Divided Argument

Live from the American Law Institute with Pam Karlan, we untangle a chaotic stretch of the interim docket—the Alabama redistricting GVR, Virginia's denied stay, and the mifepristone cases—then turn to executive power and the Term's big looming decisions.

We dissect the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision and its sweeping narrowing of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, exploring how it could reshape redistricting, weaken majority‑minority districts, and intensify debates over race and partisanship in elections. We unpack the Court’s reasoning, its treatment of precedents like Allen v. Milligan, the updated Gingles framework, and the procedural moves after judgment, while weighing whether this is primarily a textual ruling, a constitutional avoidance maneuver, or a broader shift in how political power and racial representation are viewed in election law. The discussion also features Justice Kagan’s dissent, Justice Jackson’s separate view, and what the ruling might mean for future litigation and party outcomes.

We cover leaked SCOTUS memos, shadow docket reversals, Sotomayor's Kavanaugh apology, and a contractor preemption case narrowing an infamous Scalia opinion.

We recap and reflect on the oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara (the birthright citizenship case) and then analyze the Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, about the First Amendment limits on Colorado's conversion therapy ban. We also confront the taboo question: Are judicial opinions too long?

We're live at WashU Law's Admitted Students Day! After catching up on some shadow docket activity, we dig into Olivier v. City of Brandon, the Court's unanimous March 2026 decision by Justice Kagan. A Mississippi street preacher pleads no-contest to violating an amphitheater protest-zone ordinance, pays his $304 fine, then sues under §1983 to stop future enforcement — and the Fifth Circuit says the puzzling Heck v. Humphrey rule bars the whole thing. We work through why Heck is stranger than it first appears, what the Court got right in resolving the circuit split, and what the decision reveals about the ongoing mess at the intersection of §1983 and habeas.