My New "Dissenting Opinions" Podcast

some heterodox views about Supreme Court opinions, and more

I've always been a bit of a late adopter, and so as with many other law professors during the pandemic, I've started a pilot season of a podcast, Dissenting Opinions, under the auspices of the Constitutional Law Institute at the University of Chicago. For the first season, the theme is scholars who have a heterodox view of a particular Supreme Court opinion—either criticisms of a generally canonical opinion, or a defense of an opinion that's generally maligned.

The first two episodes are here. The first features Genevieve Lakier defending Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizen Consumers Council, a commercial speech case with few full-throated defenders. The second features co-blogger Steve Sachs criticizing Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, a staple of the civil procedure canon. Two interesting federalism episodes will be coming next, posting every other Wednesday.

(There will also be a seven-hour deep dive into originalist theory, posting sometime this summer…)

This is all an experiment, so feedback is welcome, and suggestions about future interviews are especially welcome.