harper. But first -- an anonymous caller drops a new voicemail song.

Creator of the Stars of Night

We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions --  Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States and Reed v. Goertz.

We revisit a story about Justice Scalia from last episode and then discuss recent allegations about Justice Thomas's financial disclosures, and Supreme Court ethics more broadly. We also briefly turn to two recent merits opinions --  <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/best-suits?t=32m25s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States</a> and <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/best-suits?t=35m43s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reed v. Goertz</a>.

Best Suits

We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe (starting at 25:41) and Donziger v. United States (starting at 35:15) -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized.

We spend most of our time on some meaty opinions on the orders list -- including separate opinions in Chapman v. Doe (<a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/a-chanting-of-morrison-v-olson?t=25m41s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">starting at 25:41</a>) and Donziger v. United States (<a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/a-chanting-of-morrison-v-olson?t=35m15s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">starting at 35:15</a>) -- and touch on the recent merits opinions. But first, we have an extended revisit of Cruz v. Arizona, which proves far more mysterious than we first realized.

A Chanting of Morrison v. Olson

We're back to break down two of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 opinions—Bittner v. United States, about penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, and Cruz v. Arizona, a death penalty case about state procedures and federal jurisdiction. But first, we take a brief look back at the oral arguments in the student loan case, and a new order and jurisdictional developments in Moore v. Harper (the independent state legislature case).

We're back to break down two of the Supreme Court's recent 5-4 opinions—<a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/mr-jurisdiction?t=24m32s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Bittner v. United States</a>, about penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act, and <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/mr-jurisdiction?t=50m12s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cruz v. Arizona</a>, a death penalty case about state procedures and federal jurisdiction. But first, we take a brief look back at the oral arguments in the student loan case, and a new order and jurisdictional developments in <a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/mr-jurisdiction?t=8m3s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Moore v. Harper</a> (the independent state legislature case).

Mr. Jurisdiction

We're live at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree. 

We're live at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis! After a check-in with our most faithful corrector, Prof. Ron Levin, we take a deep dive into the two upcoming cases about the legality of President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan. Will explains his theory of why the challengers should lose because they lack standing—but also predicts that the Court is unlikely to agree.

Least Incorrect

We revisit the leak investigation, catch up on recent news, and then take a deep dive into the recent dispute in United States v. Texas  (starting at 37:56) over the scope of courts' power to vacate administrative rules and the related controversy over so-called "nationwide" injunctions. 

We revisit the leak investigation, catch up on recent news, and then take a deep dive into the recent dispute in United States v. Texas  (<a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/marching-orders?t=37m56s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">starting at 37:56</a>) over the scope of courts' power to vacate administrative rules and the related controversy over so-called "nationwide" injunctions.

Marching Orders

We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak!

We're back sooner than expected to talk about the Court's release of the Marshal's report about the investigation of the Dobbs leak!

Soft Target

We catch up on some odds and ends, take a long detour through a debate about the merits of the Star Wars trilogies, and then dig into Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (starting at 38:10), an interesting case about the scope of foreign sovereign immunity being heard in the January sitting. 

We catch up on some odds and ends, take a long detour through a debate about the merits of the Star Wars trilogies, and then dig into Türkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (<a href="https://dividedargument.simplecast.com/episodes/expanded-universe?t=38m10s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">starting at 38:10</a>), an interesting case about the scope of foreign sovereign immunity being heard in the January sitting.

Expanded Universe

We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States. 

We talk through the implications of the story about an alleged leak in the Hobby Lobby case, respond to a mysterious voicemail, and then break down two interesting federal criminal fraud cases, Cimenelli v. United States and Percoco v. United States.

Unpersuasive Scholar Trolling

In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases. 

In this mega-episode, we catch up on the orders list, circle back to Mallory, which we talked about last episode, and the dive into oral arguments in the affirmative action cases.

Relentless Personal Attacks

Divided Argument

The best podcast episodes of anyone with an interesting story. With famous guests like Obama, LeBron James, Drake, Oprah Winfrey, Richard Branson, Michelle Obama, Serena Williams, to anyone who has a unique and interesting story to tell. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes: Personal Stories & Great Interviews

The best podcast episodes on global issues affecting everyone. Covering topics such as the #metoo movement, climate change, the impact of technology and some of the biggest global issues facing us right now. For anyone interested in learning more about the world, and some of the issues we're facing, pick an episode below and start listening! Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!