The Court’s decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), held that the Constitution’s fundamental federal structure does not permit Congress to “directly . . . compel the States to require or prohibit [certain] acts.” In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq., against a constitutional challenge under New York by construing PASPA’s proscription against States “authoriz[ing]” sports wagering “by law” narrowly to prohibit only the “affirmative ‘authorization by law’ of gambling schemes,” and not repeals by States of exist- ing sports wagering prohibitions. After New Jersey then proceeded to repeal certain of its prohibitions on sports wagering in specified venues in the State, the en banc court reversed course and interpreted PASPA as making it “unlawful” for New Jersey to repeal its prohibitions and affirmed an injunction that requires the State to reinstate the repealed state-law prohibitions. The court then held that it was constitutional for federal law to dictate the extent to which States must maintain their prohibitions on sports wagering. The question presented is: Does a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeer the regulatory power of States in contravention of New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?

On this episode we review the Court's recent decision in Buck v. Davis, wherein the Court considers whether Mr. Buck's trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for knowingly presenting an “expert” who testified that Mr. Buck was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is Black, where future dangerousness was both a prerequisite for a death sentence and the central issue at sentencing.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments last week in Lee v. Tam. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it "[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." The question presented by the case is whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

On this episode we consider a delay granted by the Court in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., a case which the Supreme Court was expected to hear this Term concerning whether states are bound by a Department of Education interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, which provides that a funding recipient providing sex-separated facilities must “generally treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”

On this episode we review the Court's recent grant of review to the case of Los Angeles County v. Mendez, which considers the merits of the Ninth Circuit's application of its "Provocation Rule" and whether that rule conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. Under the “provocation” rule, an officer may be held responsible for an otherwise reasonable use of force where the officer intentionally or recklessly provoked a violent confrontation, and the provocation was itself an independent Fourth Amendment violation.

Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.

On this episode, we review the Court's recent grant of review to Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., which considers whether courts should extend deference to an unpublished agency letter that requires publicly funded schools to "treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity” in the use of bathrooms.

On this episode we discuss a case to be heard in oral arguments this week concerning a rule of evidence that prohibits the introduction of juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations when offered to challenge the jury’s verdict. The question here is whether that rule applies when a defendant is attempting to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment's "right to an impartial jury."

This term the Court considers the case of Lee v. Tam, which considers whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), is constitutional. Section 2(a) prohibits the registration of a trademark that “may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” In this case, the Government denied a trademark to "The Slants," an Asian-American rock band based in Portland. In choosing to name the band "The Slants," Simon Tam sought to make a statement on discrimination against Asian-Americans.

On this episode we review the Court's decision in McDonnell v. United States, which considers whether a former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell was given a fair trial when he was convicted under the federal bribery statute (18 U. S. C. §201), which makes it a crime for “a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly” to demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree “to receive or accept anything of value” in return for being “influenced in the performance of any official act.” Specifically, the Court considered whether it was appropriate for the trial court to refuse Governor McDonnell's request to specifically instruct the jury that “merely arranging a meeting, attending an event, hosting a reception, or making a speech are not, standing alone, ‘official acts."

On this episode, we review the Court's decision this week in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, which considered whether a Texas law that had the effect of closing half of the abortion clinics in the state constituted “[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion" that the Court had declared unconstitutional in its landmark 1992 case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.

On this episode we review the Court's decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota, which considered whether in the absence of a warrant, a State may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.

This case concerns nearly $2 billion of bonds in which Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran, held an interest in Europe as part of its foreign currency reserves. Plaintiffs, who hold default judgments against Iran, tried to seize the assets. While the case was pending, Congress enacted §502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 22 U.S.C. §8772. By its terms, that statute applies only to this one case: to “the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al. “In order to ensure that Iran is held accountable for paying the judgments,” it provides that, notwithstanding any other state or federal law, the assets “shall be subject to execution” upon only two findings—essentially, that Bank Markazi has a beneficial interest in them and that no one else does. The question presented is:Whether §8772—a statute that effectively directs a particular result in a single pending case—violates the separation of powers.

On this episode, we review the Court's oral arguments in United States v. Texas, which considers whether a State has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., to challenge the Secretary’s exercise of immigration enforcement discretion, simply because an increase in the number of immigrants receiving deferred action might ultimately increase the net costs of the State’s driver’s license program.

On this episode we review the Court's decision in Heffernan v. Paterson, N.J., which considered whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's perception that the employee supports a political candidate, even if that perception is inaccurate.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in three consolidated cases, known as Birchfield v. North Dakota, in which the Court considers whether in the absence of a warrant, a State may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person’s blood.

On this episode we review the Court's opinion this week in California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, which considers whether the Constitution permits a Nevada Court to apply a rule of Nevada law that awards damages against California that are greater than it could award against its own state in similar circumstances.

