Supreme Court Review 2014/2015 TERM


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

NOW PLAYING... June 30, 2015 Decision - Gay Marriage

QuickTime Required

QuickTime is required to view this media. Download Here.

Subscribe to Podcast
Download for Smartphone
Download as mp3
Decision - Gay Marriage (06/30/2015)

On this episode, we review the Court’s much-anticipated decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, wherein the Court considered whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

Review Granted - Affirmative Action Revisited (06/29/2015)

On this episode, we review the the Court's grant of review for the second time to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which asks whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Court's 2013 decision in the Fisher case.

Decision - Constitutionality of Oklahoma's Lethal Injection Protocol (06/29/2015)

In Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), the Court held that Kentucky’s three-drug execution protocol was constitutional based on the uncontested fact that “proper administration of the first drug”—which was a “fast-acting barbiturate” that created “a deep, comalike unconsciousness”—will ensure that the prisoner will not experience the known pain of suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. The Baze plurality established a stay standard to prevent unwarranted last-minute litigation challenging lethal-injection protocols that were substantially similar to the one reviewed in Baze; a stay would not be granted absent a showing of a “demonstrated risk of severe pain” that was “substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives.” In this case, Oklahoma intends to execute Petitioners using a three-drug protocol with the same second and third drugs addressed in Baze. However, the first drug to be administered (midazolam) is not a fast-acting barbiturate; it is a benzodiazepine that has no pain-relieving properties, and there is a well-established scientific consensus that it cannot maintain a deep, comalike unconsciousness. For these reasons, it is uncontested that midazolam is not approved by the FDA for use as general anesthesia and is never used as the sole anesthetic for painful surgical procedures. Although Oklahoma admits that administration of the second or third drug to a conscious prisoner would cause intense and needless pain and suffering, it has selected midazolam because of availability rather than to create a more humane execution. Oklahoma’s intention to use midazolam to execute the Petitioners raises the following questions, left unanswered by this Court in Baze: Question 1: Is it constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific consensus that the first drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce deep, comalike unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs when a prisoner is conscious. Question 2: Does the Baze-plurality stay standard apply when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze? Question 3: Must a prisoner establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state’s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment?

Decision - Obamacare Subsidies to Individuals in States Using Federal Healthcare Exchanges (06/26/2015)

On this episode, we review the courts much-anticipated decision in King v. Burwell, which considered whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through Exchanges established by the federal government under section 1321 of the Affordable Care Act.

Lightening Round - Four Decisions (Horne, Patel, Kingsley and Kimble) (06/25/2015)

On this episode, we review the four opinions of the Court issued on Monday this week.