Supreme Court Hears Migrant Protection Protocols Case

David and Sarah talk about the Supreme Court as they discuss the fate of Trump’s ...

By and

David and Sarah talk about the Supreme Court as they discuss the fate of Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols, talk about yet another win for the First Amendment, and revisit Coach Kennedy’s prayers. Then they move on to analyze one of the wildest and strangest qualified immunity cases yet and the prospects of Florida’s social media censorship bill. Sarah ends with a potpourri of topics, including tales from the White House Correspondents Association dinner.

Show Notes:

–Shurtleff v. Boston

–Biden v. Texas

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (60)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Jordan Caruso

    Would love to hear y’all do a crossover with Strict Scrutiny! When I first started law school I was listening to multiple podcasts, and I definitely listened to my fair share of theirs. I must say though, Advisory Opinions wins the day! Nonetheless, crossover would be great discussion. If all goes well it would be a great annual or biannual practice

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Andrew Ceonzo

    A great guest to have on would be Evan Bernick. He is a progressive originalist who has done a lot of really impressive scholarship and would be a good way to blend the goals of discussing more legal theory and having more liberal/progressive guests on the podcast. Here is his recent twitter thread on Alito's Dobbs draft for a preview: https://twitter.com/evanbernick/status/1522175389921128454?s=21&t=zMBnX6_31Skzo2LRSNT5_A

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jordan Caruso

    Would love to hear y’all do a crossover with Strict Scrutiny! When I first started law school I was listening to multiple podcasts, and I definitely listened to my fair share of theirs. I must say though, Advisory Opinions wins the day! Nonetheless, crossover would be great discussion. If all goes well it would be a great annual or biannual practice

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    LeighAnnNC

    really random in light of all the leak related news...but can someone tell me the name of the "rival podcast" that was mentioned .... Sarah talked about maybe having those folks on as guests, etc?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    What I immediately thought of when David said bats were birds:

    https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/03

    Also sounds like Nate wanted a little help dunking on that 7ft basketball hoop.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Young Riprock

    Strong, strong, strong disagree with both of you on City of Parma. Law enforcement has no right to rely on a determination of probable cause unless they have presented all of the known negative facts against their position in the application. Ex parte means only one side’s contact. If it were a lawyer, they would have an ethical obligation to disclose the known adverse facts. A standard magically missing from law enforcement warrants. And low and behold, this is a case where any fair representation of the known facts would not only prevent a reasonable law enforcement agent from even seeking a warrant, but the court from issuing one. Misconduct cannot be sanitized by using a magistrate as a cat’s paw (to analogize Staub v Proctor Hospital).

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Young Riprock

    Moran. Ponway was the anti-gay shirt.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kerani

    Ms Isgur - could you please provide a link to the twin study that you mentioned concerning maternal death rate differences between African- descent and European descent women? Thank you!

    Collapse
  9. Eric Quackenbush

    Sarah, why did you say you felt you’ve “lost some credibility” on the Dispatch Podcast?

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    For the discussion in the much-hoped-for emergency AO podcast regarding the SCOTUS leak in Dobbs:

    Chief Justice Roberts' statement, as quoted in a SCOTUS press release today, says he has "directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak." Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_05-03-22

    I hope Ms. Isgur & Mr. French will therefore comment upon the likelihood that the Marshal of the Court will be successful. Do the federal courts' inherent powers include, for instance, the ability to compel testimony and production of evidence under oath in an investigation like this? Or must the judicial branch seek an assist from the executive branch? I'm guessing the latter, and that this issue is already on AG Garland's desk. (FWIW, I cannot imagine a Biden AG whom I would be more comfortable handling this than [Judge] Garland.)

    A confession isn't entirely implausible. Someone who considers him- or herself a righteous whistleblower may be unwilling to further violate the national trust by participating in a cover-up. And while it's not clear whether any criminal laws have arguably been violated by the original leak, further statements made in the investigation process — which might well include FBI or other executive branch personnel participating at the Chief Justice's invitation — could certainly multiply the leaker's potential criminal jeopardy (via process crimes like perjury, false statement, and obstruction of justice).

    The Justices are likely to insist upon cooperation with the Marshal's investigation as a condition of continuing employment for not just their clerks, but every SCOTUS employee who's had access to the leaked document. The leaker's refusal to participate would be a red flag the size of Delaware.

    Like everyone, I'm interested to learn the identity of the leaker(s). Don't assume there's only one. It might be a whole CHAMBERS' clerks holding hands with one another as they drive their careers, Thelma-and-Louise-style, off a cliff that would have even daunted Wile E. Coyote. What I'm really interested to learn — and terribly pessimistic about — is whether there exists an American state bar association so craven as to permit the leaker(s) to be (or continue to be) licensed to practice law. The related question of whether there are legal employers willing, even eager, to hire the leaker(s) is one which practically answers itself, but still makes me throw up in my mouth to contemplate.

    Ms. Isgur, if you were advising a GOP candidate in the coming primaries for federal elected office, would you be drafting the 2023 Bipartisan Judicial Confidentiality Act to create some crystal clear federal criminal law covering this sort of breach? I'm thinking that would probably play pretty well on the stump. And do you think someone at DoJ has already opened the file in which will reside all of the documentation of all of the DoJ's ongoing future efforts to determine the identity of the leaker(s) without subpoenaing the Politico reporters? (And could this get to that?)

    Collapse
Load More