On this episode, we review the Court's decision this week in Caetano v. Massachusetts, wherein a women in Massachusetts was convicted of violating a Massachusetts' statute outlawing the possession of stun guns, which she carried for purposes of self-defense after separating from her abusive former partner. The Court considered whether a stun gun an "arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment and whether Massachusetts' blanket prohibition on the possession of stun guns infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments?

On this episode, we offer a short summary of the life and career of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

On this episode, we review the Court's opinion in V.L. v. E.L., which considered the question of whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause permits a court to deny recognition to an adoption judgment previously issued by a court from a sister state, based on the forum court’s determination that the issuing court erred in applying its own state’s adoption law?

On this episode, we review the court's opinion in Wearry v. Cain, which considers whether the Louisiana courts erred in failing to find that the State’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated its obligation under Brady v. Maryland and that the failure prejudiced the defense.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, which considers the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires a physician performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where they perform abortions (known as the “admitting privileges requirement”) and requires all abortion clinics to comply with standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (known as the “ASC requirement”), which would require among other added expenses major construction upgrades to many facilities. Petitioners argue that the Texas law, if constitutional, would lead to the closing of a majority of the abortion clinics in Texas.

On this episode, we review the case of Williams v. Pennsylvania, heard in oral argument this week. In Williams the Court is asked to determine whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the death verdict on appeal.

On this episode we review the Court's oral arguments in Utah v. Strieff, in which the Court is asked whether evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful.

On this episode we review the oral arguments this week in Taylor v. United States, which considers whether, in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, the Government is relieved of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the interstate commerce element by relying exclusively on evidence that the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer is an inherent economic enterprise that satisfies, as a matter of law, the interstate commerce element of the offense.

On this episode, we review the Court's decision to grant review to the case of United States v. Texas, which asks the Court to decide whether the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion to broaden its interpretation of which aliens are entitled to deferred deportation without considering the costs of such a decision on the states and the people under notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

On this episode we remember one of the most influential and controversial justices to ever sit on the United States Supreme Court.

On this episode we review the Court's opinion in James v. City of Boise, which considered whether the Idaho Supreme Court correctly concluded that two prior Supreme Court decisions do not bind state courts because as it argued the Supreme Court “does not have authority to limit the discretion of state courts where such limitation is not contained in the statute."

On this episode we review the Court's opinion in FERC v. Electric Power Supply, which considers whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may offer incentives for energy users to reduce power consumption during peak demand periods.

On this episode, we review the Court's opinion this week in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which consider whether a prior Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. Alabama (2012), should apply retroactively to juvenile defendants that were sentenced to life without parole prior to the Court's decision. Miller v. Alabama held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Heffernan v. Paterson, N.J., which considers whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's misperception of that employee political affiliation. Jeffrey J. Heffernan was demoted when he was seen carrying a political opponent's lawn sign. In fact, Mr. Heffernan was simply picking up the sign for his sick mother, who had her lawn sign stolen the previous day.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments in Bank Markazi v. Peterson, which asks the Supreme Court to resolve whether §502 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 directed to “the financial assets that are identified in and the subject of proceedings in New York in Peterson et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran et al., Case No. 10 Civ. 4518," violates the separation of powers. At stake is nearly $2 billion of bonds of the Central Bank of Iran that plaintiffs are seeking to attach to pay judgments for hundreds of Americans killed in multiple Iran‐sponsored terrorist attacks.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Puerto Rico v. Valle, a case which seeks to answer whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal Government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution.

On this episode we present the full oral arguments in one of the Court's most controversial cases of the term - Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which considers whether to overrule a prior Supreme Court decision approving of laws that require all employees represented by a union to pay the union "fair share service fees" for the cost of collective bargaining activities. Several California teachers argue that their First Amendment rights have been violated because they disagree with the Union.

On this episode we offer a brief summary of one of the Court's most controversial cases of the year - Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which considers whether to overrule a prior Supreme Court decision approving of laws that require all employees represented by a union to pay the union "fair share service fees" for the cost of collective bargaining activities. Several California teachers argue that their First Amendment rights have been violated because they disagree with positions taken by the Union.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which asks:Whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013).

On this episode, we review five of the Court’s most controversial cases this Term thus far. Mullenix v. Luna - The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct “‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” In this case, the Fifth Circuit held that Mullenix violated the clearly established rule that a police officer may not “ ‘use deadly force against a fleeing felon who does not pose a sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others.’” Was the Fifth Circuit correct in its statment of the law?Williams v. Pennsylvania - Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the death verdict on appeal; where, in his State Supreme Court election campaign, the Chief Justice expressed strong support for capital punishment, with reference to the number of defendants he had "sent" to death row, including Petitioner; and where he then, as Chief Justice, reviewed a ruling by the state post- conviction court that his office committed prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it prosecuted and sought death against Petitioner?Heffernan v. Paterson - Whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's perception that the employee supports a political candidate.Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole - Does a court err by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health?Little Sisters v. Burwell (and the consolidated cases) - Does the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?Next week, we will continue our coverage of the Court’s top cases this Term, with a review of the oral arguments in Evenwel v. Abbott, an important voting rights case, and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, an affirmative action case that the Court is hearing for a second time.

