Advisory Opinions

They break down two Supreme Court oral arguments: one over whether ballots received days after Election Day count, and one about turning away asylum seekers before they reach the border. They parse statutory text, justices' reactions, and potential rulings. They also touch on qualified immunity rulings and preview a major internet liability case.

Judge Rebecca Taibleson, a Seventh Circuit jurist who once clerked for Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Scalia, discusses her path to the bench and life on the federal court. She recounts meeting her husband on an Everest trek, clerking experiences, confirmation and chambers stories, hiring clerks, and imaginative what-if legal history. The conversation highlights judicial process, mentorship, and courtroom culture.

Stefanos Bibas, a Third Circuit judge and former legal scholar, joins to tackle Temporary Protected Status and the Supreme Court’s handling of TPS for Haiti and Syria. He explores the idea of a federal defender general and how repeat-player advantages shape litigation. The conversation digs into judicial humility, black robe syndrome, and counterfactual Supreme Court “what ifs.”

A spirited dive into two Ninth Circuit rulings: one on Washington's public accommodation law and a controversial spa practice, the other on a first grader punished for a classroom-inspired drawing. They unpack blunt judicial rhetoric, circuit dynamics, and the clash between anti-discrimination rules and free speech. The conversation highlights judicial decorum, immigration context, and whether the cases warrant Supreme Court review.

They dig into polling that shows a steep decline in public trust for the Supreme Court. They discuss a public clash between Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson and whether public sparring helps or harms the institution. They cover a takings case about home seizure over small tax debts and the debate over auction price versus fair market value. They also touch on limits to coached witness testimony.

Dan Epps, law professor and co-host of Divided Argument, offers doctrinal analysis. Will Baude, legal scholar and co-host of Divided Argument, breaks down procedural puzzles. Andy Lipka, producer and interlocutor from America’s Constitution, frames the debate. Akhil Amar, constitutional historian, supplies historical perspective. They discuss substantive due process, Mirabelli v. Bonta, the emergency/interim docket, and tensions among recent Supreme Court rulings.

A legal deep dive into whether marijuana use can constitutionally bar someone from owning guns. They tease how historical analogies and doctrinal line-drawing shape Second Amendment disputes. The conversation also covers emergency Supreme Court moves on parental rights in schools and a New York redistricting stay. The episode ends with a look at the practical reach of the War Powers Resolution.

Abriel, a Boston Latin freshman who mooted Smith v. Goguen in the Supreme Court Historical Society program, joins the conversation. She explains the Smith v. Goguen vagueness fight and describes the law-school-style mooting and historical exercises. The hosts and Abriel discuss flag-related doctrine changes, how the program shaped her legal interests, and the book-donation push to fund more students.

A lively dive into immunity doctrines and recent Supreme Court rulings. They unpack a postal service immunity dispute that split along unexpected lines. The conversation contrasts judicial approaches to executive power and traces why conservatives often favor immunities. They also tackle qualified immunity tensions and realistic paths — and political roadblocks — for legislative reform.

A live campus conversation unpacks the Supreme Court’s big tariffs ruling and the clash over the Major Questions Doctrine. They debate Justice Kagan’s reasoning versus other cases and dissect Gorsuch’s pointed critiques. The talk weighs Kavanaugh’s take on executive power in foreign affairs and whether justices should attend the State of the Union after presidential attacks.