Supreme Court Decisions 2022 Part1

In this week's episode, the Reframers take on some of the most important and controversial decisions released by the Supreme Court in 2022. We cover the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade, as well as discussing the COVID mandate and an important EPA regulation being revoked. This is an important episode if you want to better understand the impact that the court has on your life. 

https://www.oyez.org/

Episode Transcript

Erin (00:24):
did you see the, um, Did you go to the OEA website?

Zach (00:28):
I did not,

Erin (00:29):
So this is the website.
It gives you the background and thenthe question and then the ruling.
So it's facts, question conclusion.
And just so you know,that's how we call it.
The, we called it the ruling,but that's exactly how we do the
analysis in law school when you'redoing like Socratic method and going
through a case, it's always, okay.

(00:49):
First person, give methe facts of the case.
Second person.
What is the question?
And then the third person hasto give you like the ruling,
what the court actually held.
And then the reasoningis the like last thing
is this like way helpful?

Zach (01:03):
You gave me the website like four or five days ago,
and I should have looked at it.
And I was like, I don't know what EA is.
So I didn't go.
And I read through, literally

Erin (01:13):
court cases.

Zach (01:15):
I read literally the decis, like not the whole decision for all the
cases, but I read like the, syllabusand the like, per whatever it's called.

Erin (01:25):
Syllabus for Dobbs was like 10 pages per Curium opinion,

Zach (01:29):
yeah, per cur.
Yeah, I read the precum for all of them.
I probably read a hundred pagesof Supreme court documents.

Erin (01:35):
Zach.

Kassie (01:37):
why God

Erin (01:38):
you poor thing.
I'm so sorry.

Zach (01:41):
it is okay.
You know, it was,informative, illuminating.

Erin (01:45):
super fun to just sit there and read Supreme court cases isn't it?

Zach (01:50):
Okay.
This part has to go in in the episode.
I don't know how much,but those MFS are sassy.

Erin (01:58):
oh my God.
Right.

Zach (02:00):
sometimes it's very straightforward, right?
Sometimes it's, here's the situation, youknow, they're, they're not really mincing.
It's not a lot of flavor, oh my God,I think I wrote in the document,
sassy, cuz they said somethingthat this court finds no evidence
whatsoever that blah, blah, blah, blah.
I was like, whoa dude, you guys are likereally putting some sauce on that one.

Erin (02:22):
okay.
So there's no, there's none ofthese decisions in this, term,
but the king of all SAS is Scalia.
Almost any opinion that hewrites it's filled with just like
sass, sometimes like vitriol.
And he just has theseincredible zingers constantly.

(02:43):
When you're reading a Scalia opinion.
You're like, oh my God.
like the whole time.
Check out his Lawrence V.
Texas opinion.
It's crazy.

Zach (02:52):
The part that I like specifically called out was in, Kennedy versus
Bremington school district.
And , the bit is a government'sentities concerns about phantom
constitutional violations do notjustify actual violations of an
individual's first amendment rights.
I was like, whoa, dude, phantomconstitutional violations.

(03:14):
You are like, really?

Kassie (03:16):
wow.

Zach (03:18):
I said, putting a lot of sauce on it.

Kassie (03:20):
Not having it

Erin (03:21):
I'm gonna have to look up some of those zingers for next time, because I
remember reading them every once in awhile in my like law school textbooks
and underlying them and just beinglike, damn depending on what one it

Zach (03:33):
That's awesome.

Erin (03:35):
Oh,

Zach (03:35):
so good.

Erin (03:36):
every once in a while it's like just a straight insult.
They're basically like the other sideare idiots who like don't understand
legal reasoning every once in a while.
That's like, essentiallywhat they're saying.

Zach (03:47):
Yes.
Yep.
Yep.

Kassie (03:50):
I, I love that.
I was just saying that's so funnyand that would be how I would
approach it if it was my job.

Zach (03:56):
very SA, but then the end is always like, it has so been
ordered or whatever they say atthe end and I'm like, well, okay.
I guess there's, no arguing it.
It is so ordered.
Okay.

. Erin (04:08):
For anyone who doesn't know is O Y E Z is how it's spelled for now.
It's O yay.
And it's the, when youlike bang the gavel go.
Oh, yay.
Oh, yay.
Oh, yay.
That like starts the case.
That's like what that's from.

Zach (04:22):
Oh,

Erin (04:23):
So there's this website called called oh, yay.
Dot org.
And it has summaries of like everySupreme court decision ever super
helpful resource, especially if youdon't want to be Zach and read a
hundred pages of Supreme court opinion.
Although very impressive.

Zach (04:40):
website.
I have it up now andI'm looking through it.
It's it's very beautiful.
It's nice font.
Like good,

Erin (04:46):
Yeah.
It's good.
UI mm-hmm

Zach (04:47):
I approve.
Yeah.

Kassie (04:49):
Hello, framers.
Welcome.
Welcome to another episode.
We're so glad you're here.
I am Kassie and I am joinedby my teammates and fearless
leaders, Erin and Zach, how you

Erin (05:00):
Hi, I'm good.
How are you guys?

Zach (05:02):
Doing pretty good.
Happy to be here for another episode.
Thanks for joining us.

Kassie (05:07):
So everybody, we are talking about the Supreme court decisions today.
And I personally need this becauseI was asking some clarifying
questions with Erin earlier.
I didn't really realize the schedule ofhow the Supreme court decisions work.
So what we're gonna do today is kindof just let you know how the Supreme
court kind of moves through their yearin terms of hearing, deciding what

(05:30):
they're gonna hear and making decisions,and then releasing those decisions.
We're gonna talk about who the justicesare right now, just to refresh your memory
in case it's been a minute, and thenwe're gonna go through three categories
of decisions that were released.
We're gonna do six cases.
The topics will be abortionadministrative law and civil rights.

(05:51):
So I don't know if administrativelaw is gonna be interesting.
Maybe you guys will tellme it is, but oh man.
Those other two, you'regonna wanna be here for

Erin (06:01):
Administrative law will be interesting.
I promise

Kassie (06:05):
Okay.
And as always, our Reframershave done some research just to
be educated on the topic, but wealways like to make sure that we're
not talking based only on opinion.
However, it's not a requirement that youenter any political conversation that
you have with a friend or family member,whoever it might be you're speaking.
Having done a ton of research.
Our goal at the referrers is to make itcomfortable and less scary and attacky

(06:31):
to talk about political decisions andthings that are going on in the world.
Even if you're not an expert.
So Zach, I know made a lot of extrawork for himself on accident and really
dove in and has 43 pages of notes.
That's not unlike our Zacharyand Erin actually attended a
really cool lecture or a talk.
So we have some different we're hitting itfrom different sides and as always, I know

(06:54):
little to nothing and I'm here to learn.
So let's jump in, Erin, help us out.
Give us an

Erin (06:58):
Okay.
So I just wanted to let everyone know how.
Court term kind of works.
There's certain kinds of casesthat the Supreme court can hear.
And it's actually laid out in articlethree of the constitution, what
federal courts are allowed to hear.
And there's certain cases andcontroversies is the language.
And so the Supreme court can hear casesthat kind of rise up below, like from the

(07:20):
lower courts, because remember we have adual court system where there's federal
courts and state courts and decisionscan get appealed up the levels of courts.
So you go from, if we're talking aboutthe federal courts, it goes district court
to a circuit court, to the Supreme court.
So you actually have to appealup the levels of the courts
to get to the Supreme court.

(07:41):
And then certain controversieslike between states

Kassie (07:44):
sorry, just to jump in.
Nothing ever goes nothing's ever like bigenough or important enough that it goes
straight to the, to the Supreme court.
It always starts
small.

Erin (07:53):
go straight to the Supreme court.
Like if it's a dispute between twostates that would go directly to the
Supreme

Zach (07:58):
For ex for example, too, the, Bush gore went to the Supreme court, right.
That was like, because it be, yeah.
Okay.

Erin (08:07):
Bush V gore mm-hmm and that went directly to the Supreme court to decide,

Kassie (08:10):
cause you can't have like one state or, or one candidate's
state versus another candidate state.
Like the, the authority overthat would be the federal level.

