Barely Legal w/ Eva Eapen & Pari Sidana: Recent Episodes
Eva Eapen & Pari Sidana
Two teens dissect SCOTUS cases in a digestible manner for a barely legal audience. Episodes out every other Monday!
Wondering about the nitty gritty of former President Donald Trump's conviction last week? We were too. Listen here for a discussion of Trump's actions, the charges, the trial, the verdict, and the response.
Read more here:
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts
https://www.vox.com/politics/353111/trump-trial-verdict-criticisms-wrongly-convicted
https://time.com/6985067/donald-trump-felon-travel-guns-voting/
https://www.vox.com/scotus/353561/supreme-court-donald-trump-nullfy-conviction
https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-deliberations-jury-testimony-verdict-85558c6d08efb434d05b694364470aa0
Hey y'all!
We hope you enjoy today's episode. You can read more about the case here:
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-175:
- https://hls.harvard.edu/today/supreme-court-preview-city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-175_6kh7.pdf
- https://www.culawreview.org/journal/evolving-standards-of-decency-on-the-abolition-of-capital-punishment#:~:text=As%20highlighted%20in%20Weems%20v,cruel%20and%20unusual%20standards%E2%80%9D%20clause.
On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny Eva and I discuss Trump v. US, the SCOTUS case about former President Trump's immunity in the January 6th trial.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A745/300410/20240212154110541_2024-02-12%20-%20US%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Application%20to%20S.%20Ct.%20for%20Stay%20of%20D.C.%20Circuit%20Mandate%20-%20Final%20With%20Tables%20and%20Appendix.pdf
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/supreme-court-takes-up-trump-immunity-appeal/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/06/trump-immunity-supreme-court-argument-date/
Hey y'all!
We hope you are doing well. On today's episode Eva and I discuss the Tik Tok Ban which was passed by the House of Representatives on March 13th. Here are the sources we used for the episode:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/technology/tiktok-ban-bill-senate.html
https://time.com/6958140/tiktok-ban-jeff-jackson-vote-apology/
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/tiktok-ban-israel-gaza-palestine-hamas-account-creator-video-rcna122849
https://apnews.com/article/florida-social-media-ban-desantis-fd07f61e167bd9109a83cd7355b5f164
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-national-tiktok-ban-and-the-first-amendment#:~:text=The%20judge%20was%20presented%20with,in%20the%20least%2Drestrictive%20manner.
On today's episode, Eva and I cover Texas v. United States (2024). This case regards SB4 (an immigration law) and Article 1, Section 10. Here are the sources which we used:
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/texas-immigration-law.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
-
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/18/texas-sb-4-immigration-arrest-law/#:~:text=Texas%20has%20argued%20the%20law,own%20%E2%80%9Cunless%20actually%20invaded.%E2%80%9D
-
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a814_febh.pdf
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sb4-texas-immigration-law-blocked-again-after-supreme-court-allowed-state-to-arrest-migrants/
-
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-allows-strict-texas-sb4-immigration-law/story?id=108248478
Tune in to hear us discuss the Supreme Court's per curial opinion in Trump v. Anderson. We also delve into Sections 3 and 5 of the 14th Amendment, as well as states' inability to remove federal office holders from elections.
Read the Court's opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
Hi everyone! On today's episode we discuss Net Choice v. Paxton, LLC. (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-555).
Here are our sources for the episode:
https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/netchoice-l-l-c-v-paxton-5th-circuit-sets-up-supreme-court-battle-over-content-moderation-authority-of-social-media-giants
https://www.journaloffreespeechlaw.org/candeub2.pdf
https://www.cato.org/blog/fifth-circuit-gets-right-editorial-freedom-very-wrong
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-rcfp-urge-supreme-court-to-block-two-state-laws-that-would-allow-the-government-to-regulate-editorial-discretion-on-social-media
https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/netchoice
The episode title is a play on today's case: NRA v. Vullo. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-842. Here are our sources for today's episode:
-
https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/supreme-court-to-decide-a-variety-of-gun-cases-this-term
-
https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2023/12/11/scotus-adds-two-additional-gun-rights-cases-to-docket/
-
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/national-rifle-association-v-vullo-gives-scotus-an-opportunity-to-resolve-a-key-first-amendment-circuit-split
Hi everyone! On today's episode, I am covering Moore v. United States. This case involves an investment into a foreign company and a taxation on that investment. Although the case itself may seem boring, the wider implications of a decision are fascinating. You can learn more here!
Hi everyone! On today's episode, Eva and I discuss Murthy v. Missouri. The case is about the First Amendment and when, if at all, the government can step in to restrict speech on social media. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411! As always, please let us know if you have any comments or questions.
