National Constitution Center "We the People" Podcast About the Supreme Court Tariff Decision
The National Constitution Center released a "We the People" podcast analyzing the Supreme Court’s recent decision that declared President Trump’s tariffs unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Hosted by Zach Shemtob of SCOTUSblog and NCC’s Julie Silverbrook, the episode breaks down all seven opinions—majority, concurring and dissenting—offering listeners a comprehensive legal walkthrough. The show links to a curated library of court filings, scholarly articles, and prior cases that contextualize the ruling. It highlights the broader constitutional debate over executive emergency powers in trade policy.
Constitutional Challenge to Texas Law on "Prurient" Drag Shows Sent Back to District Court
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court injunction that had blocked Texas Senate Bill 12, a law restricting "sexually oriented performances" on public property and in the presence of minors. The appellate panel found the lower court...
Anti-"Queer" Speech Is Constitutionally Protected—But Not Parked in Multiple Spaces
In Wattenbarger v. City of Crossville, a Tennessee man displayed anti‑LGBTQ banners at a pride festival and was arrested after repeatedly parking his truck and horse trailer across multiple spaces in front of the courthouse. He sued the city for...
From SOTU to SCOTUS
The State of the Union saw only four Supreme Court justices—Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett—attend, while others stayed away by choice. President Trump used his speech to denounce a recent Supreme Court ruling on tariffs as “unfortunate” and “disappointing,” echoing...
X and XXX (but No XX): No Revenge Porn Liability for X Based on X User's Alleged Illegal Posting of...
A federal judge in Texas ruled that X (formerly Twitter) is not liable under the Non‑Consensual Intimate Image (NCII) statute for reposting a plaintiff's commercial pornographic material. The court emphasized that the NCII law expressly excludes commercial porn unless it...
No First Amendment Right to Film Others' Party in Public Park, Even to Try to Document Alleged Ordinance Violations
The Northern District of California dismissed a plaintiff’s First Amendment claim after a park ranger ordered him to stop filming a private family barbecue in a public park. The court held that the First Amendment protects recording public officials performing...
Thoughts on the Potential Broader Significance of the Supreme Court's Tariff Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump struck down President Trump’s expansive tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the president cannot wield unlimited...
Final Version, "Data Scanning and the Fourth Amendment"
Law professor Kevin Volokh published the final version of his article "Data Scanning and the Fourth Amendment" in the Boston College Law Review, arguing that the scope of a Fourth Amendment search should be measured by filter settings rather than...
Does Section 230 Immunize Twitter's Knowing Possession of Child Sex Abuse Materials?
A petition for Supreme Court review challenges the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that Section 230 shields Twitter from civil penalties despite its knowing possession and distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The petition argues that the Good Samaritan immunity in 47 U.S.C. §230(c)...
Court Requires That Vulgar Criticism of Mayor Be Obscured, but Eventually Changes Course
McMinn County Circuit Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by District Attorney Stephen Hatchett that sought to block a vulgar political message painted on a Liberty Property Services building. The DA argued the phrase was obscene and violated Tennessee campaign‑finance rules,...
Arrest of Commenter at City Council Meeting for Accusing Police of Being "Fascist" And "Pro Domestic Abuse" Violated First Amendment
A federal district court in Iowa ruled that Newton’s Derogatory Comments Rule was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and viewpoint‑discriminatory, overturning the city’s arrests of commentator Tayvin Petersen. Petersen was acquitted of disorderly conduct after being handcuffed for calling the police chief...
Climate Change Goes Back to the Supreme Court -- Colorado Edition
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, the latest climate‑change tort suit filed by a local government against a fossil‑fuel producer. The Court not only adopted the petitioner’s question on whether...
Litigation Breeds Litigation + Follow-Up to Lawsuit Against Pro-Palestinian / Anti-Semitic Protesters Outside Synagogue
A federal district court dismissed Marc Susselman’s lawsuit against the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, holding that the case must proceed through the state disciplinary process. The court invoked Younger abstention and related precedents, finding Susselman failed to raise his constitutional...
