CLE
Vikram Amar
Vikram Amar UC Davis School of Law
Michael Dorf
Michael Dorf Cornell Law School
Breaking Down the Bench Key Rulings From the 2023–2024 Supreme Court Term
Overview AI Webinar Summary
Breaking Down the Bench: Key Rulings From the 2023–2024 Supreme Court Term

Join us for another lively Supreme Court Term discussion as Professors Amar and Dorf return to discuss the leading cases the Supreme Court decided in its most recent Term, as well as those issues that the Court failed to address. Topics may include: standing to challenge FDA approvals; gerrymandering; criticism by government officials and the use of state power to suppress speech; Chevron deference; social media content moderation restrictions and the First Amendment; state enforcement of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment; immunity against criminal prosecution for alleged official acts by former presidents; and more.

Topics covered include:
Supreme Court
Agenda:
Duration of this webinar: 60 minutes
Originally broadcast: July 16, 2024 11:00 AM PT
Webinar Highlights

This webinar is divided into section summaries, which you can scan for key points and then dive into the sections that interest you the most.

Introduction and Speaker Background
Vikram Amar and Michael Dorf are both distinguished law professors with extensive expertise in constitutional law. Vikram Amar provides an overview of the Supreme Court term, noting the presence of incendiary cases, particularly those involving President Trump. He observes that the court showed judgment and discretion in many cases, but the term may be remembered for poorly decided rulings in the Trump-related cases.
Overview of Supreme Court Term
The discussion continues with a focus on the perception of the Supreme Court as partisan due to the Trump-related cases. Michael Dorf broadly agrees with Amar's assessment and highlights the court's partisan appearance in certain cases. He notes the emergence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett's distinctive voice, which may become more influential over time. Amar discusses the Fifth Circuit's influence on the Supreme Court's docket, particularly in contentious cases. The conversation sets the stage for a deeper dive into specific Supreme Court cases, including those involving gun rights and the administrative state.
Trump v. Anderson
Vikram Amar discusses the Trump v. Anderson case, where the Supreme Court reversed a Colorado decision excluding Trump from the ballot. He critiques the court's reasoning, particularly its reliance on uniformity in federal elections, which he finds historically unfounded. Amar questions why states can enforce certain constitutional provisions but not others, like Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Amar expresses concern over the rushed nature of the court's decision-making in this case.
Trump v. United States
Dorf discusses Trump v. United States, discussing Trump's immunity from prosecution for official acts. They discuss the court's decision to grant Trump more immunity than requested, emphasizing the problematic nature of the ruling. Dorf explains the court's three-part rule on presidential immunity, which he finds overly broad and lacking clarity. Dorf and Amar agree that the court's reasoning in this case is flawed.
Consumer Finance Protection Bureau Case
The discussion shifts to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) case, where the court rejected a challenge to its funding structure. The CFPB faced criticism for its funding mechanism, which bypasses annual congressional appropriations. Justice Thomas authored the opinion rejecting the challenge, emphasizing historical practices of flexible funding for agencies. A concurrence by four Justices highlighted the flexibility Congress has given to the Executive branch in funding activities.
Second Amendment and Gun Control
The conversation moves to the Rahimi case, a significant Second Amendment ruling following the Bruin decision. The court rejected the Fifth Circuit's interpretation that disarmament laws must have exact historical analogs, emphasizing broader historical practices. The discussion touches on the implications of the Rahimi ruling for future gun control cases and the court's approach to originalism. The speakers consider the broader impact of the court's decisions on the perception of the Second Amendment.
Chevron Doctrine and Administrative Law
Amar and Dorf discuss Loper Bright, in which the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron Doctrine. Chief Justice Roberts argues that interpreting statutes is a judicial task, not one for administrative agencies, aligning with the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling may not have immediate widespread impact but signals a shift in how courts approach agency deference. The speakers discuss the potential for Congress to reinstate Chevron-like deference on a case-by-case basis.

Please note this AI-generated summary provides a general overview of the webinar but may not capture all details, nuances, or the exact words of the speaker. For complete accuracy, please refer to the original webinar recording.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Credits

*CLE credit is only available to Justia Connect Pros. Not a Pro? Upgrade today>>

California CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: June 30, 2026

South Carolina CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 General

Difficulty: All Levels

Earn Credit Until: December 31, 2025

North Carolina CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: February 28, 2026

Texas CLE

Status: Approved

Credits: 1.00 General

Earn Credit Until: June 30, 2025


This presentation is approved for one hour of General CLE credit in California, South Carolina (all levels), and North Carolina. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.00 credit hours.

Justia only reports attendance in jurisdictions in which a particular Justia CLE Webinar is officially accredited. Lawyers may need to self-submit their certificates for CLE credit in jurisdictions not listed above.

Note that CLE credit, including partial credit, cannot be earned outside of the relevant accreditation period. To earn credit for a course, a lawyer must watch the entire course within the relevant accreditation period. Lawyers who have viewed a presentation multiple times may not be able to claim credit in their jurisdiction more than once. Justia reserves the right, at its discretion, to grant an attendee partial or no credit, in accordance with viewing duration and other methods of verifying course completion.

At this time, Justia only offers CLE courses officially accredited in certain states. Lawyers may generate a generic attendance certificate to self-submit credit in their own jurisdiction, but Justia does not guarantee that lawyers will receive their desired CLE credit through the self-submission or reciprocity process.

Looking for CLE credit? Visit CLE Dashboard CLE Accreditation
Speakers
Vikram Amar
Vikram Amar Distinguished Professor of Law
UC Davis School of Law

Vikram Amar is a Distinguished Professor of Law at UC Davis, and was previously the dean and the Iwan Foundation Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign College of Law from 2015-2023. Amar has also taught law at Berkeley School of Law, Hastings College of Law and UCLA School of Law. Amar is one of the most eminent and frequently cited authorities in constitutional law, federal courts, and civil procedure. He has written several books and more than 60 articles in leading law reviews. He is a co-author (along with Akhil Reed Amar) of the upcoming revised multi-volume Treatise on Constitutional Law (West Publishing Co.) pioneered by Ron Rotunda and John Nowak. Read More ›

Michael Dorf
Michael Dorf Professor of Law
Cornell Law School

Michael C. Dorf teaches constitutional law, federal courts, and related subjects at Cornell Law School. He has authored or co-authored six books and over one hundred scholarly articles and essays for law journals and peer-reviewed science and social science journals. He also writes a bi-weekly column for Verdict and publishes a popular blog, Dorf on Law: www.dorfonlaw.org. Dorf received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. Read More ›

Watch Related Videos
May 13, 11am PT CLE
Charles H. Kuck
Charles H. Kuck Kuck Baxter LLC
Greg Siskind
Greg Siskind Siskind Susser, PC
Navigating Immigration in a Second Trump Term
Register Now
CLE
Vikram Amar
Vikram Amar UC Davis School of Law
Michael Dorf
Michael Dorf Cornell Law School
Breaking Down This Year's Docket Previewing the 2024–2025 Supreme Court Term
Watch Now