Erin (08:21):
I think that was just cuz it was a presidential election.
Honestly, I should knowthe exact rule about that.
This is literally constitutional law

Kassie (08:27):
questioning you.

Erin (08:28):
have the words for that.

Zach (08:30):
thought it had to do with the urgency in which the matter was needing
to be resolved because the electiontook place in November and we had
to inaugurate a, new president.
And so like they had to gothrough the whole process
before the January 21st date.
So I think that's why it'slike, okay, Bush V gore.
And then it quickly went up the chain tothe Supreme court to decide, you know,

(08:52):
do we count the hanging CHADS or not?
So I think that's myunderstanding, but it could be.

Erin (08:57):
so when a case actually gets to the Supreme court,
the Supreme court grants cert.
So if you've heard of that, grantingsari is or cert that is means that the
court has decided to hear the case.
So if they hear the case, there'soral arguments that happened and
that's usually sometime in the fall.
And there's always like lots of commentaryabout them, the types of questions that

(09:18):
the justices are asking the attorneyswho are presenting can give some insight
sometimes into what that you think theymight be leaning towards as, as far as the
decision there's oral argument, and then
once the oral argument is closed,the Supreme court will kind of
deliberate between themselves.
And that's usually just a form oflike writing the opinion and then

(09:40):
sending drafts back and forth.
There's a lot of commentary onexactly how the Supreme court
works like behind closed doors.
And then they issue their opinionsusually sometime in the spring.
And so it's sort of this yearcycle and then they're kind
of off during the summer.
So we got a whole bunch of opinionsthis year that came out in the spring.
So, and they were kind of stacked.
Unless there is something that's like.

(10:02):
Injunctive relief caseor something like that.
Like there was a, so there was aTexas law earlier this year that
sought to put limits on abortion.
So this is before Dobbs and that ended upgetting to the Supreme court and they just
rejected review of that case, I think.
And so that was a big dealbecause I was like, well, why

(10:23):
wouldn't they hear that case?
And then they ended uphearing the Dobbs case later.
. Before we get in, I just wannamention who the justices are, cuz
we're gonna be talking about thesepeople and you've probably heard
their names a little bit, so I justwanna run through them real quick.
And also who they were appointedby, cuz that is helpful information.
So first we have chief justice Roberts.

(10:45):
I'm gonna start with him justcuz he's the chief justice.
He's not been on the bench the longest,but after him I'm gonna go in order
of how long they've been on the bench.
So chief judges, Roberts, hewas nominated by George W.
Bush and he started onthe Supreme court in 2005.
Then we have Clarence Thomas.
He was nominated bynormal Bush, not w Bush.

(11:05):
And he's been on the court, normal Bush.
What's his first name.
I forgot.

Zach (11:10):
Also

Kassie (11:11):
still

Erin (11:12):
also George, my God.
Normal Bush.

Kassie (11:17):
H w

Erin (11:18):
call him normal

Kassie (11:19):
normal

Zach (11:20):
normal bus.

Kassie (11:21):
cry so early in this episode,

Zach (11:23):
Oh.

Erin (11:25):
but Thomas has been on the court the longest, so far.
He started serving in 1991,which is before I was born.
So

Kassie (11:33):
is Thomas the one that was just like he's wrapped up in his wife, maybe
being involved in the instruction.
Is that

Erin (11:39):
Is that person, his wife, Jenny Thomas has been sort of part
of the investigation of January6th because of text messages.
She sent another sort ofancillary involvement.

Kassie (11:52):
Hmm.

Erin (11:53):
Yes, the, yeah, he's he's in a little bit of some scandal right now.
And then the next oldest is Steven Brier.
Who's actually retired from the court,but he participated in this term.
And so this most recent term, sosome of the, the opinions that
we're gonna talk about are onesthat he actually weighed in on.
But he's retired since then andbeen replaced by judge Jackson,

(12:15):
who is nominated by Biden.
And she just took her seat onthe Supreme court in June, 2022.
So after this term had ended.

Kassie (12:24):
not involved in

Erin (12:25):
was not involved in these decisions, Steven Breyer was involved in these
decisions and he was nominated by Clinton.
Okay.
Now quick roll call.
Then we have Alito.
He was nominated by w Bush and hestarted serving in 2006, then soda
IOR, who was nominated by Obamaand started in 2009, Elena Kagan,
who was also nominated by Obama.

(12:46):
And she started in 2010.
And then we have Gorsuch who wasnominated by Trump and started in 2017.
Kavanaugh also nominated by Trumpstarted in 2018 and then Amy Coney
Barrett, who was also nominatedby Trump and started in 2020.
So that is the current Supreme courtthat made the decisions that we're

(13:06):
gonna talk about today with that one youknow, Briar having retired since then.

Kassie (13:12):
Thank you for the roll call.
I think it's helpful also to knowwhen everybody was brought in and
by whom that's the correct use of by

Zach (13:21):
I think so.

Kassie (13:21):
Right?

Erin (13:22):
if anyone is counting the number of conservative leaning
justices who were appointed byconservatives right now in the court is.
And the number of more liberalleaning justices appointed by
democratic residents is three.
And that's important when you'retalking about how these Supreme
court decisions broke down.

Zach (13:42):
Yeah.
, there's this weird unsaidthing with the court, right.
Where it's like, you, they're not rethey're all neutral, but not really right.
It's like who they're nominated by prettymuch goes to tell you how they're gonna
decide based off of the ideology of whothe president was that nominated them.

Erin (13:59):
Although there's,

Kassie (14:00):
I have about a thousand things I wanna ask, but I know we can't fit 'em all

Erin (14:03):
there's definitely been Supreme court justices who surprise people or
were more moderate or more liberal, youknow, depending on who they were nominated
by, but in general, that has held true.

Zach (14:14):
it.
Roberts has been kind of he, he, hedoesn't just stick to the party line.
Right.
I mean, he, isn't, he one that kind ofjumps over to liberal side, a, a decent
amount it's it's him or it's the guy

Erin (14:26):
not, not really.
I mean, like every once in a whilehe'll be kind of a swing vote,
like in the decision regardingObamacare, he wrote the majority

Zach (14:35):
yeah,

Erin (14:36):
the law, but he wasn't making some kind of liberal stand there or
really aligning with the liberals.
, that was a pretty moderate decision, butin general, he's pretty conservative in
the way that he rules, but like probablyless so than someone like Clarence
Thomas you're thinking of Kennedy.
Yeah.

Zach (14:54):
I'm thinking of

Erin (14:55):
was, was a swing vote and it was very important member
on the court because of that.

Kassie (15:01):
I wanna ask a question that is maybe nuanced or maybe it's obvious,
but if we're sitting here and , a bunchof decisions go through while there's
a very strong conservative majority,then that does that mean that all six
cases we're gonna hear about rightnow are going to be conservative side.

(15:24):
I don't know the word wins.
, what should I be expecting here?
Is, is there gonna be anysurprises or is this just gonna
be a list of like things that theconservatives accomplished this year?

Zach (15:33):
don't think so.
I, I think I, oh really?

Kassie (15:38):
There you go.
Okay.

Erin (15:39):
do.

Zach (15:40):
Cuz we're only gonna talk about six cases today, but we
are gonna talk about another one.
So maybe the cases I'm thinking of our,our in next week's episode where a few of
them, you know, Biden won, you know, it'sBiden V, Missouri or something like that.
Maybe where Biden actually won that one.
So I a majority, yeah,the conservative side.

(16:01):
Definitely.
I I'm speaking just from a, purelylike, if Biden wins that case,
like whatever Biden's rule was,was like the liberal victory.
Right.
So I, but I think, you know,what you're asking is definitely
the case that in a lot of thesedecisions, it was like six, three.
With most of the conservativejustices aligning.

(16:22):
And then I actually wrote down in mynotes, who won and by what margin, cuz
I thought that was interesting to noteso well, I'm sure as we go through
each one, we'll we'll note that out.

Erin (16:32):
Mm-hmm

Kassie (16:34):
okay.
Folks, shall we dive in?

Erin (16:36):
let's dive in.

Kassie (16:37):
We are gonna start with the big Kauna.
We're gonna go right for abortion.
So this is the case Dobbs versusJackson women's health organization.
I'm gonna hand it off to one of thepeople who know more about this, and
we're gonna just so you guys knowwe're gonna talk about basically who

(16:57):
sued, who, what grounds, what thedecision was and our thoughts, just
so you have a rough format of what to
expect.

