Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/054-new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-v-bruen

Official text (slip opinion, Supreme Court of the United States): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

New York required anyone seeking a license to carry a handgun in public to show "proper cause," meaning a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, two law-abiding adults, were denied unrestricted licenses because they could not show such a need.

Justice Thomas, for a six-to-three majority, held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, and struck down the proper-cause requirement. More importantly, he rejected the two-step means-end test lower courts had used since Heller. Instead, when the Amendment's text covers conduct, the government must justify its regulation by showing that it is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Justice Alito, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justice Barrett concurred. Justice Breyer dissented, opening with statistics on gun violence and arguing that judges are poorly equipped to do the historical work the test demands. Lower courts have been arguing over historical analogues ever since.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) [as printed: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Dissent (Justice Breyer)] (episode link pending)

- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at 629 [as printed: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 629 (2008); Dissent (Justice Breyer)] episode

- 2017. Compare Gould v. Morgan, 907 F.3d 659 (CA1 2018) at 677 [as printed: 2017. Compare Gould v. Morgan, 907 F. 3d 659, 677 (CA1 2018); Opinion of the Court (Justice Thomas)] (episode link pending)

- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (CA3 2013) at 442 (Hardiman, J., dissenting) [as printed: Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 442 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Opinion of the Court (Justice Thomas)] (episode link pending)

- Young v. Hawaii, 992 F.3d 765 (CA9 2021) at 784–785 (collecting cases) [as printed: Young v. Hawaii, 992 F. 3d 765, 784–785 (CA9 2021) (collecting cases); Dissent (Justice Breyer)] (episode link pending)

- Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 650 (CADC 2017) at 668 [as printed: Wrenn v. District of Columbia, 864 F. 3d 650, 668 (CADC 2017); Opinion of the Court (Justice Thomas)] (episode link pending)

- Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U.S. 36 (1961) at 50, n. 10 [as printed: Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36, 50, n. 10 (1961); Opinion of the Court (Justice Thomas)] (episode link pending)

(+54 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 470 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/054-new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-v-bruen

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/052-students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard

Official text (slip opinion, Supreme Court of the United States): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Students for Fair Admissions, a group founded by Edward Blum, sued Harvard and the University of North Carolina, arguing that their race-conscious admissions programs discriminated against applicants, especially Asian American applicants at Harvard, who received lower "personal" ratings than other groups despite strong academic records.

Chief Justice Roberts, for a six-justice majority, held that both programs violated the Equal Protection Clause, and Title Six of the Civil Rights Act for Harvard. The universities' goals, such as training future leaders and promoting a robust exchange of ideas, were too vague to measure, the programs used race as a negative and relied on racial stereotypes, and they had no logical end point. Universities may still consider an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, so long as the student is treated as an individual.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh concurred. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson dissented. Thomas and Jackson, the two Black justices, answered each other directly, in one of the most personal exchanges in the Court's history.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) at 343 [as printed: Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 343 (1977); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] episode

- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) at 368–369, 373–374 [as printed: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 368–369, 373–374 (1886); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] episode

- Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915) at 36 (“a native of Austria”) [as printed: Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 36 (1915) (“a native of Austria”); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] (episode link pending)

- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) [as printed: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954); Dissent (Justice Sotomayor)] episode

- Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) at 301 [as printed: Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 301 (1955); Dissent (Justice Sotomayor)] (episode link pending)

- Browder v. Gayle, 142 F.Supp. 707 (MD Ala. 1956) at 715 [as printed: Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707, 715 (MD Ala. 1956); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] (episode link pending)

- Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) at 8 [as printed: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 8 (1967); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] episode

- Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (housing covenants) [as printed: Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948) (housing covenants); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] episode

(+48 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 973 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/052-students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/050-daimler-ag-v-bauman

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep571/usrep571117/usrep571117.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Twenty-two Argentine residents sued the German automaker Daimler in federal court in California. They alleged that its Argentine subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina, had collaborated with the military dictatorship during the "Dirty War" of the late 1970s and early 1980s in kidnapping, torturing, and killing workers. None of the events happened in California. The plaintiffs argued Daimler was "at home" there because of the large California sales of its American distributor, Mercedes-Benz USA.

Justice Ginsburg, for the Court, rejected that theory. General jurisdiction, which allows a company to be sued on any claim, is available only where a corporation is essentially at home, typically its place of incorporation and principal place of business. A test that reached every state with substantial sales would be unacceptably grasping.

Justice Sotomayor concurred only in the judgment, objecting that the Court had needlessly narrowed general jurisdiction for all large companies. Daimler is now the starting point for any lawsuit against a corporation far from home.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 579 F.3d 1088 (2009) at 1096-1097 [as printed: Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 579 F.3d 1088, 1096-1097 (2009); Opinion of the Court (Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court)] (episode link pending)

- Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (C.A.9 2011) [as printed: Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 644 F.3d 909 (C.A.9 2011); Opinion of the Court (Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court)] (episode link pending)

- Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 676 F.3d 774 (2011) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) [as printed: Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 676 F.3d 774 (2011) (O'Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); Opinion of the Court (Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court)] (episode link pending)

- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) [as printed: Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878); Opinion of the Court (Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court)] episode

- International Shoe [Co. v. Washington ], 326 U.S. 310 [as printed: International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Opinion of the Court (Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court)] episode

- S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) [as printed: S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); Opinion of the Court (Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court)] episode

(+7 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 208 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/050-daimler-ag-v-bauman