Supreme Court

My New "Divided Argument" Podcast

An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast with Dan Epps

|

Last week I posted about a new podcast series I've started running. Now there is another.

Professor Dan Epps and I have just launched a new podcast on the Supreme Court, called Divided Argument. We describe it as "an unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast." We won't make any promises to keep to a weekly schedule or cover every round of Supreme Court arguments or decisions, but we'll drop new episodes when we feel like we have something to say, and I suspect we'll have plenty to say over the next few weeks. And hopefully you'll find that we don't adhere to any particular party line.

I realize that not everybody likes to spend time listening to podcasts, which I understand. (Actually, I don't completely, but maybe they spend less time running errands or doing housework than I do.) But it gives me a different format for talking through lots of things about the Supreme Court.

Our first two episodes are a two-part discussion of the Supreme Court's "shadow docket," something I wrote about eight years ago in an article that was in turn drawn from many reflections from blogging here, and which has been in the news a lot lately:

Episode 1, Normal Procedural Regularity

Episode 2, Woke To The Trend

Our third episode discusses yesterday's Supreme Court decisions, especially the important habeas opinions in Edwards v. Vannoy, as well as the Fourth Amendment decision in Caniglia v. Strom:

Episode 3, Grandma's House of Vice

I hope you enjoy, and feel free to leave feedback in the comments or send it along to pod@dividedargument.com.

NEXT: The Unanimous Supreme Court Favorably Cites NFIB v. Sebelius

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. Will Ian Samuel be stopping by any time soon?

  2. Dan & Will: enjoyable podcast- thanks!
    PS: re- universal injunction stats (enjoining government policy against anyone/anywhere; Sam Bray describes injunctive relief as properly applied if it is plaintiff-protective only)
    In a speech to ALI a few years back (later published by I believe Harvard Law Rev) Gen Barr said DOJ had tried to measure stats and reported to him as follows:

    20th century: 27 univ. injunctions
    Obama’s first two yrs: 2 univ. injunctions both vacated by 9th cir.
    Trump first two: 37 univ. injunctions (he didn’t say how many were vacated by the Cir.’s

    Whether people like Trump or Barr; Harvard reviewed and printed that speech in its law review. As far as I know nobody objected to those figures.

    Whether this indicates that trump was was lawless or district courts were abusing discretion (j. Thomas suggested he doesn’t think they have- and Prof. Bray agrees) is a matter of personal opinion. But I felt that you guys gave short shrift to this issue when discussing Trump SG emergency petitions. It was a serious departure from prior practice that necessitates an emergency posture by the govt.

Please to post comments