Zach (17:05):
So for the Dobbs case there's a Mississippi law that says that except in
a medical emergency or in the case of asevere fetal abnormality, a person shall
not intentionally or knowingly performan abortion on an unborn human being.
If the probable gestational ageof the human has been determined
to be greater than 15 weeks.

(17:26):
So basically it's a 15 week ban onabortion in the state of Mississippi.
And then you have Jackson's women's healthorganization, which is an abortion clinic.
And one of its doctors that

Erin (17:36):
only abortion clinic.
It's the only, abortion clinic
Mississippi,

Kassie (17:42):
in Jackson,

Erin (17:43):
I think in the state,

Kassie (17:44):
Or in Mississippi?

Erin (17:46):
Yep.
The only licensed abortionfacility in Mississippi.

Kassie (17:51):
Damn.

Zach (17:52):
challenged the act then that saying that it violated the court's
precedence establishing a constitution,right to abortion in particular Roe V.
Wade and planned parenthood VKC what washeld in that decision is the constitution
does not confer right to abortion.
Roe and Casey are overturned andthe authority to regulate abortion
is returned to the people andtheir elected representatives.

(18:14):
, that's the very succinct,as short as I can make it.
Summary of what happened in, this case.
Thanks for adding the context about theonly abortion clinic, cuz I think that is
maybe not pertinent to the law, but it is.
I pertinent to the situationthat we face ourselves in.

Erin (18:31):
yeah.
In this case the justice Alito wrotethe majority opinion of the case, which
all of the conservative justices joined.
It was a six, three decision.
And then Thomas Kavanaugh and Robertseach wrote a concurring opinion and
Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion onbehalf of the more liberal justices.

(18:51):
So Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brier

Zach (18:55):
and just, and just to let everybody know up front, what that means is that
if you said Alito wrote , the majority,

Erin (19:01):
wrote that mm-hmm

Zach (19:02):
He's writing the opinion that everybody agrees with those six and
then the dissenting is the other three.
Then that say kind of their response,even though , they, quote unquote like
lost the, decision, they still get to saywhat their reasoning and rationale was.
And you can read, the majority andminority decisions to see what the.

(19:23):
The judges were thinking and why theyvoted the way they did in each case.
And then you said too, that there was afew justices that wrote another concurring
opinion , and correct me if I'm wrong,but that's basically them saying, we
agree with the vote, but we also thinkthat it's for these other reasons
that are not in the majority opinion.
Is that

Erin (19:42):
yes.
Or would have, yeah.
Or would have decidedit slightly differently.
Like Robert's had a really interestingconcurrence in this case where he
would've voted to uphold this lawfrom Mississippi with the 15 week ban,
but would not have overruled Roe V.
Wade.
But join the decision thateffectively does that.

(20:05):
So he had an interesting one and thenThomas's opinion has been talked about
a lot, Clarence Thomas's concurringopinion because it had some very strong
language about overturning Roe for one.
And then also the implications ofoverturning Roe for some of the
other cases that are decided on thissort of legal theory of substantive
due process and this plethoraof rights in the constitution.

(20:27):
So which is about like, even ifa right isn't specifically listed
in the constitution, right?
We have like a bill of rights.
It tells us what, what rights we are,there's this legal theory that says,
well, based on the rights we have, wecan infer that there's other rights
that we have, and this is a big dealin the abortion cases because it's
where we get this idea of a right to.

(20:48):
Kinda like bodily privacy.
And that's how largely how theRoe decision was first decided.
And a lot of the rhetoric inAlitos opinion, especially Thomas's
opinion is basically saying thislegal theory doesn't work for Roe.
And then for Thomas, it doesn'twork full stop, and none of these
rights are in the constitution.

(21:09):
And so we shouldn't be making decisionsabout these types of rights, basically,
because they're not listed in theconstitution we don't protect them
as the Supreme court is basicallywhat his opinion kind of said,

Zach (21:21):
Yeah, that's that's

Erin (21:22):
mean that they can't be protected.
They're just not protectedby the constitution.

, Zach (21:26):
Congress could then write a law that says, we make this a law, you know, the
right to abortion is to protected, right.
And states cannot ban abortion.
Right.
That would be a way to do it.
That then would become a lawthat now states have to abide by.
But as it's written right now and they,say this, so they go through and kind
of break down the logic or the reasoningbehind why the decision was made.

(21:49):
And they say the constitutionmakes no express reference to
the right to obtain an abortion.
But then they say, you know,but several provisions have been
offered as an implicit right.
And that's what Erin was just mentioning.
And then they say, the court examines,whether the rights to obtain an abortion
is rooted in the nation's historyand tradition, and whether it is an
essential component of ordered Liberty.
And then they determine that thecourt finds the 14th amendment does

(22:12):
not protect right to abortion untilthe latter part of the 20th century.
There was no support in Americanlaw for a constitutional
right to obtain an abortion.
So they're basically saying for muchof American history, , this idea that
I think Roe and Casey were decidedon, we're not constitutionally sound.
And so based off of that, we feellike we're going to reverse those

(22:34):
decisions because there is nolaw , that protects that right.

Erin (22:39):
And obviously this is a really big deal decision for lots of reasons.
It's a big deal when you're thinkingabout the legal theory and the
idea of overturning precedentis obviously you got a lot of
practical impacts for the country.
There were a lot of states thathad trigger laws, which basically
said , if Roe V Wade getsoverturned, then immediately a ban

(22:59):
on abortion will go into effect.
And some of them are bands with someexceptions carved out and then some are
wholesale bands and some are actually.
There're bands at the point of conception.
So just wholesale no abortion.
And there's been some interestingdevelopments since then.
Like Kansas actually voted tokeep abortion, which was sort of

(23:22):
a surprise and very interesting.
But I think it's right now over half thestates will prohibit abortion have, or are
in the process of prohibiting abortion.
So I think that's wherewe're at right now.
And that took effect like almostimmediately after this decision came out.

Zach (23:37):
I think 18 states had trigger bans, like right away.
So like immediately 18, I think wasthe number that as soon as it was
overturned, those laws tick took effect.
Yeah.

Erin (23:47):
mm-hmm and it's just on the legal side, it's really rare that the court
will take away a fundamental right.
That has that a previous decisionfound there to be a fundamental, right.
And the court is now saying, no, actuallythis is not a fundamental, right.
And it's kind of interestingbecause something.
Alito said in his opinion to defendthis idea of, well, we're not

(24:11):
bound by starry decisis, which isthe, you know, legal theory that
you're gonna abide by precedent.
He mentioned cases like brownversus board and Plessy versus
Ferguson, which are really importantcases that did overturn precedent.
So brown versus board of educationwas saying that segregation
was unconstitutional and thatoverturned a prior decision.

(24:32):
I think it over, I think itactually overturned plussy versus

Zach (24:35):
Yeah.
Plus he was saying separatebut equal is, is okay.

Erin (24:39):
that that's yeah.
Segregation was okay.
So that was their example of like,well, we can actually, you know,
overturn decisions when they'remade totally incorrectly is the
argument, but it's different.
You're actually granting a rightin brown V board versus taking away
a right that the court has said.
In the past that you have.

(25:01):
So I don't, I didn't think that waslike that great of comparison, but
that, that was one of the argumentsthat they made to defend this idea
that they're overturning precedent.
And one of the, the other thingsthat they talked about was that
overruling, this decision would notupend concrete, reliance interests.

(25:21):
And that just, thatdoesn't make sense to me.
You know, whether youagree with abortion or not.
I think it's wrong to say that therehasn't been reliance on it existing
the way that it has at least.
And that is one of the decisions that'ssupposed to factor in with overturning
precedent and the court didn'tseem to give that very much weight.

(25:43):
And I was kind of surprised by that.

Zach (25:45):
Can you, can you explain that?
Is, is that basically the idea thenthat if there's a reliance on, in
this case, the right to an abortion,then by taking away that, right.
It, it creates like a, an undueburden or something like that
on those potentially affected.

