Breaking Down This Year's Docket: Previewing the 2024–2025 Supreme Court Term

Professors Vikram Amar and Michael Dorf return for another engaging preview of the upcoming 2024–2025 Supreme Court Term. The discussion will explore matters on the current docket such as reasonableness of force under the 4th Amendment and the “moment of the threat;” Mexico’s suit against gun manufacturers; restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and equal protection; minimum contacts and personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; possible election cases arriving in an emergency posture; and more.

Topics covered include:

Supreme Court

Agenda:

Overview of the 2023-2024 Supreme Court Term
- What did the Supreme Court do last term? How will this term compare?
Exploration of Cases
- Professors will discuss the docket for the upcoming Supreme Court Term, providing their legal insights and opinions
- Cases may include:
Other Interesting Cases and Q&A

Professors will answer questions from the audience regarding cases, their insights, etc.

Duration of this webinar: 60 minutes

Originally broadcast: October 28, 2024 10:30 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.

00:00 Introduction

The speakers, Vikram Amar and Michael Dorf, are experts in constitutional law and federal courts. The speakers discuss the current SCOTUS docket, noting that it appears light in terms of blockbuster cases, but emphasize the importance of all Supreme Court decisions. They reference significant cases from the previous term, such as Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States, which were not initially on the docket but became major cases. The speakers express anticipation for potential major cases to emerge as the term progresses, especially with the upcoming election.

05:09 Transgender Rights and Equal Protection

The discussion begins with United States v. Skrmetti, which involves Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. The Sixth Circuit upheld the ban, applying rational basis scrutiny, which contrasts with the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County regarding sex discrimination. The speakers explore the implications of the case for transgender rights and the level of scrutiny applied under the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Gorsuch's role in the Bostock decision raises questions about how he might approach the equal protection context. The conversation touches on the broader issue of discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and the lack of clarity in the Supreme Court's standard of review. The speakers delve into the complexities surrounding bans on gender-affirming care, highlighting both equal protection issues for minors and substantive due process issues for parental rights. They note the court's focus on equal protection rather than parental rights, which simplifies repudiating the equal protection claim. The discussion raises questions about the court's decision to grant review if it intends to affirm the Sixth Circuit's ruling. Concerns are expressed about the potential implications of parental rights claims, particularly regarding conversion therapy.

15:15 Ghost Guns and the Death Penalty

The conversation shifts to other cases, including Garland v. VanDerStok, which involves the regulation of ghost guns and the interpretation of statutory text. The speakers discuss the Glossip v. Oklahoma case, which involves a death penalty challenge and issues of Brady material and perjured testimony. The Oklahoma Attorney General supports Glossip's request for a new trial due to evidence casting doubt on the original conviction. The conversation highlights the unusual alignment between the Attorney General and Glossip against the Oklahoma courts. The speakers explore the broader implications of state-level disagreements between branches of government in death penalty cases. They reference a similar case from Texas involving legislative intervention in a death sentence.

25:21 Fourth Amendment and Police Conduct

The discussion shifts to Fourth Amendment issues in Barnes v. Felix, focusing on police conduct during a traffic stop and the reasonableness of actions under the Fourth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit's application of the moment of the threat doctrine is critiqued, with suggestions for a more holistic approach. The speakers note the potential impact of the case on broader discussions about police interactions and violence. They highlight the circuit split and the possibility of the Supreme Court addressing the issue to resolve inconsistencies. The conversation touches on the implications of the case for understanding police conduct and Fourth Amendment rights.

30:21 Gun Control and International Law

The speakers discuss Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, a case involving allegations that U.S. gun manufacturers target the illegal Mexican market. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and its exceptions are central to the case, with Mexico arguing for liability under the predicate exemption. The conversation explores the procedural posture of the case and the challenges Mexico faces in proving its claims. The speakers consider the broader implications of the case for gun control and international relations. They also discuss another case involving the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the requirement for minimum contacts in federal court jurisdiction.

46:06 Election Disputes

The conversation turns to election law and potential challenges arising from the upcoming election. The speakers discuss pre-election challenges, such as Virginia's effort to purge voting rolls, and anticipate post-election disputes. They explore the role of state courts and federal courts in election-related cases, emphasizing the importance of the Purcell Doctrine. Concerns are raised about potential actions by state legislatures to alter election outcomes, referencing the Electoral Count Reform Act. The speakers expect that the Supreme Court will avoid intervening in election disputes, maintaining the status quo.

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: September 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

Speakers

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 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

CLE

Vikram Amar UC Davis School of Law

Michael Dorf Cornell Law School

Breaking Down the Bench Key Rulings From the 2023–2024 Supreme Court Term

Watch Now

CLE

Vikram Amar UC Davis School of Law

Michael Dorf Cornell Law School

2023–2024 Supreme Court Term Preview

Watch Now