Show Notes
Sarah Isgur and David French analyze President Donald Trump’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund through the lens of three legal “buckets,” and talk about how federal appropriations work and the Obama-era case that hangs over this legal issue. The two also discuss the Supreme Court’s latest cert grant on a Title IX case, plus the circuit split brewing over the First Amendment and judicial elections.
The Agenda:
–Court agrees to hear case on the ability of employees to bring certain suits for sex discrimination
–Going through the settlement agreement, it’s practically a blank check!
–Todd Blanche essentially pardons Trump’s family
–‘That’s not how appropriations work.’
–Georgia Supreme Court race finishes strong
Show Notes:
–Chief Judge William Pryor’s opinion
–Anti-Weaponization Fund
–Keepseagle v. Vilsack
Advisory Opinions is a production of SCOTUSblog and The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a nonpartisan perspective. Click here to sign up for our new Advisory Opinions newsletter, and click here to access all of The Dispatch’s offerings, including audio versions of all our articles and newsletters. If you’d like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
More from Advisory Opinions
Sarah Isgur and David French go through a few orders from the Supreme Court (including one that’ll have our libertarian friends jumping from the second-story window), a CNN article on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and two dueling en banc decisions from the 3rd Circuit.
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the legal battle between the Trump administration and the East Potomac Golf Course, a certiorari grant on race-neutral admissions, and another on distilling booze at home. Finally, David asks Sarah about the Department of Justice’s hiring standards.
Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by Vince Chhabria, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and Stanford professor Nora Engstrom to discuss the incredibly high number of motions granted to seal documents and the line between secrecy and protecting the public interest. They also discuss three new cases that SCOTUS added to its oral argument docket and Big Law red flags.
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss what’s on the Supreme Court’s docket, debate whether anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment, and undergo a grim historical review of the death penalty after the Pentagon’s announcement that an execution will be livestreamed.
Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the surprisingly complicated Suncor SCOTUS oral argument, Justice Samuel Alito and his AI usage, and circuit cases on child sex abuse material, vaccine exemptions, and racial harassment.