Erin (26:03):
It's one of the factors you're supposed to consider when deciding if
you're going to overturn precedent.
So it just weighs either in favoror against overturning precedent,
depending on the type of effectit will have based on how much
reliance the society has set on it.

Zach (26:20):
So it would be like taking out like a pillar of a building.
That's really, you know,if there's something that's
very concrete and, and goes

Erin (26:26):
on it.
Mm-hmm

Zach (26:27):
history and you take away that pillar, all the things that are built
upon that pillar are, undermined.
. That makes sense.

Erin (26:34):
Yeah, that's the idea.
I mean, it's a, it's an interestingcase if you're thinking about it just
legally, because if you're someonewho thinks that Roe V Wade was wrongly
decided, this is correcting that decision.
Obviously, if you're someone who thinksthat Roe V Wade was correctly decided
this is, you know, hugely detrimental.
So, and that

Zach (26:55):
Of justice.

Erin (26:56):
yeah, just huge polarizing ideas on both sides.
I mean, like my Instagram feed, whenthis decision came out was crazy.
And I, I saw it from both sides, peopletotally celebrating and people being
like, this is the end of democracy.

Zach (27:13):
Yeah.
So, I'll just jump at it first.
I guess I actually don't thinkthat this was the right call.
Like may, maybe legally speaking, itwas, sound and they had every right , to
reverse it based off of, you know, thereasons that they cited in the decision.
But I actually think that this isnot the correct decision which maybe
as the conservative in the group is,is surprising, but I think abortion

(27:36):
is such a divisive and polarizingissue that it, effectively creates
a black market , for these things.
And I think in the long run willactually do more harm than good.
I mean, I was, I was lookinginto reason mag which is like
the libertarian website magazine.
And, , they noted correctly that, thatwhenever you outlaw something, it

(27:57):
tends to drive that market undergroundand abortions were at like a 20 or
30 year low recently, still they're,they're fairly common, but they're
actually at a, very, , low number.
And I think that by doingthis and outlying it in, let's
say it's half the states now.
I think it'll actually domore harm , than good from.

(28:18):
, the protecting life perspective, I guess.
I, , that, that feels strange to say,but, I think it's the case, so I'm
actually not in favor of this decisionand I wish we were able to come about
it from a better, more clear standpoint,but it's obviously very complex.

Erin (28:34):
Yeah, abortion is such a hard issue.
It's it's one of the hardestones for me personally.
And I think that I have a lot ofcomplicated feelings about it.
I really don't like the idea ofabortions happening, but I don't think
that doing the outlawing abortionnecessarily solves that issue.

(28:55):
And I get really frustrated.
People who want to outlaw abortion and notdeal with the root causes of a lot of it.
Particularly things like sex, educationand access to contraception and,
, family care and paid family leave.
None of those policies , seem to beat least from what I can tell really

(29:17):
embraced by people who are reallyintense about getting rid of abortion.
And that's very disappointing,especially when you have these
trigger laws that immediately gointo effect to, outlaw abortions
without having any of those supports.
So I agree.
I don't think that like, ultimately ifwhat you care about is protecting life,

(29:40):
why are all of these other things, notpart of that, and that makes it feel more.
Like the concern is about controllingwomen than it is about actually dealing
with making sure abortions don't happen.

Zach (29:55):
Yeah, I tend to agree, it's very emotionally fraught and , I don't think
it's a wholesale good, but also I thinkwe have to be compassionate understanding.
And this is one of those things thatreally sucks when like the log its,
affects our lives in such great detail.
You know, our next topic is administrativelaw and for most of us that literally will

(30:18):
never, we're never gonna come up againstthe situation where, where we, we curse
the government for the, administrative lawthat was cited in Biden versus Missouri.
Like it's just not gonnahappen, but abortion is one of
those ones and yeah, it it's.

Erin (30:34):
It's really heavy.
I mean, it's like, it's like one ofthe biggest things to happen in our
government in a really long time.
And I'm, it's, it sucks that it'slike literally another unprecedented
thing that has happened, cuz it justfeels like everything for the past.
What five years?

(30:55):
Really?
Three years.
But five years is just unprecedented.
And in some ways it just feels like,like blow after blow things that you
don't expect to happen are happening.
And this is a thing that a lot ofpeople talked about when they're
like, I'm really concerned about theSupreme court and having this power
and Roe V Wade being overturned.

(31:16):
And there was a lot of conversationof like, well that's not gonna happen.
That's not gonna happen.
And, you know, here we are.

Zach (31:21):
Yeah.

Erin (31:22):
And one other thing related to this, just because it's been so in the
conversation, I mentioned it before, Iam concerned about other rights under
the substantive due process theory,based on Thomas's concurrence and yeah.
Other people, the otherjustices didn't talk about that.
But if you are gonna be logically andlegally consistent, then things like

(31:47):
contraception, which was protectedby a case called Griswold versus
Connecticut potentially even gaymarriage, which was under a aburgefel
those could, could be under jeopardy.
I thought that that was a littleoverstated when people were talking
about that initially, but I don'tknow that it is actually, I think
you can distinguish something likea Burel under equal protection.

(32:09):
But Griswold protection of contraception.
I don't know if you really can, becausethe root of so much of that is that
privacy right that's in the constitution.
So, you know, like you said,Congress could pass a law about it.
Which, you know, would make mefeel better about things, but

Zach (32:27):
that's gonna require the votes and that's

Erin (32:30):
we don't have the votes and, you know, kind of on the other side, , if
we turn over and there's a RepublicanCongress and a Republican president,
there could be a law that says, youknow, no abortion, no contraception,
no IVF, all of those things for,for the entire country, right?
Like that could happenin either direction.
So I do think it's an opportunitypotentially for, I mean, the

(32:53):
way I'm thinking about itfor Democrats to actually.
Like govern through law and not likekick things to the Supreme court.
You know, there's a little bit more thatwe could maybe do to be more active in
this area, but we have to, we'd have tobe like actually very active and very
motivated to get that kind of thing done.
And , Democrats have been reallyhonestly, like, not that great

(33:14):
at governing recently, they'rejust not getting that much done.
So, I mean, they did pass a goodlaw recently, but it's, it's still
just tough with something like this.

Zach (33:25):
Well, I mean, this is, this is where, you know, the libertarian side
of me agrees with the Democrats , Iget why the government has an,
an interest because of the, youknow, the potential life, right?
The, , fetus it's involved.
I get why they have insertedthemselves into this.
But you know, for the contraception andthe gay marriage and the, the abortion,
it's like,, I would really ratherit not be the government's business,

(33:47):
like protect the people from thegovernment in this respect, rather than.
You know, have the governmentbeing a threat to the people.
So and, and then, you know, second toyour point of actually legislating,
like this is something that, that hasbeen a trend for the last, I don't know,
somebody could probably correct me, butat least 10 years, you know, 15 years

(34:07):
is what exactly what you said of lettingthe Supreme court decide these really
important cultural, societal issues thatwe have rather than either hashing it out
and coming to a no decision in Congressor continuing to have the conversation
or deciding one way or the other.
It's, you know, Congress issupposed to be the representation
of the people and our will.

(34:29):
And so by, by having these kinds ofsituations where we look to the Supreme
court to decide what is okay to do inthe country, I think establishes a very
dangerous and, you know, passing the buck.
And it makes us, youknow, not be accountable.
And I think we should be moreinvolved, you know, at the state

(34:51):
and federal levels than we are,but this is, this is how it goes.

Erin (34:58):
Yeah.
I read a really interesting articlethat was talking about this exact idea.
. And um, it uh, was saying thatthey let the court basically
like push civil rights forward.
As opposed to doing it through Congressand they didn't have to do it that way.
And it is a little bit of a copout and maybe it's an opportunity

(35:18):
for us to step up in another way.

Zach (35:21):
you know, it's all good.
As long as it's stuff you agree with.

Erin (35:24):
Mm-hmm

Zach (35:24):
But it's.
You know, the, the, the limitingprinciple in my mind is putting
yourself in the shoes of what ifthe other side gets that power.
Right?
I always , would rather the minimumamount of force or influence or
whatever it is, you know, be appliedbecause I don't want the other side

(35:47):
to then use outsize power against me.
I would rather use as minimum amount of,of influence as possible because like,
I want my own privacy and I, I want myown autonomy and I want my own rights.
And so I'm willing to grant allof those things to everybody else
who's different than me cuz I wouldhope that they would do the same.

