This episode revisits the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock decision and examines how the Court's recent retreat from Bostock in United States v. Skrmetti sets up a constitutional showdown over transgender rights in school sports.

We analyze the methodical legal reasoning behind Bostock's landmark ruling that Title VII protects gay and transgender employees, then explore how each faction of justices treated Bostock differently in Skrmetti's constitutional challenge to Tennessee's transgender healthcare ban.

The episode concludes by examining how both sides strategically deployed Bostock and anticipated Skrmetti's outcome in their cert petitions for the upcoming transgender sports cases, revealing fundamental disagreements about statutory interpretation, constitutional methodology, and the scope of civil rights protections.

Cases Covered:

• Bostock v. Clayton County | Case No. 17-1618, 17-1623, 18-107 | Opinion: Here
• United States v. Skrmetti | Case No. 23-477 | Opinion: Here
• State of West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-735 | Docket Link: Here
• Little v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: Here
• West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: Here

Episodes Referenced:

• August 5th Roundup: Presidential Power Crushes Agency Independence, Court Places Voting Rights Act in Crosshairs and Maryland v. Shatzer, a Case That Evolved Beyond Its Origins | Link: Here
• July 7th Roundup: New Certs: Transgender Rights in Schools and Religious Liberties | Link: Here
• Opinion Summary: United States v. Skrmetti | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23-477 | Link: Here
• Oral Argument: United States v. Skrmetti | Case No. 23-477 | Date Argued: 12/4/24 | Link: Here

This episode catches up on recent Supreme Court developments in the regular and emergency dockets.

• We examine how the Court may be preparing to reshape voting rights law through Louisiana v. Callais, then dive into the contentious emergency docket battle in Trump v. Doyle over presidential firing power and agency independence.
• The second half features an in-depth analysis of Maryland v. Shatzer (2010), exploring how a seemingly narrow Miranda ruling about re-invoking counsel rights later became a foundation for broader limitations on constitutional protections, while showcasing the fractured judicial philosophies of Justices Scalia, Stevens, and Thomas on court-made constitutional rules.

Case Covered:

1. Trump v. Boyle | Case No. 25A11 | Docket Link: Here
2. Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Docket Link: Here | Supplemental Briefing Order: Here (Consolidated with Robinson v. Callais | Case No. 24-110 | Docket Link: Here)
3. Maryland v. Shatzer | Case No. No. 08-680 | Opinion: Here
4. Vega v. Tekoh | Case No. 21–499 | Opinion: Here

Episodes Referenced:

Order Summary: Trump v. Wilcox | Order Date: 5/22/25 | Case No. 24A966 | Episode Link: Here

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Introduction

[00:01:58] Regular Docket Update: Louisiana v. Callais

[00:03:09] Emergency Docket Drama: Trump v. Boyle

[00:07:24] Deep Dive: Maryland v. Shatzer Analysis

[00:08:20] Shatzer's Case Details and Supreme Court Ruling

[00:19:42] Implications and Evolution of Miranda Rights

[00:21:42] Conclusion

This episode examines a July 14th Supreme Court emergency docket ruling that reveals fundamental tensions about executive power over federal agency firings at the Education Department and the limits of congressional authority.

This episode also compares and contrasts this case (McMahon v. New York) with OPM v. AFGE, a government workforce reduction case discussed in our July 9th episode. In both cases, the government raised virtually identical arguments about standing, jurisdiction and the merits. In both cases, SCOTUS permitted the reductions to take effect while litigation played out.

Case Covered:

McMahon v. New York | Case No. 24A1203 | Docked Link: Here

Bottom Line: SCOTUS allows Trump Administration to proceed with eliminating over half the Department of Education's workforce while legal challenges continue, despite lower courts finding likely constitutional violations.

This episode examines two major Supreme Court emergency docket rulings that reveal fundamental tensions about presidential power, judicial authority, and constitutional rights. Both cases demonstrate the Court's willingness to grant extraordinary relief to the government while exposing deep philosophical divisions among the justices.

Cases Covered:

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees | Case No. 24A1174 | Docket Link: Here

Bottom Line: Court allows President to proceed with planning massive federal workforce reductions while legal challenges continue

Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. | Case No. 24A1153 | Docket Link: Here

Bottom Line: Court twice intervened to help government deport individuals to third countries without additional constitutional process

This episode covers four major Supreme Court cases granted certiorari in summer 2024 (July 3, 2025 Miscellaneous Order: Here), examining the Court's strategic approach to constitutional law and its rapid movement on key cultural and legal issues.

• Supreme Court's unusual speed in granting certiorari after major rulings
• Rejection of traditional "percolation" approach
• Why the Court chose direct review over GVR orders

Little v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: Here

• Background: Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" banning transgender women from women's sports teams
• Key Player: Lindsay Hecox, transgender student at Boise State University
• Ninth Circuit Reasoning: Applied heightened scrutiny; found likely Equal Protection violations
• Post-Skrmetti Impact: How the medical treatment precedent affects sports participation

West Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: Here

• Background: West Virginia's H.B. 3293 categorical sports ban
• Key Player: B.P.J., 14-year-old transgender student with amended birth certificate
• Unique Factors: Puberty blockers, competitive performance, individual circumstances
• Fourth Circuit's Approach: Case-by-case analysis vs. categorical rules
• Strategic Litigation: Why B.P.J. argued for waiting on Skrmetti decision

Olivier v. City of Brandon | Case No. 24-993 | Docket Link: Here 24-1021

• Background: Street preaching arrest and subsequent civil rights lawsuit
• Core Legal Issue: Heck v. Humphrey doctrine and prospective relief
• Circuit Split: Fifth Circuit's restrictive approach vs. Ninth Circuit's permissive stance
• Key Arguments:
• Prospective relief exception to Heck
• No custody/no habeas access theory
• Broader Impact: Civil rights enforcement for repeat constitutional violations

NJT v. Colt | Case No. 24-1113 | Docket Link: Here (consolidated with Cedric Galette, Petitioner v. New Jersey Transit Corporation | Case No. 24-1021 | Docket Link: Here)

• Background: Manhattan pedestrian struck by NJ Transit bus
• Procedural Drama: Three-year delay before immunity claim
• Geographic Split: New York vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court...

