App Store

Google Play

DK - Details page - Device banner - 894x1036

Nyd den ubegrænsede adgang til tusindvis af spændende e- og lydbøger - helt gratis

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst 

Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Law's Cases and Controversies brings you the latest from the Supreme Court. Each week we preview oral arguments at the Court or feature in-depth interviews. We explore critical legal issues with Supreme Court advocates, judges, law professors, lawyers, and legal journalists.

Cases and Controversies

Justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared primed to limit the scope of environmental impact reviews, but it's unclear if they need a new test to do so.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr breakdown the Dec. 10 arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, an environmental case about how deep agencies must go in looking at the potential effects of new projects.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices Lean Into Agency Deference in Environmental Challenge

After an eventful 2024, the justices are now on winter break until Jan. 10.
"Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson, Lydia Wheeler, and Greg Stohr review all the biggest news stories from the justices in 2024, from Justice Samuel Alito's flag controversy to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dream-come-true Broadway debut.
They also look ahead to the cases to be heard in 2025, which include an expedited appeal over the social media platform TikTok to another case that could cut back the power of administrative agencies.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Broadway, Books, and Big Rulings Cap Supreme Court Year

The much-anticipated argument of the future of TikTok in the US will be heard by the Supreme Court on Friday.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler preview the case with Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney Xiangnong (George) Wang.
The Biden administration says the law, which effectively bans the social media site in the US unless sold by its Chinese owner, is necessary for national security. But the social media site and its users say its censorship.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Social Media, National Security Collide in TikTok Argument

Several justices on the Supreme Court seemed eager this week to debate the constitutionality of a Texas law that requires porn sites to verify the age of users to keep kids from viewing obscene content online.
But the court was only asked in the case argued Wednesday to answer whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied the correct standard when assessing whether the law violated the free speech rights of adults.
“I don't know if there is going to be sufficient alignment on how to get to the answers here,” said Mark Brennan, who works with a variety of companies in the online space as a partner at Hogan Lovells.
Brennan joins “Cases and Controversies” hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss Wednesday’s argument. They also break down the court’s decisions earlier this week in disputes over fancy dog food and federal overtime rules.
Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler
Producer: Mo Barrow
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices Mull Scrutiny Test In Porn Site Age Verification Case

Supreme Court justices seemed to agree courts should look at the totality of circumstances when analyzing whether a police officer's use of deadly force was reasonable.
During arguments Wednesday, the US Supreme Court appeared ready to rule the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had used the wrong test when it considered the claims of a mother who argues a Texas police officer unjustly shot and killed her son during a traffic stop in 2016.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler discuss the arguments in that dispute over the officer’s use of deadly force and the likelihood of a future Supreme Court case over President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
The order, which deems denies automatic citizenship to children born of immigrants in the US, was temporarily blocked by a federal judge on Thursday.
Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler
Producer: Mo Barrow
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

Supreme Court Mulls Test for Reasonable Force in Police Killings

President Donald Trump’s executive orders have sparked a flurry of legal challenges that tee-up constitutional questions about the breadth of executive power the US Supreme Court may be forced to settle.
Daniel Cotter, a partner at Dickinson Wright who writes a column on the Supreme Court for the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, joins Cases and Controversies to talk about which disputes could get Supreme Court review.
Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about new cases the justices tacked on to the term, including one over a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma, and discuss why those challenges may not actually increase the court’s workload.
Hosts: Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler
Guest: Daniel Cotter, of Dickinson Wright PLLC
Produce: Mo Barrow
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

Trump Actions Spark Potential Legal Challenges for Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a reverse discrimination case when the justices return to the bench at the end of the month. 
A heterosexual woman is asking the court to revive her lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services where she's worked since 2004 after the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said she hadn't shown the "background circumstances" necessary to take her case to trial.
The court didn't just ask for a little bit more evidence, it asked for a lot more, said Xiao Wang, director of the University of Virginia's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, who's representing Marlean Ames in her case.
Wang and co-counsel Edward Gilbert join Cases and Controversies to discuss the case and what's at stake.
Hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler also chat about Trump's impending trade war and look at the legal doctrine that could stand in the way of his planned tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. 
Hosts: Lydia Wheeler and Greg Stohr
Produce: Mo Barrow
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Justices to Weigh Evidence Rule in Reverse Discrimination Suit

The US Supreme Court is confronting the stark reality that, unlike the other two branches of government, the court has no real power to enforce its decisions. Should someone — whether government official or private citizen — refuse to comply, the justices have no army or constitutional spending power to use as a cudgel, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr writes in a new longform essay.
That age-old quandary is becoming newly relevant as Donald Trump tries to bulldoze his way through longstanding legal constraints in the opening weeks of his second term as president. As lawsuits over birthright citizenship, spending cuts, and workforce purges make their way to the high court, the cases carry the potential for a genuine constitutional crisis. What happens, Chief Justice John Roberts must ask himself, if Trump loses and then defies the court?
A lawsuit filed in 1801 when the Supreme Court was an untested institution posed a similar dilemma for Chief Justice John Marshall — and more recently, danger signs have been growing.

Article by Greg Stohr read by Catherine Vassilopolos

Do you have feedback on Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690

Trump Will Force the Supreme Court to Face its Biggest Fear: Essay

The Supreme Court- has been pulled into its first dispute over a Trump administration action with more cases likely coming its way.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices in an emergency request to toss out a temporary restraining order that stopped President Donald Trump from firing the head of the US Office of Special Counsel.
Lower courts have issued TROs in response to Trump’s executive actions now testing presidential authority to reshape the federal workforce, government spending, and citizenship rights.
Thomas Berry, the director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the first case before the high court.
Guest: Thomas Berry, Cato Institute
Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler
Producer: Mo Barrow
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court Pulled Into First Trump Fight Over Executive Power

The US Supreme Court hears argument March 4 in a case over gun industry protections from lawsuits.
The dispute involving Mexico and Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. centers on whether exceptions to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act open manufacturers to court challenges.
Mexico alleges gunmakers intentionally trade with suppliers for drug cartels and the law allows suits when industry knowingly violates firearms laws in a way that causes injury. Industry says it's shielded, but the Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has said not so fast.
Cases and Controversies discusses the case with Georgia State law professor Timothy Lytton. He's filed a brief on behalf of neither party advocating for one of the law's exceptions opening gunmakers to potential liability.
Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr
Producer: Mo Barrow
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court Confronts Bid to Open Up Gunmakers' Liability

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in fights over laws in Florida and Texas that seek to stop social media platforms from censoring conservative speech online.
At issue are provisions that require platforms to keep up certain kinds of content and inform users when posts are removed. 
The justices are being asked to decide if those requirements are constitutional under the First Amendment’s right to editorial judgment.
Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices are likely to approach a case that could impact public discourse online for decades to come.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Social Media Cases Could Impact Public Discourse Online

Lyt når som helst, hvor som helst

Other podcasts you might like ...