Erin (36:10):
Yeah.
do you think we should take a break?

Kassie (36:13):
Dallas is being so good.
Let's keep going

Zach (36:17):
Okay.
Yeah.
Next we will do admin law.
So the next case

Erin (36:23):
sorry, your voice was so like plateau, just admin law.

Kassie (36:29):
up.

Erin (36:32):
okay.
One of the reasons this is interestingis because of COVID and then the second
case, or the third case is climate changeimplications that are actually very big.
So this is why.
Admin law is interesting.

Zach (36:47):
So the first one is yeah.
National Federation ofindependent businesses, V
department of labor parentheses

Erin (36:54):
You have all heard about this case, whether you realize it or not.

Zach (36:58):
This is the vaccine mandate.

Kassie (37:02):
what?

Zach (37:03):
This, this is the federal vaccine mandate.

Kassie (37:07):
all right, let's go.
Let's get in.
Who sued?
Who, what grounds?
What did the decisions?
Our thoughts?

Zach (37:13):
Okay.
So the background on this one?

Kassie (37:16):
You said who sued?
Who?
Cuz you said the

Zach (37:18):
No, that's okay.
No, no, but, but that'snot necessarily clear.
So basically what happened is that thesecretary of labor acting through OSHA
enacted a vaccine mandate for 84 millionAmericans, , any employer who had a
hundred or more employees was requiredto get a vaccine or they could obtain
a medical test each week at their ownexpense on their own time and wear a mask.

(37:42):
So that's what the, the rule was.
And basically there was a collectionof businesses in a bunch of different
states that quotes seek emergency relieffrom the court, arguing that OSHA's
mandate exceeds its statutory authorityand is otherwise unlawful, agreeing that
applicants are likely to prevail we granttheir application and stay the rule.

(38:04):
So basically a bunch of businessesfrom a bunch of different states sued
the government, oSHA saying, you guysare overreaching, your authority.
This is not anything that's that OSHAhas ever been tasked by Congress to do.
And so we asked that you put a pauseon this mandate and the court agreed.
And so the, the vaccine mandate did notgo into effect , this particular one.

Erin (38:29):
And just like the dog's decision.
It was a six, three decision.
So you had the six conservativessaying that, you know, OSHA
didn't have this power and thatBiden couldn't make this mandate.
And then the three more liberal justicessaying, no, you should be able to do this.
So it was interesting because there'sthere's state and federal OSHAs if

(38:50):
people don't know there's the federaloccupational safety hazard administration
and then states have it too.
So California we've got Cal OSHA, whichhonestly was kind of my worst enemy during
COVID because they kept like issuingall these regulations that made no sense
that we had to sit there and read throughlike over and over and try to understand,
and then they would update it liketwo months later and it made no sense.

(39:13):
So that was a frustrating time, but thefederal OSHA not being able to do this
basically had this really big effect onemployers being able to require employees
to get vaccinated versus having, you know,the or testing or not getting vaccinated.
We did, we did a lot related tothis of like what employers can

(39:37):
do and what they couldn't do.
So it was a good time back inthe day really goes to what you
think about vaccine mandates.
What was interesting is that whatthe liberal justices said was that
the pandemic affects the safety ofthe workplace in a very specific way.
And so OSHA does have the power to dothis because it deals with workplace

(39:59):
safety and the conservatives were kind oflike, well, this isn't really workplace
safety because it like impacts people'slives in and out of the workplace.
So they had kind of this, which,which it, I think it probably does.
But they had these sort of competingarguments about like how much of an
effect does this have on the workplaceto actually be under OSHA's authority?

(40:21):
, and then it's important because itkind of goes to what can these big
administrative departments of thefederal bureaucracy actually do?
And where's the limit of their power.
And this was limiting the power , ofthem to be able to do things.

Zach (40:37):
So as Erin mentioned, they basically were saying that this is, this is out
of the scope of what OSHA was intended.
It says, as the name suggests,OSHA is tasked with ensuring
occupational safety that is safeand healthy working conditions.
And then such standards must bereasonably necessary and appropriate
to provide safe and helpful employment.
And they're arguing, as Erinmentioned that, COVID is not a risk

(41:00):
that is unique to the workforce.
COVID is a risk that is likely tobe encountered anywhere that you
go, where there are large crowdsor you know, the, like, in closed
spaces or, or what have you.
They're saying that this is quote noeveryday exercise of federal power.
And we expect Congress to speakclearly when authorizing an agency
to exercise powers, a vast economicand political significance.

(41:24):
So this is just the court saying thenthat, while the intention of what OSHA's
trying to do, which is there is a riskthat is encountered in the workplace.
You make no distinction basedoff of the types of workplaces.
And this was not something that isunique to working and it exceeds the
mandate which Congress has given you.

Erin (41:43):
Yeah.
And the, the conservatives in thatcase were really not swayed by the idea
that COVID was an unprecedented kind ofsituation that would require, you know,
more ability for these agencies to act.

Zach (41:59):
They actually called that out specifically in the decision, they say
this lack of historical precedent, coupledwith the breadth of the authority that
the secretary now claims is a tellingindication that the mandate extends
beyond the agency's legitimate reach.
So they, they really felt like,again, a lot of sass coming through

(42:20):
in the decision, but like, you guysare trying to stretch this too far,
and this is a, a bad reason why youthink you can issue this mandate.

Erin (42:29):
Mm-hmm it's true.
And yet in the decision that came outBiden versus Missouri, which was this
exact same deal, the vaccine mandate,but for a healthcare worker, specifically
the unprecedented nature of COVID.
Was important in determiningthat healthcare workers did

(42:54):
actually have to get vaccinated.
There's a little bit ofinconsistent logic here.
I think they tried to draw distinctionsand there are distinctions, but they also
talked about how unprecedented COVID was.
And so it's like, well, if you didn'tthink it was unprecedented in this
decision that you literally justmade, and that is like not a reason to
make the decision weird that now thatit's unprecedented, it's like, okay,

Zach (43:17):
The distinction then is basically that in the state of Missouri, the health
and human services, administrators whodecide where the funds for Medicare
and Medicaid go set a rule that if, ifyou are a recipient or work in a place
that receives Medicare and Medicaidfunds that you need to be vaccinated.
And so.
That's basically distinct the distinctionbetween the two cases is one, is

(43:40):
OSHA said any company in the UnitedStates over a hundred employees has
to get vaccinated with the exception.
And then in the Missouri case, they said,if you're receiving these funds, which is
pretty much just like healthcare centers,you know, hospitals therapy, clinic,
you know, anything related to the healthindustry, that those workers had to be
vaccinated in Missouri and the courtfound in, as Erin mentioned that because

(44:05):
of the significant nature of COVID let'ssee, the secretary issued the rule after
finding that vaccination of healthcareworkers against COVID 19 was necessary
for the health and safety of individualsto whom care and services are furnished.
So because the workers were specificallyin the medical field that those
people that fell under that categorywere required to get vaccinated in

(44:27):
order to protect, the health andsafety of the patients in their care.

Erin (44:31):
And just for reference, this was actually a five, four decision Roberts
and Kavanaugh joined the three liberals.
So they were the two who, you know,came over and said that this was okay.
Clarence Thomas and Amy Cooney Barrett,and Neil Gorsuch all also dissented.
And they basically said there's nostatutory authority for this sort of

(44:54):
a similar argument to the one theymade in the national Federation case.
So they were at least, I think, a littlebit more consistent in their reasoning.
Even though I think, like I said, youcan draw some distinctions, but it's,
it felt a little bit I don't know whatthe word is like cherry picking to me.

. Kassie (45:13):
So the consensus was healthcare workers don't have to be fully

Erin (45:18):
no, that you could have a vaccine mandate.

. Kassie (45:21):
But in that case only because they were healthcare workers in that
specific way of receiving funding.

