Tomiko Brown-Nagin joins Melissa and Kate to discuss her book Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality. You may recognize the name Constance Baker Motley from Ketanji Brown Jackson's speech upon receiving her nomination to SCOTUS. Motley was the first black woman to be appointed to the federal bench-- and she and Justice Jackson share a birthday. Judge Motley's story illustrates the fights for equality, across race and gender lines, in the mid-20th century. Order Civil Rights Queen at Bookshop.org and use code STRICT10 at check-out for 10% off ..read more

Before we can really get into the holiday spirit, we have to deal with the lump of coal the Supreme Court heard on December 7th: Moore v. Harper. The case is about a fringe legal theory that says that when it comes to regulating elections, state legislatures can do anything they want-- even violate the state constitution-- and state courts can’t intervene to stop them. It's bad, scary, foreboding, toxic, etc. Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the arguments-- and then take a refreshing walk in a winter wonderland with this year's list of Our Favorite Things! If you're still doing your holiday shopp ..read more

The Supreme Court recently heard 2.5 hours of oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis-- the case about a Colorado website designer who doesn't want to create wedding websites for gay couples. The arguments were absolutely bonkers, with justices invoking kids in KKK uniforms, Black mall Santas, dating sites for people seeking affairs, and re-education camps. Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the arguments and what they may portend for the future of LGBTQ rights.   ..read more

Melissa and Kate recap oral arguments in a couple of cases that could limit the reach of federal fraud statutes, plus an immigration case out of Texas. And of course, there's the latest story out of the New York Times, spilling the tea on a years-long effort by conservative activists to ingratiate themselves with Supreme Court justices. On December 6th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Moore v. Harper, a case about the independent state legislature idea/thingamajig/fantasy. We've covered it extensively, so catch up on previous episodes before the chaos is unleashed on Wednesday. "Debu ..read more

Melissa, Kate, and Leah preview the cases that the Supreme Court will hear in December-- from election law shenanigans, to discrimination as protected speech, to making fraud great again.  ..read more

On Saturday, the New York Times published a piece about a former anti-abortion leader's claim that he was told the outcome of a 2014 Supreme Court case before it was public. The story offers a glimpse at a years-long campaign by conservative activists to obtain access to and ingratiate themselves with Supreme Court justices. It's really wild and really disturbing-- so Leah, Kate, and Melissa convene for an emergency episode to discuss ..read more

Rebecca Nagle, host of Crooked Media's This Land, joins Melissa, Leah, and Kate to recap the arguments in Haaland v. Brackeen. The case revolves around the Indian Child Welfare Act, which lays out a set of preferences for where Native American children can be placed for foster care and adoption. The challengers, white foster parents trying to adopt Native American children, are claiming a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. But as Rebecca explains, tribal sovereignty isn't racial-- it's political. Plus, we take a look at the midterm outcomes and what they mean for t ..read more

Leah, Kate, and Melissa recap the many, many hours of oral arguments in the affirmative action cases SCOTUS heard last week ..read more

On Halloween, the Supreme Court will hear pair of cases challenging affirmative action in university admissions. Spooky! Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, joins Melissa, Kate, and Leah to preview the cases. Listen to an episode on race conscious remedies from our spin-off show, Irrational Basis Review ..read more

Leah talks with Wilfred Codrington III about his article, "Purcell in Pandemic," which appeared in the NYU Law Review. The Purcell Principle comes from a 2006 Supreme Court case about what makes an appropriate timeline for changing election laws. The principle wasn't clear to begin with, and has only gotten more confusing in litigation surrounding the 2020 election. Will we see it continue to play out in this year's midterms ..read more