Podcast on the Blaine Amendments Case


For those who are interested, my colleague Marc DeGirolami and I have recorded a new episode for our Legal Spirits podcast series on last month's oral argument in the Blaine Amendments case, Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. The episode touches on a couple of issues that I didn't address in my short VC post on the case last month, including the standing and mootness arguments that some of you mentioned in the comments. I don't think those arguments will persuade a majority of the Justices, but Justice Kagan's point about mootness (if that's what it is) seems more powerful to me now than it did at first. Anyway, listeners can judge for themselves. Here's the link.

NEXT: My Upcoming Speaking Engagements [Updated with cancellations]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thanks for the link.

  2. It has always seemed to me that SCOTUS got it backwards. Freedom of religion should be treated in the same way as other Constitutional rights and given free participation in all civil domains. Freedom from religion doesn’t really fit with the Constitution, does it? Unless it is limited to an actual Establishment of Religion. Christians, Jews and Moslems all should be equal under the law, as should agnostics and atheists. None favored over the others .. but none disfavored as well

  3. Excellent podcast! Looking forward to reading more of your posting here, even though I have a feeling I’ll disagree with a lot of it. So much the better!

Please to post comments