Zach (45:27):
Yeah.
And so the, some of the reasoning thatthey use is when asked to oral arguments,
whether the secretary could requirehospital employees to wear gloves,
sterilize instruments, and wash theirhands in a certain way and at certain
intervals and the like Missouri answered,yes, of course the vaccine mandate goes
further than what the secretary has donein the past but they conclude that, like
Erin said that , the situation with theCOVID pandemic would be like the risks

(45:51):
of not vaccinating and potentially havingmore deaths and, and hospitalizations
due to healthcare workers, infectingpatients, which goes against the
Hippocratic oath would be more of arisk than just saying you should require
healthcare workers to be vaccinated.

Kassie (46:07):
Okay.
And I don't wanna get too caught up, butwhy would this be Biden versus Missouri?
that sounds very highlevel for the name of it.
Like did someone Sue Biden or what.

Zach (46:18):
So I believe it's because of the Medicare and Medicaid portion.
So there's the Missouri ruleand then Biden was arguing as a
part of the federal government.
You know, it's not literally Bidensitting in court, but it's like the
government, you know, ruling that.
Yes, indeed.
Missouri, , you can allow that the thehealthcare workers receive the, the

(46:40):
mandate, like your, your ruling stance.

Kassie (46:42):
Does that happen a
lot where, I mean like, are there a lotof like Trump versus in, in Obama versus

Erin (46:48):
There are some Biden was trying to enforce the nationwide rule that
the Biden administrative administrationmade that required healthcare workers
at facilities who received thisMedicare funding to get vaccinated.
And so that's why it's Bidenversus Missouri, because it was the
Biden rule and they were trying,they were suing to enforce it.

(47:11):
Biden was a petitioner.
So there are cases like I'm, I'mpretty sure there's Trump cases.
I know there's Obama cases oftrying to enforce certain rules.

Zach (47:20):
for example, there were 67 decisions made by the Supreme
court in this last session.
Only one of them is Biden V and it's thisone Biden V Missouri, the other 66 cases
are other petitioners, and defendants.
So a lot of it is like Texas,like United States, V, Texas,
Mississippi V, Tennessee.
Hemp Phil versus New York.
So it's a lot of like government agencieson one side and then either another

(47:42):
government agency or an individualor, or an organization on the other.
So any, anything else on these two?

Erin (47:49):
I don't think so important cases though.

Kassie (47:52):
let's move on to our third administrative law, West Virginia versus
the environmental protection agency.
You might have heard it as the EPA.

Erin (48:01):
You ever heard of it?
EPA

Zach (48:03):
Yeah.
Yeah.

Kassie (48:05):
I don't know why I sounded so smug.
Like I barely know what itis, but why don't we go in.

Erin (48:09):
So I wanna preface this real quick.
Yeah.
Just to say, I took an entire classon administrative law and law school.
Admin law is like.
It's pretty difficult becauseit's, it's complicated and it's
dense, but it has such big impacts.
If you wanna know about law, thatactually like really impacts our lives

(48:31):
administrative laws where so muchof the work of government happens.
And if people don't know, there's actuallyadministrative law judges that rule on
administrative law decisions specifically.
So they're not like dealingwith the same kind of laws that
other people are dealing with.
Like they specifically are there todeal with administrative law questions.

(48:53):
And we're talking aboutadministrative law.
So when Congress makes a law basicallyabout like say the clean air and water
act, that was a law that, that Congresspassed to keep our air and water clean.
There's all these differentrequirements in the law about
what you can and can't do.
But Congress doesn'treally have the ability.
This is the idea to individually,figure out how you're gonna

(49:15):
actually enforce that.
Law enforcement of laws is actuallyunder the executive branch.
That's why like the DOJ sitsunder the executive branch.
So there's all these agencies thatget these laws and then they basically
figure out how you're going to applyand enforce them across the board.
And to do that oftentimes they haveto make rulings or guidance to enforce

(49:38):
the law and also to explain the law.
And so there's a whole body of lawthis is the administrative law that
actually decides basically like sets ofparameters of how agencies can do this.
So for example, one of the thingsthey have to do, if they're gonna make
a rule is they have to have like anotice and comment period where people
can send in comments and then theyhave to respond to those comments.

(49:59):
So it can actually take a reallylong time for them to make a rule.
And this is a difficult area becausethere's a little bit of a blur between
like legislation and law makingand actually enforcing the law.
And so it's, that's why admin lawis such a big area of law because
you kind of got these like branchesfighting with each other over

(50:19):
who has the authority to do what?
So this is where this case kind oflike comes into the fore because it's
exactly what it's about is which branchof government can say what we're doing.
And in doing so you're either givingpower to the agency like the EPA or
you're taking power away from it.
Does that make sense?

Zach (50:40):
Yeah.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense.
Give or take, you know butno, it does make sense.
So in this case, what, what happenedwas the EPA passed or promulgated?
I don't wanna say passed cuz it's not alaw, but they promulgated the clean power
plan rule, which was supposed to addresscarbon dioxide emissions from existing
coal and natural gas fired power plants.

Erin (51:03):
Sorry.
I just wanna like jump in onthe facts a little bit more.
So.
The Trump administration had repealedthese coal power plant regulations
that Obama had actually put in place.
So that was the 2015 clean power plan.
Trump administration repealed thatand that had established those
guidelines for carbon emissions.

(51:23):
And instead it issued the affordable,clean energy ACE rule, which
eliminated all of those guidelines.
The us court of appeals for theDC circuit vacated Trump's rule
as arbitrary and capricious.
When I was talking about all of those likerules for admin law, that's one of those
doctrinal standards is you can't issue arule that is arbitrary or capricious, and

(51:47):
there's a whole test for what that means.
But basically this is to stop like thepresident or agencies from legislating
without having to go through Congress.
This is one of like theways that you can't do it.
So the DC circuit said, this rulethat basically overturned Obama's
rule is arbitrary capricious, butthen that was challenged by the
north American coal corporation.

(52:08):
And they said that the EPA can't broadlyregulate greenhouse gas emissions.
So that's how we got to the ultimatequestion of the case, which is, does
the EPA have the authority to regulategreenhouse gas emissions in virtually
any industry so long as it considerscost non-air impacts and energy
requirements, which is the current role.

(52:29):
So that was the question of the case of ifthe EPA actually has the power to do that.

Zach (52:34):
Okay.
That is super helpful.
Thank you.
Because.

Erin (52:37):
yes, no problem.

Zach (52:38):
probably spent 30 minutes trying to explain what the heck was going on there.
, and the rule, was they were saying thatthey wanted , the energy industry to
transition from 38 to 27% coal by 2030.
So basically reduce the amount ofenergy that we output as a nation from

(53:00):
coal, from, you know, 38% down to 27.
And so that's where the challengecame from was that this West
Virginia coal, I forget the companyname, but they said that that's
severely gonna hurt our interests.
So we're gonna challenge your ruling.
Is that right?

Erin (53:16):
Basically.
Yeah.
Mm-hmm

Zach (53:18):
Okay, sweet.

Erin (53:20):
Oh my gosh.
It actually has huge implications.
So this is six, three decision sayingthat Congress did not grant the
EPA the authority to do emissionscaps based on these types of rules.
And they talked about this doctrinethat they called the major questions
doctrine saying that in extraordinarycases, in which there's so much,

(53:43):
goly goof that I like to totallyunderstand like how they got there.
But they're saying if there's likeeconomic and political significance
and that there might be, this is aquote, a reason to hesitate before
concluding that Congress meant toconfer such authority and that in
order to make a decision like this.
So this is specific to emissionslike greenhouse gas emissions.

(54:07):
They need a clearcongressional authorization.
And the court said that underthe clean air act, which is what
the EPA was doing this under.
There isn't clear congressionalauthorization to make this kind of rule.
So the EPA effectively cannot do this.
Unless Congress basicallypasses a law that says they do

(54:28):
have the authority to do that.
So that's like ultimately where wegot to why this really matters is
because the EPA has been doing thingslike this for a really long time
and so it actually really limitswhat the EPA can do without Congress
saying like, yes, you can do that.
So if you're someone who likes thatthe EPA has a lot of power to like put

(54:51):
gas, emission caps on things, or youknow, just have higher regulation on
environmental protections you are probablynot gonna like this decision because
you want the EPA to be able to have alot of discretion to do those things.
If you're someone who doesn'tlike regulation and isn't a fan of
the EPA having this power, you'reprobably okay with this decision.