On today's episode we discuss the new ethics code that Justices will be following. You can read the code here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! On today's episode, we discuss a 2nd Amendment case--United States v. Rahimi. Check out the links below for a little extra reading on the case. See you in two weeks :)
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-915
https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi
In this episode, hear us discuss McElrath v. Georgia, an upcoming SCOTUS case regarding an acquitted defendant who the state of Georgia wants to retry in criminal court. Sound like a Double Jeopardy issue to you? Us too. Tune in for more.
On today's episode we discuss Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP. The case regards gerrymandering in South Carolina. You can read more about it here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-807
Question at hand: Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
In today's case we discuss the intersection between freedom of speech and internet stalking. You can read the court's full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf!
In this episode, we discuss the fall of affirmative action and our predictions of what will happen to college applications next. We simultaneously explored the role of Asian Americans and the model minority myth in both upholding and ending the practice. By no means do we have all the answers to the effect that the end of the policy will have on institutions and opportunities for underrepresented minorities and those in the majority. This episode is a contentious one but we didn't want to shy away from our thoughts and opinions so please be respectful when engaging in discourse. At the end of the day, people are sacred and ideas are not.
Here are the references we used:
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26316/w26316.pdf
https://www.bu.edu/ciss/2023/07/03/college-are-already-unequal-will-ending-affirmative-action-make-it-worse/
https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/07/03/affirmative-action-supreme-court-california#
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc
http://care.gseis.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/care-brief-raceblind.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00284.x
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42956064
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7rqbv
Fisher v. University of Texas. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 7, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-345
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/15/legacy-colleges-universities-black-brown/
https://www.law.com/almID/1202676210690/
https://calmatters.org/education/2018/07/californias-gone-without-higher-ed-affirmative-action-since-1996-blackenrollment-at-top-ucs-never-recovered/
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/1062947?show=full%20own%20original%20research.
Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved July 7, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199
https://thespearheadmagazine.com/how-the-model-minority-myth-affects-us-all/
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol11/iss2/7
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-banned-what-happens/
Listen to us unpack the decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which SCOTUS came down in favor of Lori Smith, the Colorado wedding website designer who did not wish to ever design a website for a same-sex couple. Read here for more background information. See you in two weeks!
Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! Listen here for a breakdown of Haaland v. Brackeen, a SCOTUS case regarding ICWA (The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978). If interested in more background information, check out the following links:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-376
https://www.aclu.org/cases/brackeen-v-haaland
This episode of tiers of scrutiny covers the court's recent decision in Allen v. Milligan which regards maps used in the 2022 midterm election in Alabama. You can read the opinion here. If you are interested in more legal analysis we suggest SCOTUS Blog.
In this episode we discuss Twitter v. Taamneh and Google v. Gonzalez, two decisions released by the court on May 18th. We hope you enjoy!
A continued discussion of the ethics scandals surrounding the SCOTUS and what the impact is in the court of public opinion.
On April 21st, the Supreme Court released a block on a lower court ruling from April 7th to prohibit the use of Mifepristone (an abortion pill) which contradicted another ruling on the same day which expanded the use of Mifepristone. Tune in to hear our thoughts and opinions of the block along with updates on the NC Supreme Court cases we talked about 2 episodes ago: Harper v. Hall and Holmes v. Moore. The Republican majority court has reversed these decisions which will have a major impact on how we vote in the next election.
Greetings! Today's episode of Barely Legal focuses on recent news! ProPublica released a report revealing that Clarence Thomas failed to disclose multiple trips and a real estate deal made with GOP super donor and billionaire, Harlan Crow. What does this mean for the public's (already eroding) trust in the Supreme Court?
As always, thank you for listening and we'll see you in two weeks.
In today's episode, we discuss the newly Republican majority NC Supreme Court rehearing two voting-related cases, Harper v. Hall and Holmes v. Moore. The former has to do with Voter ID requirements and the latter with allegedly racially discriminatory redistricting. As always, we encourage you to seek out information about your local legislators and justices, and to bear this information in mind when you cast your vote. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you in three weeks.
Welcome to today's episode of Barely Legal, where we discuss the five women suing the state of Texas for not providing them with abortions despite their fetuses being unviable and their lives being at risk. We also discuss the unintended consequences of abortion bans that have sprouted across the country since the release of the Supreme Court's decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the decision of abortion to the states.
Attached is a link to an overview of the Dobbs case. Thank you for listening.
