The Supreme Court enters its final week of scheduled arguments, rounding out the calendar to date with a property case that plaintiffs say amounts to home equity theft by local governments.

Pacific Legal Foundation’s David Deerson joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss his 94-year-old client’s challenge to a practice in a handful of states that has previously led to local governments taking homes to satisfy tax debt equivalents to a fast food burrito.

Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also update listeners on the abortion pill litigation, congressional pressure over Supreme Court ethics, and a high-profile death penalty case.

Another Texas abortion case headed the justices’ way and a bombshell report on Clarence Thomas and his luxury vacations upended a usual quiet spring break from Supreme Court arguments and opinions.

Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson explains the fast-moving district and appellate rulings over the abortion drug mifepristone, a case that’s now on the high court’s doorstep. She also explains the latest controversy over Supreme Court ethics controversy drawing scrutiny in the Senate.

And finally, Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic joins the podcast to discuss her latest book, “Nine Black Robes,” and how the “Trump effect” has put the spotlight on One First Street.

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

An Evangelical Christian postal carrier in Pennsylvania, who says he was forced out of the job for refusing to work on Sundays, wants the US Supreme Court to do more to accommodate workers’ religious practices.

Cases and Controversies explores the issues around faith in Groff v. DeJoy, which is set for argument April 18.

The justices are being asked to overturn a ruling that said employers aren’t required to bear more than a “de minimus” cost in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on someone’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It’s a decision some of the court’s conservatives have been eager to revisit.

Joshua Matz filed a brief on behalf of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Lambda Legal in support of the US Postal Service. He joins the podcast to discuss why the court’s 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison should be revised.

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

The US Supreme Court is set to hear a free speech case that tests when statements are considered true threats not protected by the First Amendment.

The justices are being asked in Counterman v. Colorado if the government has to show at trial that the speaker knew or intended the statement to be threatening in nature to secure a conviction, or if it’s enough to show an objective “reasonable person” would view that statement as a threat of violence.

At the center of the dispute scheduled to be argued on April 19 is Billy Counterman, who was charged with stalking a Colorado musician after he sent her Facebook messages over the course of two years that frightened her. Counterman claims his messages were protected speech because they weren’t true threats.

Elena Cordonean of Southwestern Law School joins “Cases and Controversies” to discuss why the court should adopt a dual standard that considers the context of the speech and the speaker’s intent.

Special thanks to Southwestern professor Norman Garland

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

The Supreme Court is considering an appeal that could force prosecutors to reconsider their tactics in criminal cases. This includes what evidence to introduce and how to try multiple defendants.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson & Greg Stohr will break down the questions posed in Samia v. United States which is set for argument March 29.

The murder-for-hire case focuses on the Sixth Amendment requirement that criminal defendants be allowed to “confront” witnesses against them at trial.

The justices will consider what steps the government must take to protect the identity of co-defendants identified in another’s confession to avoid colliding with the Confrontation Clause.

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

Questions involving their family ties and associations with other powerful people are nothing new for US Supreme Court justices. But now those relationships are generating more attention and criticism, and are partly fueling calls for them to adopt an ethics code.

While the Supreme Court says it follows ethics rules written for lower court judges, its reluctance over the years to embrace a standard for themselves isn’t sitting well with some in the legal community, transparency advocates, and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Bloomberg Law reporter Lydia Wheeler joins Cases and Controversies host Kimberly Robinson to discuss their story on a “new era” of scrutiny over high court ethics, and pressure for the justices to formalize their own code of conduct.

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

The Jack Daniel’s brand is at the heart of the US Supreme Court’s latest intellectual property dispute that pits free speech protections against trademark concerns.

Debevoise & Plimpton’s Megan K. Bannigan joins “Cases and Controversies” in search of a middle ground for the justices ahead of arguments March 22.

The Tennessee whiskey company says pet toy maker VIP Products is tarnishing its brand with potty-themed dog toys called “Bad Spaniels.”

“Jack Daniel’s loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone,” the company said in its brief. “But Jack Daniel’s likes its customers even more, and doesn’t want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop.”

Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr

Guest: Megan K. Bannigan, Debevoise & Plimpton

Producer: Matthew S. Schwartz

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau faces a challenge to its existence in a case the US Supreme Court will take up next term.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency’s funding mechanism violates separation of powers principles because it’s paid for by the Federal Reserve, not through legislative appropriations.

The Biden administration warns the ruling calls into question “every action” the CFPB has taken since its creation by Congress in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and could “inflict immense” legal and practical harm on consumers.

Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute joins Cases and Controversies to explain the case and discuss the court’s recent attempts to bolster presidential power over administrative agencies.

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

Genevieve Bonadies Torres, an associate director with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, joined “Cases and Controversies” podcast to discuss the amicus brief she filed in a pair of cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Dept. of Education v. Brown, set for argument on Feb. 28.

The loan relief plan, which is on hold due to litigation, “will eliminate or markedly reduce” payments for millions of lower-income borrowers, many of whom experienced economic hardship during the pandemic, her 506and22-535tsacLawyersCommitteeForCivilRightsUnderLaw.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CdSchultz%40bloombergindustry.com%7Ced6ef16a6d2a45a3687f08db15df3453%7C97be21fdc6014b169920f5accc69da65%7C0%7C0%7C638127820643834449%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=fV13wwSl86Gttr2RmruZ7qQNRvAMYQezC5Ll3ahmiCU%3D&reserved=0">brief said.

Without intervention, the potential consequences of default could prevent people from paying for basic needs or even threaten their employment. Those risks are “particularly heightened for borrowers of color,” Torres said.

The court challenges focus on a rule known as the major questions doctrine, which directs courts to be skeptical of attempts to use narrow, often ambiguous laws to authorize sweeping, or major programs. The doctrine has recently been bolstered by the court’s new conservative 6-3 majority.

But Torres’ seeks to refocus attention of the court on impacts of the Biden plan on minority borrowers.

Those implications, and the questions they might prompt from the court’s liberal justices, could “play a role in the background” by pushing the Supreme Court’s middle to take a sort of off-ramp to deciding the legality of the program, she said.

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

Deadly terror attacks behind a pair of cases set for argument at the Supreme Court could change the legal landscape for social media and other online companies.

Families of victims in the violence abroad say in separate cases that tech giants are partly liable for abetting extremists for content posted on their platforms.

The claim in 01333qp.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CdSchultz%40bloombergindustry.com%7Cdad1e8e97d8241f911c008db10622608%7C97be21fdc6014b169920f5accc69da65%7C0%7C0%7C638121785951194738%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=s6T%2Brqt%2B0FKl49GNV5mFm1byJG02evm3MbWwsChT3nY%3D&reserved=0">Gonzalez v. Google to be heard Feb. 21 contends the company’s YouTube site provided support for the Islamic State by allowing the posting of its videos and recommending those posts to users via algorithms.

In 01496qp.pdf&data=05%7C01%7CdSchultz%40bloombergindustry.com%7Cdad1e8e97d8241f911c008db10622608%7C97be21fdc6014b169920f5accc69da65%7C0%7C0%7C638121785951194738%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jsru4idvH9%2Fd%2FUZPjgwxI66sSqawAsVt5%2FImbH0jmyY%3D&reserved=0">Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh to be argued the next day, the question is whether the social media site violated anti-terrorism laws by failing to enforce policies against pro-terrorist content.

Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss the broad liability protections for internet companies, particularly under Seciton 230 of the Communications Decency Act at play in the Google case.

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