(55:12):
And this is I'm speaking in like generalterms, but you might be kind of okay
with this because you want, if theEPAs gonna be doing things like caps
and gas emissions, you want that tocome through Congress and actually be
deliberated and a law passed about.

Zach (55:27):
Yes,

Erin (55:28):
Okay.

Zach (55:29):
Yes.

Erin (55:30):
all makes sense.
Why this is actually areally important decision.
Yeah.
, I was just gonna say Elena Kaganhad a really great dissent where
she basically was like, what isthe major questions doctrine?
This has never been a decisionbefore, like been in a
decision before, which is true.
The court, just talking about this,like doctrine of like, well, if it's

(55:51):
a major question, then it actuallyhas to like, come through Congress.
It's like not a thing that thecourt has talked about before.
And so, yeah, it's a, it was areally interesting, like where
are you getting this from?
You know?
So there was a little bit ofadministrative law, like shade
being thrown of like, likewhat, what is this, you know,

Zach (56:13):
yeah.
Yeah.

Erin (56:15):
there's no guidance now for what this means going forward.
There's actually nothing thattells us what a major question is.
Like air quotes, major question.
So the EPA, the next timethey wanna do something it's
possible, that gets challenged.
And maybe it's a major question cuzwe don't really know what that means.

(56:36):
But what we do know is that theycan't cap emissions based on this.
There could be a whole other slewof things that EPA can't do now,
but we actually don't really know.

Zach (56:46):
This decision has a lot of quotes and a lot of referring back to
previous decisions and things like that.
But they say in it that prior to 2015,the EPA has always set section one
11, which is some law that they get

Erin (57:00):
It's a section of the clean air and water act.

Zach (57:03):
Thank you, Erin.
they have always set section one11 emission limits based on the
application of measures that wouldreduce pollution by causing the
regulated source to operate more cleanly.
Never by looking to a system thatwould generally reduce pollution
simply by shifting activityfrom dirtier to cleaner sources.
So this is kind of them saying inthe past, the EPA has, has only made

(57:27):
guidance based off of things that are,you know like slides you could say
where we're gonna try to reduce thingsthat are already in place rather than
shifting an entire industry from, youknow, one source of power to the other.
So I think that that maybe is whatthey're trying to get at when they
think of these like major questions.

Erin (57:50):
I was just gonna say like, it's almost like they're saying climate
change is a major question andthat's just like, okay, well there's
so many things that affect that.
So it, it really hampers theEPA from being able to do things
potentially, and really what this is.
I think like the bottom line of thiscase is that it's an open invitation

(58:12):
to businesses to challenge regulations.
That's where we're at.
Cuz this actually gives thempotentially a doctrinal legal theory
to say, actually the EPA doesn'thave the authority to do this.

Zach (58:26):
And certainly some precedent right now there's a decision that,
that is limiting against the EPA.
So, yeah.
My, my favorite thing is that in thisdecision that says the distinction
between mootness and standingmatters, however, because the
government, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And that is my new favoriteword, the mootness of an issue.
Oh, I'm gonna use that one all the time.

Erin (58:46):
Okay.
That's actually like a very specificlegal theory and I could nerd out
on this, but like, I know no onewould care, but constitutional law.
One is a little like baby, firstyear law student, you get into con
law and you're like, oh my God, I'mgonna learn about free speech and
equal protection and civil rights.
You're all like into it.
And then they're like,no, here's standing.
This is the kind of case you can bring.

(59:08):
And it's like the mostdisappointing thing ever.
But we talked about mootness for like twoweeks and just red cases about moot case.
Like what that means.
Ugh.

Zach (59:17):
I literally like stopped and came in and talked to Cassie.
I was like, Cassie, this is the bestword I've ever read the mootness,
like government writing down inall seriousness, the mootness.
And she's like, what?
Like a cow's point of view.
And I was like, exactly.
all right.
Well, shall we move on to our

Kassie (59:35):
That's a friend's reference.
I don't know if Aaron caught that.
Do you watch friends?

Erin (59:38):
Nope.

Kassie (59:40):
Nope.
Oh boy.
It's really, there's a funny part whereJoey doesn't he says like, oh yeah, it's
moo and they're like, what do you say?
It's Mo he's like, yeah.
It's like a cow's opinion.
It just doesn't matter.
And they're like, it's not a terribledefinition of like the concept of

(01:00:00):
we're talking about, but it's wrong.

Erin (01:00:03):
Yeah.

Kassie (01:00:05):
All right.
So we're gonna hit ourlast category for tonight.
Civil rights.
We have two cases.
We're gonna talk about here.
Reva Viegas versus Cortez Luna and thecity of Taliqua Oklahoma versus bond.
Let's get.

Zach (01:00:23):
Okay.
So for this case we have petitionerDaniel Vega, who is a police officer in
union city, California, who respondedto a nine one one call reporting that
a woman and her two children werebarricaded in a room for fear that
respondent Ramon EZ Luna, the woman'sboyfriend was going to hurt them.

(01:00:44):
So what at issue here is that iswhether Reva Vega is entitled to
qualified immunity because he did notviolate clearly established law.
So in this police incident that happenedVega and the other officers had a knife,
saw a knife in the CORs Luna's pocketand basically in the process of arresting

(01:01:05):
and, and restraining Cortez Luna Ibelieve Vegas placed his knee on the
back of Cortis Luna for eight seconds.
And Cortes claiming that'sused excessive force.
And that's what the issue at hand is here.

Erin (01:01:24):
Yeah, it's interesting.
So there were twoqualified immunity cases.
We're talking about one that we'regonna talk about the next one in this
Supreme court term that were sort ofinteresting because there's been a lot of
conversations since the black lives mattermovement about if police officers or other
officials should have qualified immunity.
And if you don't know what that is,that basically means that you as

(01:01:45):
a like individual citizen, can'tsue someone, who's a police officer
in their individual capacity.
You could like Sue the police departmenteven though, but there's even limits
on that, but you can't like recoveragainst individual police officer.
And so there's a lot of talk during kindof a black lives matter and, and the
conversation since then about if we needto get rid of qualified immunity and

(01:02:07):
not give police officers immunity, if.
Right behaving badly incarrying out their duties.
So this was like a good opportunityfor the court to actually
kind of address that issue.
And in both of these cases, thecourt upheld qualified immunity.
So that's kind of like the bottom line ofboth of these is that it's, you know, this

(01:02:28):
one, it was it's domestic violence case.
The, the officer used excessive force.
What was interesting is that theninth circuit who heard this before
the Supreme court, remember we weretalking about courts, go on their way.
The ninth circuit said that this officershouldn't have qualified immunity and
that this actually should go to a juryand not just be dismissed, which is what
happens when you have qualified immunity.

(01:02:48):
That's one of the ways itcan get out of the court.
And then that got reversed by the Supremecourt and sent back down to the ninth
circuit to decide but not through a jury.
So the ninth circuit kind of wastrying to, which if anyone doesn't
know, the ninth circuit covers likea bunch of Western states, like
California is in the ninth circuit.
The circuit courts are there'snine or there's 12 of them.

(01:03:10):
I should know thatthere's certain, is it 12?

Zach (01:03:14):
I think there's.

Erin (01:03:14):
12 circuit.
Yeah, I think, I think there's12 circuit courts and they cover
different regions of the United States.
So if you bring a case in like yourstate, it's not just your state,
it's like your county, there's likedistrict courts that are federal courts.
You bring it in district courtand if you appeal it, it would
go to your circuit court.
And it kind of workslike the Supreme court.
Like they don't have totake every single case.

(01:03:36):
It gets appealed to them, but theycan grant cert and, and do those.
And then if it goes to the circuit court,it might make it to the Supreme court.
So like the ninth circuit.
Which covers all these Westernstates is really, it's kind of
known for being like more liberaland having more liberal decisions.
The fifth circuit, which is morein the south, it covers like Texas.
There's other states involved, butTexas is a big one I remember has

(01:03:57):
more like conservative decisions, notalways, but that, that does happen.
There's like bets of wherethe circuits are as well.
So the ninth circuit, it felt likewas kind of trying to push back
on this qualified immunity idea.
And the Supreme court came in andwas basically like, actually, no,
there is qualified immunity here.
Kick it back.