Today we talk about John Balentine and the role of our courts in determining who lives and who dies. Although this is not a Supreme Court case, there are still many implications from the decision. You can read more about it here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/02/supreme-court-declines-to-halt-execution-of-texas-man-who-said-juror-and-attorneys-were-racist/. We also talked about the Racial Justice Act and NC Supreme Court case State v. Robinson along with State v. Tucker .
In today's episode, we discuss the background to Obergefell v. Hodges and previous precedent that regards the LGBTQ+ community in honor of Valentine's Day tomorrow. This is part 1 of a 3 part series regarding court decisions affecting the community. Stay tuned for the next 2 parts!
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland regards a trans woman from Guatemala facing deportation in the United Stations. She filed for stay of deportation based on past persecution in her native country. The episode discusses the responsibilities we have to immigrants and potential deportees, especially when it comes to bodily safety.
Read more about the case and listen to the oral arguments here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1436
We take a dive back in time to 2015 when the landmark decision was made to legalize same-sex marriage across all 50 states. We explore the significance of Obergefell and what's to come for the LGBTQ+ community.
On today's episode we are discussing Merrill v. Milligan a case regarding redistricting in Alabama and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What is democracy, if not representation of the will of the people?
You can read more about the case and listen to the oral argument here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1086.
Here are some additional resources we used in creating this episode:
Case overview from Cornell Law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/21-1086
Merrill v. Milligan SCOTUS stay order in February: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf
Brnovich v. DNC decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Today, we are discussing 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. This case covers multitude of issues but at the forefront are religious freedom, freedom of speech, and anti-discrimination legislation. The case was argued on December 5th, 2022. You can listen to the oral argument here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-476
In today's day and age, it is possible to construct virtual echo chambers that serve to affirm your own ideologies and world views. How do we hold media platforms accountable for recommending malicious user content?
On this episode we discuss Cruz v. Arizona; a case regarding due process rights as they apply to knowledge of ineligibility for parole.
On today's episode, we discuss what went down in the 2022 Midterm Election and how that will impact the political landscape in the United States.
Tomorrow is Election Day, and there's a lot on your ballot. It's difficult to educate yourself on candidates representing your values, but we encourage you to cast your vote tomorrow if you are eligible (if not, there's still a lot you can do to ensure your loved ones vote).
Visit https://www.vote.org/ to make your plan to vote ASAP.
Welcome to a discussion of one of the most consequential cases being heard in this upcoming SCOTUS term. It's called Moore v. Harper, and will be heard December 7, 2022--so tune in to Oyez to listen to the oral arguments if interested.
Brackeen v. Haaland is an impending SCOTUS case that concerns a 40+ year old federal law called ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act). The Court will hear oral arguments on this case on November 9th, 2022. Thanks for listening!
Yeshiva University, a private religious university, does not want a student-run LGBTQ+ group of campus. What are the ramifications of that, and is it religious freedom? This is the first of a few SCOTUS cases regarding the LGBTQ+ community this term, although this was not an official case in the sense that there were no hearings and the opinion is not a final opinion.
On today's episode, we discuss race-based affirmative action and what it means. Why is it an issue that the Supreme Court will be taking on in the upcoming term? Stay tuned for the 2nd part of this episode where we will discuss the lawsuits themselves and the ramifications of the decision once it is out.
For this new season of Barely Legal, we will be implementing some changes to the format and style of our episodes. We hope you stick around. See you next Monday!
Ever wondered how the US Supreme Court functions? Or how a branch of government can possibly aspire to be wholly apolitical?
Listen here to our introduction to SCOTUS!
Hear us discuss the polarizing Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization--also known as the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. This is admittedly a lengthy episode, but we wanted to do this one justice. Thanks for listening!
In this episode of Barely Legal, we talk about Carson v. Makin, a case regarding schools and religion but more specifically with government funding for religious schools. You can read more about the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088 !
In this episode of Barely Legal, we discuss NY State Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen, a case regarding concealed carry legislation in New York and the 2nd amendment.
In this episode we discuss Vega v. Tekoh, which determined that an officer's failure to read a person their Miranda rights does not constitute grounds for a claim of civil liability.
In this episode we discuss West Virginia v. EPA. The case curtails the ability of federal agencies to set drastic regulations in relevant sectors. You can read more about the decision here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530!
Welcome to our first episode of Barely Legal! In this episode we discuss Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a case about a public high school football coach praying after football games (with students at times!) and what that means in terms of freedom of religion and free speech in schools.
Hi! This is Barely Legal, the podcast where two teens break down SCOTUS cases in an informative, but thought provoking manner. Our goal is to reach out to barely legal audiences (voters!) and present information about the rulings of the judicial branch that is often left out of the conversation. Our first episode releases this Monday. See you then!