Supreme Court Review 2014/2015 TERM
SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 2015

SUPREME PODCAST PLAYER

A weekly discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent opinions, oral arguments and grants of certiorari.

NOW PLAYING... April 10, 2015 Special Episode - The Five Types of Legal Arguments

QuickTime Required

QuickTime is required to view this media. Download Here.

Subscribe to Podcast
Download for Smartphone
Download as mp3
PODCASTS
Special Episode - The Five Types of Legal Arguments (04/10/2015)

On this episode, Professor Wilson Huhn reflects on the five most common legal arguments and how it is that so many Americans disagree on the meaning of the laws that govern them.

Opinion - Pregnancy Discrimination (04/07/2015)

Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.”

Opinion - NC Court Orders Sex Offender to Wear GPS Ankle Bracelet for Life (04/03/2015)

On this episode we review the Court's opinion in Grady v. North Carolina, wherein the Court considers whether the state of North Carolina performs an unconstitutional search when it requires a citizen to wear a GPS monitoring ankle bracelet for the rest of his life based only on the citizen's status as a recidivist sex offender and where there is no finding that he is a threat to society.

Oral Argument - Do Police Officers Have to Provide Reasonable Accommodations to Mentally Ill persons they arrest? (03/29/2015)

On this episode we review the oral arguments in San Francisco v. Sheehan, which considers whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody.

Oral Argument - May Texas Reject A Specialty License Plate Featuring the Confederate Flag? (03/27/2015)

Do the messages and symbols on state-issued specialty license plates qualify as government speech immune from any requirement of viewpoint neutrality?