Zach (01:04:16):
And some of their reasoning for that was , they cited a couple of prior cases.
But basically saying that, , the reasoningthat the ninth gave to why Viega should
not have qualified immunity was based offof this Leland decision, but , the Supreme
court drew some pretty big distinctions.
One being that I think in the Lawandcase, the nature in which the police

(01:04:38):
officers arrested or, or treatedthe suspects was very different.
In the one, the LAN case, it was likea noise complaint and , the person
opened the door and the police forcedthemselves in and tackled them to
the ground and pepper sprayed 'emand it was this whole big thing.
And so they said that was a very clear.

(01:05:01):
Excessive use of force case.
Whereas in this Vaus case, they wereresponding to a domestic violence
call, but basically they said , thecourse case that you're using to say
that Vegas doesn't have qualifiedimmunity is different enough from the
situation at hand here that we don'tagree and so they reverse the decision.

Erin (01:05:19):
Yeah, and we might as well just go into the next case because they're.
Is similar facts of these two.
So this is, I have no idea how topronounce this town city of qua Toka.
You guys got any help from me there?

Zach (01:05:33):
Yeah.

Kassie (01:05:34):
I think I said it was, I think it was qua

Erin (01:05:37):
Taliqua I think, I think that sounds close Oklahoma
versus bond.

Kassie (01:05:42):
any listeners in Oklahoma?

Erin (01:05:45):
help us out.

Kassie (01:05:46):
us.

Erin (01:05:46):
So this was also a case of excessive force and it was also a
domestic violence case officers respondingto a domestic violence complaint.
And this one, the respondent pickedhe, the person who the excessive
force was used against had pickedup a hammer and then the officer
shot and killed the person.
And so it was an excessive force case.

(01:06:07):
And the question was qualified immunity.
Whether these officersget qualified immunity.
Similar to the RVAs Vagas caseis the Supreme court said, yeah,
qualified immunity applies here.
And it was similar reasoning inthat there wasn't similar precedent
that would, would have said thatthis kind of circumstance would be

(01:06:29):
a violation of the fourth amendment.
So it's interesting because in bothof these cases, it was basically
like, there's not another holding herethat is sufficiently similar to these
facts that says that this isn't okay.
So basically qualified immunityapplies, which sort of brings you to

(01:06:50):
the reasoning of like, , it's almostlike, okay, well, if it's never
there, then can it ever be there?
You know, like, okay, there's no factswith, there's no cases with similar facts,
but you can never make a precedent ifthere's never another case with similar
facts, you know, when that comes up.
And so sort of begs the questionof like, okay, well then does
that mean qualified immunity willalways be able to be applied?

(01:07:12):
That kind of is maybe the, thereasoning the court's going for
here, unless the law changes.
And what's interesting about boththese cases is that both of them were
unanimous cases, nine zero cases.
There were no dissents in these.
And so that means the court is like reallynot inclined at this point to have any
like, questions about qualified immunity.

(01:07:33):
So even though it was a big topic ofconversation over the course of the
year, the court's not showing anyinclination to try and mess with it.

Zach (01:07:40):
Yeah, a couple of key things from the decision is they say, we need not.
And do not decide whether theofficers violated the fourth
amendment in the first place.
That was not at issue at all here.
But they do say that The doctrine,qualified immunity, shields officers
from civil liability so long astheir conduct does not violate
clearly established, statutory andconstitutional rights of which a

(01:08:01):
reasonable person would have known.
And then they conclude by saying areasonable officer could miss the
connection between a case that they'rementioning before as, as being different
and this one, neither the panel majority,nor the respondent has identified a single
precedent, finding a fourth amendmentviolation under similar circumstances,
which is kind of what you were saying,Aaron, that, that there's nothing in,

(01:08:23):
in our, in our history that backs upwhat, what happened here to revoke
qualified immunity from these officers?

Erin (01:08:30):
So if you're someone who wants a qualified immunity to be
restricted or , you know to get ridof it, doesn't seem like the court
is gonna be your way to do that.
I think that's probably gonna needto be some kind of legislation.

Zach (01:08:44):
It seems like it.
Yeah.

Erin (01:08:46):
So I think that covers our, our first half of this,

Zach (01:08:50):
Yeah.
We we've got it through halfway.

Erin (01:08:53):
So we have a couple more cases that have to do with civil rights
that we'll talk about next time.
And then there are cases on free speechon religion and on the second amendment.
So we got a lot of fun stuff tokeep going through in our, in
our next pod,

Zach (01:09:07):
just as a, little teaser, this one was pretty interesting that that
first case we'll talk about next weekis actually a guy who runs a bed and
breakfast that reports on illegalaliens coming into the country,
but also shields illegal aliens.
So if, if you thought that this week'sepisode was good, make sure to tune
in next time for when we discussthe double crossing B and B guy.

Kassie (01:09:32):
What the heck did this podcast just become also, does this
guy just report once he doesn'tlike, like what's happening.

Zach (01:09:39):
Honestly, who knows it?
The it, my comment nextto this is literally what,

Kassie (01:09:48):
All right.

Zach (01:09:49):
it's a free country.
Do what you want, but also playstupid games, win stupid prizes.
I'd have no idea.

Kassie (01:09:57):
That Zach's favorite quote lately.
You guys, if you're wondering,he will bust it out at any
time for any, any occasion.
Oh, speaking of occasions, framers,guess who turns 30 this weekend?
It's Zachary.
That'll be two out of the threeframers in their third decade of life.

(01:10:18):
Very exciting stuff.
Wait.
No, it's your fourth.
I mean, if we're gonna say it likethat, it's your fourth decade of life.

Zach (01:10:27):
I liked third decade.
Better.

Erin (01:10:30):
You're going into the fourth decade.

Zach (01:10:33):
Yeah, I

Erin (01:10:34):
the third decade.

Zach (01:10:36):
No,

Kassie (01:10:37):
sorry,

Zach (01:10:38):
I dislike that.
I dislike that.
I
prefer

Kassie (01:10:41):
No, I don't.
I don't.
I love the idea of being 30.
I, your twenties, we've talked aboutthis privately you guys, but like
your twenties are so fraught withlike, who am I and what should I be?
And I feel like your thirtiesare like, this is who I am.
And here's what I'm gonnado with that information.
Like you just don't apologizeas much if you're over 30.
Tell us the best thing aboutbeing over 30, because we want

(01:11:04):
more things to look forward to.
There's a lot of hoopla and drama aboutturning 30, but we're not, we're not
here to receive any of that energy.
We want all the good energy.

Erin (01:11:12):
yes, all the good 30 stuff.

Kassie (01:11:15):
Okay.
Friends suddenly we'redone with another podcast.
Hey, share this with your friends,share it with your family.
And if you haven't yet, please review.
We love reading your reviews.
Five stars.
And if you don't like it, how areyou this far into the episode?
Be honest.
You obviously like it.
So go review.

Zach (01:11:36):
and another great thing is we are now on iHeartRadio and Amazon
podcast, whatever they're called.
So I think you, if you say, Hey,Alexa, play the framers podcast.
I think that that will come up yet.
I haven't tried, triedit, but we are there.
And, Yeah.
So if you're on those platformspreferred, check us out there.

(01:11:58):
We're there.

Kassie (01:12:00):
I only have an Alexa in my room.
You guys, because Zachary does not wantsomething listening to him in our house.
So it's only in my officeand it's off right now.
So she's not gonna hear youtalking to crap about her

Zach (01:12:11):
Oh, she still hears.
She always hears.

Erin (01:12:13):
Alexa's everywhere.
You shouldn't have an Alexa.

Kassie (01:12:15):
Hmm.
What did Zach say when?
Oh Roomba, I guess was just bought byAmazon and Zach was like, fantastic.
Now they know the layout of our homes.

Erin (01:12:24):
It's so true though.
It absolutely will.
It's a problem anyways,

Kassie (01:12:30):
a robot vac that my mom bought us specifically that
like doesn't connect to wifi.
It doesn't know the layout of her home.
She was like, I had toreally research this for you.

Zach (01:12:39):
a, it's a

Erin (01:12:40):
that
Kim
did that.
That's amazing.

Kassie (01:12:43):
Okay.
Friends.
We are done.
See you later.
Love you all by