Diversity (the Civil Procedure Kind) and Self-Identification
Judge Gerald McHugh held that a remote nonprofit’s public online identity determines its citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant’s claim of a separate private identity. The case, Sherman v. American Ass'n of Suicidology, hinged on a change in the...
A Conversation About the Endangerment Finding Rescission
In this episode of Andrew Revkin's "Sustain What" podcast, host Andrew Revkin discusses the EPA's controversial final rule rescinding the greenhouse‑gas endangerment finding, which underpins Clean Air Act regulation of emissions. He is joined by environmental attorney Sean Donohue, a...
An Edited Version Of Learning Resources
In this episode the host discusses his unconventional approach to Supreme Court opinions, focusing on a deep dive into the complex *Learning Resources* case, which produced seven separate opinions spanning over 170 pages. He explains how he edited the opinions—condensing...
Trump on the Supreme Court's Tariff Decision
In this episode, the host reviews President Donald Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not permit tariff impositions. Trump lambasts the justices he deems disloyal, praises Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh...
Reptiles V. Plants & Dogs: Reptiles Lose
The episode dissects a recent Florida defamation case where New Moon Reptiles sued a Nevada resident for allegedly false social‑media claims that the company’s reptiles died due to unsafe shipping. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an ex parte...
From Prof. Jack Goldsmith (Harvard) on the Tariff Decision
In this episode, Professor Jack Goldsmith discusses the Supreme Court's recent tariff decision, focusing on how the justices applied the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD) to limit presidential authority over broad statutory delegations. He highlights the significance of three conservative justices...
I Got 99 Delegations, but a Tariff Ain't One
The episode dissects Justice Kagan's concurrence in the Supreme Court's recent tariff decision, highlighting how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) lists nine verbs and eleven objects that combine into 99 distinct presidential powers, none of which include raising...
No Pseudonymity for Defendant in Computer Fraud and Abuse Act / Trade Secrets Case
In Grow Universe Inc. v. Doe, Judge Gregory Woods denied a defendant’s request to proceed anonymously in a lawsuit alleging unauthorized access to a Google business account, misappropriation of trade secrets, and account deletion under the Computer Fraud and Abuse...
No First Amendment Right to Force Government to Provide Live Feed of Macaques in Government Lab
The episode examines a recent Maryland federal court decision rejecting PETA's claim that it has a First Amendment right to compel the government to provide a continuous audio‑visual live feed of macaques used in a mental‑health research lab. The judge...
Free Speech Unmuted: Student Speech, Threats, and the First Amendment
In this episode, hosts Jane and the narrator dissect two recent First Amendment cases involving student speech at public universities: Damsky v. University of Florida, which upheld disciplinary action for speech containing violent references, and Christensen v. Ohio State University,...
The American Constitution Society Still Does Not Have A Competing Theory Other Than "Antitrumpism"
The episode critiques the American Constitution Society (ACS) for lacking a coherent constitutional theory beyond opposing Trump and originalism, highlighting President Phil Brest’s admission that the organization has no affirmative interpretive framework. It references Jeffrey Toobin’s NYT column exposing the...
No Retroactive Pseudonymization in Federal Court Under California "Safe at Home" Program
The episode examines recent federal and California court rulings on whether participation in California’s Safe at Home confidentiality program entitles litigants to retroactively redact or pseudonymize past federal filings. Judge Birotte’s decision in Smith v. Solomon underscores that federal courts...
"One Would Expect … Attorneys Believe They Bring Some Level of Value to Their Clients Beyond That of a Machine"
The episode examines a recent judicial reprimand of attorney Michael Policchio for filing briefs with fabricated, AI‑hallucinated citations, highlighting a broader pattern of similar errors in other cases. Judge Mark Dinsmore emphasizes that while technology can aid legal work, attorneys...