This episode:

1. Analyzes the Supreme Court's blockbuster end to the 2024-2025 term, covering the final nine opinions and examining patterns across all 61 cases decided this term.
2. Explores the dramatic Friday release where cases "trickled out slowly" due to lengthy dissents read from the bench, dive into comprehensive term statistics, and conduct an in-depth analysis of Justice Barrett's methodological approach in Trump v. CASA—particularly her heavy reliance on historical sources versus textual analysis.
3. Concludes with analysis of seven landmark cases the Court agreed to hear for next term, including a billion-dollar copyright battle over internet piracy (Cox v. Sony Music), a campaign finance showdown (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC), and disputes over federal removal deadlines, private rights of action, and criminal fugitive tolling that could reshape fundamental areas of American law. June 30 Order List: Here.

Episode Highlights

Final Week Patterns: June 27th saw uniform 6-3 splits with conservative dominance, while June 26th showed more fractures with 5-4 and 6-3 divisions

Term Overview: 61 total cases decided with a 70% reversal rate, demonstrating the Court's role as an error-correction mechanism

Voting Consensus: 43% of cases decided unanimously (26 cases), showing remarkable agreement despite ideological divisions

Barrett's Methodology: Deep dive into her historical originalism approach in Trump v. CASA versus her typical textualist methods in other cases

New Cert Grants: Overview of the 7 new cases SCOTUS agreed to hear.

Key Justice Statistics (2024-2025 Term)

The Justices wrote 5 Per Curiam opinions.

Justice Roberts: Authored or joined 59 opinions, authored or joined 1 concurrences and authored or joined 2 dissents.

Justice Thomas: Authored or joined 47 opinions, authored or joined 21 concurrences and authored or joined 14 dissents.

Justice Alito: Authored or joined 47 opinions, authored or joined 21 concurrences and authored or joined 14 dissents.

Justice Sotomayor: Authored or joined 45 opinions, authored or joined 11 concurrences and authored or joined 13 dissents.

Justice Kagan: Authored or joined 51 opinions, authored or joined 2 concurrences and authored or joined 9 dissents.

Justice Gorsuch: Authored or joined 42 opinions, authored or joined 6 concurrences and authored or joined 12 dissents.

Justice Kavanaugh: Authored or joined 57 opinions, authored or joined 9 concurrences and authored or joined 3 dissents.

Justice Barrett: Authored or joined 54 opinions, authored or joined 10 concurrences and authored or joined 5 dissents.

Justice Jackson: Authored or joined 41 opinions, authored or joined 12 concurrences and authored or joined 17 dissents.

Referenced Cases

• Trump v. CASA (universal injunctions)
• Grupo Mexicano (historical equity test)
• Louisiana v. Callais (relisted case)
• Esteras v. United States (criminal sentencing)
• Medical Marijuana v. Horn (statutory interpretation)
• FDA v. R.J. Reynolds (administrative law)

New Cert Grants:

1. M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund | Case No. 23-1209 | Docket Link: Here.
2. Cox Communications,...

This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of five major Supreme Court decisions released on June 27, 2025, that collectively reshape key areas of constitutional law including judicial authority, parental rights, agency power, executive appointments, and online speech regulation. We also discuss the notable absence of a decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a complex redistricting case that many Court watchers expected to be resolved.

Trump v. CASA, Inc.

• Holding: Federal district courts lack authority to issue universal injunctions that prohibit government enforcement of policies against anyone beyond the named plaintiffs
• Vote: 6-3 (Barrett majority; Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh concurrences; Sotomayor and Jackson dissents)

Mahmoud v. Taylor

• Holding: Parents challenging a school board's LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks and refusal to allow opt-outs are entitled to preliminary injunction under the Free Exercise Clause
• Vote: 6-3 (Alito majority; Thomas concurrence; Sotomayor dissent)

FCC v. Consumers' Research

• Holding: The FCC's universal service contribution scheme does not violate the Constitution's nondelegation doctrine
• Vote: 6-3 (Kagan majority; Kavanaugh and Jackson concurrences; Gorsuch dissent)

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.

• Holding: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force members are inferior officers who can be constitutionally appointed by the HHS Secretary rather than requiring presidential nomination and Senate confirmation
• Vote: 6-3 (Kavanaugh majority; Thomas dissent)

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton

• Holding: Texas's age verification law for pornographic websites is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny
• Vote: 6-3 (Thomas majority; Kagan dissent)

Pending Cases: Louisiana v. Callais. On June 27, 2025, the Court stated that it will rehear this case.

Opinion Summary: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton | Date Decided: 6/27/25 | Case No. 23-1122

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review-rather than strict scrutiny-to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors.

Question Presented:

Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done.

Holding: H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults. H. B. 1181 survives intermediate scrutiny because it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioners: Derek L. Shaffer, Washington, D.C.
• For United States, as amicus curiae: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.