We recap some shadow docket happenings and catch up on the latest SCOTUS ethics news before continuing our march through June opinions we missed. This time, we dive back into Indian law in Arizona v. Navajo Nation and try to make sense of private causes of action and the so-called Spending Clause in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. Along the way, Will reveals his closet cartographical interests.

2023-08-09 70 min Transcript

Available Results

Generated results are saved to the knowledge database for reuse and search.

No generated results are available for this episode yet.

Extract Knowledge

Pick what you want extracted first. Model, scope, and chapter options appear after a template is selected.

Generated results for public episodes are saved to the knowledge database so they can be reused and searched later.

Transcript

Will: -but if fair-minded jurists could debate whether your claim is meritorious. So, Justice Sotomayor just made the point that several 8th Circuit judges dissenting from the [unintelligible , and now three Supreme Court Justices all think this claim is plausible. So, shouldn't that be enough by definition?
But no. Four Justices say, "That's not what this case is about." The tribe did insist this at oral argument. They said, "No, we're not saying they have to do something exactly. We would just like an accounting. We would like to know what our rights are." Now, I guess one question is, is that just too clever? Is that like an end run? They maybe want to assert that the United States has some affirmative duties, but they don't want to commit to that because the Supreme Court won't let them. And so, this accounting is going to be the [unintelligible nose for another claim.

Chapters

No chapters available.