On this episode, we review the Court’s much-anticipated decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, wherein the Court considered whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

On this episode, we review the the Court's grant of review for the second time to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which asks whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Court's 2013 decision in the Fisher case.

On this episode, we review the the Court's decision in Glossip v. Gross.In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), the Court held that Kentucky’s three- drug execution protocol was constitutional based on the uncontested fact that “proper administration of the first drug”—which was a “fast-acting barbiturate” that created “a deep, comalike unconsciousness”—will ensure that the prisoner will not experience the known pain of suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. The Baze plurality established a stay standard to prevent unwarranted last-minute litigation challenging lethal-injection protocols that were substantially similar to the one reviewed in Baze; a stay would not be granted absent a showing of a “demonstrated risk of severe pain” that was “substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives.” In this case, Oklahoma intends to execute Petitioners using a three-drug protocol with the same second and third drugs addressed in Baze. However, the first drug to be administered (midazolam) is not a fast-acting barbiturate; it is a benzodiazepine that has no pain-relieving properties, and there is a well-established scientific consensus that it cannot maintain a deep, comalike unconsciousness. For these reasons, it is uncontested that midazolam is not approved by the FDA for use as general anesthesia and is never used as the sole anesthetic for painful surgical procedures.Although Oklahoma admits that administration of the second or third drug to a conscious prisoner would cause intense and needless pain and suffering, it has selected midazolam because of availability rather than to create a more humane execution. Oklahoma’s intention to use midazolam to execute the Petitioners raises the following questions, left unanswered by this Court in Baze:Question 1: Is it constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific consensus that the first drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce deep, comalike unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs when a prisoner is conscious.Question 2: Does the Baze-plurality stay standard apply when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze?Question 3: Must a prisoner establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state’s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment?

On this episode, we review the courts much-anticipated decision in King v. Burwell, which considered whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through Exchanges established by the federal government under section 1321 of the Affordable Care Act.

On this episode, we review the four opinions of the Court issued on Monday this week:Horne v. Department of Agriculture - Whether the government's “categorical duty” under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property,” applies only to real property and not to personal property.City of Los Angeles v. Patel - Does a hotel have an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest supplied information is mandated by law and that ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry?Kingsley v. Hendrickson - Whether the requirements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim brought by a plaintiff who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident are satisfied by a showing that the state actor deliberately used force against the pretrial detainee and the use of force was objectively unreasonable.Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. - Whether the Court prior decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co., which had held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se," should be overruled.

On this episode, we review the the Court's decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, which presented the following questions for review:I. To resolve a split between the Ninth and Sixth Circuits are facial challenges to ordinances and statutes permitted under the Fourth Amendment?II. To resolve a spilt between the Ninth Circuit and the Massachusetts Supreme Court, does a hotel have an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest supplied information is mandated by law and that ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry? If so, is the ordinance facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless it expressly provides for pre-compliance judicial review before the police can inspect the registry?

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision this week in Ohio v. Clark, which considered weather a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause?

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision this week in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, which considered whether the messages and symbols on state-issued specialty license plates qualify as government speech immune from any requirement of viewpoint neutrality.

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision this week in Kerry v. Din, which considered whether an American citizen may challenge in court the refusal of a visa to her husband and to require the government, in order to sustain the refusal, to identify a specific statutory provision rendering him inadmissible and to allege what it believes he did that would render him ineligible for a visa.

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision last week in Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which considered whether a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport is unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the President's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him."

On this episode we review the Court's decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s * * * religion.” "Religion” includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice” unless “an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate” a religious observance or practice “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” The question presented in this case was whether an employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice” only if the employer has actual knowledge that a religious accommodation was required and the employer’s actual knowledge resulted from direct, explicit notice from the applicant or employee.

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision in Elonis v. United States, which concerns whether conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening.

On this episode, we discuss the Court's decision this week in Wellness International Network v. Sharif, which considered whether Article III permits the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by the bankruptcy courts on the basis of litigant consent, and if so, whether implied consent based on a litigant’s conduct is sufficient to satisfy Article III.

On this episode, we discuss the grant of review this week to the case of Evenwel v. Abbott. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964) the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “one-person, one-vote” principle. This principle requires that, “when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials.” In 2013, the Texas Legislature enacted a State Senate map creating districts that, while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly malapportioned voters. Appellants, who live in Senate districts significantly overpopulated with voters, brought a one-person, one-vote challenge, which the three-judge district court below dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court held that Appellants’ constitutional challenge is a judicially unreviewable political question.The question presented is whether the “one-person, one-vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote.