The Supreme Court term was limited in its blockbusters this year, but the decision to limit the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions will have the biggest impact, attorneys and legal scholars say. “It affects how cases get litigated in a big way,” said Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian public interest law firm. "I saw someone say 'We're all class action attorneys now, right?' because that's all we've got." Boden joins “Cases and Controversies,” along with Georgia State University College of Law professor Eric Segall to discuss the recent term, its rulings, and the justices that stood out the most. Hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler also talk about the court’s recent emergency order that allows President Donald Trump to move forward with plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court closed out its term with a string of rulings that divided the justices. The court split 6-3 along ideological lines in opinions June 27 that limited the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions and gave parents the right to opt their children out of classroom instruction that violates their religious beliefs. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler dig into the term end blockbusters and discuss the powerful dissents that accompanied them. In one, Justice Sonia Sotomayor fired back at a majority ruling from Samuel Alito by reprinting a children's book in what it appeared to be its entirety. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Transgender rights suffered a major loss at the US Supreme Court after its opinion in the Skrmetti case. But some advocates for transgender rights found reasons within the opinion to believe their cause might fare better in future cases. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler get into the details of this opinion on the latest episode of their podcast. They also talk about the other opinions we got from the court this week, including one in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an impassioned dissent on the issue of standing. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court is chipping away at the mound of argued cases it has to decide before the justices break for summer. The court has 21 cases left after releasing its latest batch of opinions. Those included a unanimous decision that revived a lawsuit brought by a family against the government after the FBI mistakenly raided their Atlanta home. Disputes over a Tennessee ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors and nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's effort to restrict automatic birthright citizenship are pending potential blockbusters. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler talk about the court’s recent rulings, a software malfunction at the court that could have been problematic, and the emergency requests from the Trump administration that could keep the justices busy well into the summer months. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The justices have already had a deluge of emergency requests from the Trump administration, and another is likely to land before them soon involving the president's tariffs. Lower courts have temporarily ruled against the tariffs using doctrines recently revived by the Supreme Court's conservative majority to frustrate policies of Democratic administrations. The Trump administration has signaled it will bring the case to the high court. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr discuss those cases as well as other actions by the court. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court's long-awaited order over the president's firing of Democratic members of independent agencies is puzzling, according to the lawyer representing one of the fired individuals. Gupta Wessler founder Deepak Gupta joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr to discuss what the divided court did and did not do in allowing the administration to move forward with the firings. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The practicalities of birthright citizenship being restricted in some states but not others appeared to be a concern of key justices on the US Supreme Court. President Donald Trump has asked the justices to narrow lower court rulings that blocked his executive order limiting automatic citizenship to babies born with at least one parent who’s a citizen or permanent resident. Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler discuss Thursday's arguments and highlight the exchanges that seemed to show the justices are wary of letting Trump start enforcing his restrictions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court will sit for a special session May 15 to hear a challenge to President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order. The merits, however, are not before justices at this time. Instead, the court will consider the scope of relief temporarily available to the parties, and in particular whether federal district courts can enjoin a policy nationwide as to all persons affected. Joining Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr is University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost, a leading expert on both birthright citizenship and so-called nationwide injunctions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court heard the last in a trio of cases over religious rights with the justices appearing to split long largely ideological lines. During arguments April 30 in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the justices considered a virtual school's bid to become the nation's first religious charter school. Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson say the case seems to turn on Chief Justice John Roberts. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

US Supreme Court justices spent a lot of time last week discussing the meaning of LGBTQ-themed books that parents in a Maryland public school district say interfere with the religious rearing of their children. One book, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” was a focal point of the April 22 arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The justices questioned whether mere exposure to things a parent disagrees with burdens their religious rights. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler take listeners through the proceedings and why they signal the parents are likely to win this case against books Montgomery County Public Schools say are meant to foster mutual respect for others in a pluralistic educational community. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Obamacare is back before the Supreme Court in a challenge to its no-cost coverage requirements for certain preventive health services. The justices will weigh the constitutionality of the US Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends the tests and treatments insurers should cover, when they return to the bench on Monday for the April sitting. If the lower court's decision is upheld, "it is possible, given the posture of the case, that over 150 million Americans lose free coverage of hundreds of benefits," said Sara Rosenbaum, an emerita professor of health law and policy at George Washington University. Rosenbaum joins Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to talk about why the case is more about power than it is public health and what's at stake if the court does away with the insurance coverage that’s caught in its crosshairs. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court's attempt to avoid a confrontation with President Donald Trump has real world costs, said Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck. Vladeck spoke with Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr about the flurry of recent rulings from the justices in emergency requests involving the administration's policies. The majority of the justices have been careful not to be overly critical of the president and have at times granted him "modest procedural wins," Vladeck said. But those efforts have real world costs, he added. Vladeck pointed to the court's recent action, lifting a temporary pause on the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. "The question is, how long can the justices get away with walking this tightrope before they're actually sacrificing too much in the name of not unduly provoking the confrontation with Trump," Vladeck said. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Supreme Court justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared ready to side with a religious group seeking an unemployment tax exemption, in the first of three church-state disputes on tap in coming weeks. "I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat some religions better than other religions," Justice Elena Kagan said. "And we certainly don't do it based on the content of the religious doctrine that those religions preach." Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down arguments in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus., and take a look of some of the court's recent opinions. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The federal government appeared likely to win a high-stakes appeal over a multibillion-dollar telecommunications fund while securing a win on Biden-era regulations on build-at-home "ghost guns." Several justices during arguments March 26 in FCC v. Consumers' Research, appeared hesitant to reinvigorate the so-called nondelegation doctrine to strike down the Universal Service Fund. The fund is intended to increase broadband access to rural and low income areas. Hosts Greg Stohr and Kimberly Robinson also discuss the court's 7-2 'ghost gun' ruling where liberal justices were joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and conservatives Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The hosts also highlight the upcoming argument in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, a case about South Carolina's decision to remove Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. - Produced by David Schultz

The Supreme Court will consider a case at the end of March that could limit Congress’ ability to let federal regulators determine what public health and safety standards are necessary. Depending on what the court decides, any statute that grants discretion to an agency could be open for re-review, said Jessica Ellsworth, a partner at Hogan Lovells. "There's probably hundreds of thousands of places in the US code that there are terms used like 'in the public interest,' whether something is 'necessary' and 'appropriate,' whether something is 'reasonable,' whether something is 'fair' or 'unfair,' whether it's 'essential,'" she said. Ellsworth joins Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the nondelegation doctrine and how this legal principle, which the court has been asked to revive, could impact the federal telecom subsidy program at issue and other regulations more broadly. The hosts also chat about a social media post from President Donald Trump that garnered a rare response from Chief Justice John Roberts. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

After a slow start, Supreme Court justices will hear consequential disputes as they head into second half of the term. "This might be the eye in the storm that this was kind of a bit of a slower term," said Goodwin partner Brian Burgess. "There's some big, big cases ahead." Burgess highlights cases involving religious rights, Obamacare, and forum shopping with Cases and Controversies hosts Lydia Wheeler and Kimberly Robinson. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

A fight over plans for a privately owned nuclear waste storage facility in Texas seemed to divide the US Supreme Court as the justices wrestled with a federal agency’s regulatory authority and who can challenge it. Cases and Controversies hosts Greg Stohr and Lydia Wheeler unpack Wednesday’s arguments in the dispute over a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license that would have moved as much as 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel to a privately owned facility. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the agency didn’t have the authority to grant the license after Texas and neighboring landowners challenged it in court. It's unclear if the court will affirm that ruling. A decision is due by the end of June or early July. The hosts also chat about the most significant ruling to come from the Supreme Court so far in litigation against actions President Donald Trump has taken since returning to office. A divided court rejected his request to toss out a district court order that forced him to pay $2 billion in federal foreign aid. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court hears argument March 4 in a case over gun industry protections from lawsuits. The dispute involving Mexico and Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. centers on whether exceptions to the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act open manufacturers to court challenges. Mexico alleges gunmakers intentionally trade with suppliers for drug cartels and the law allows suits when industry knowingly violates firearms laws in a way that causes injury. Industry says it's shielded, but the Boston-based US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has said not so fast. Cases and Controversies discusses the case with Georgia State law professor Timothy Lytton. He's filed a brief on behalf of neither party advocating for one of the law's exceptions opening gunmakers to potential liability. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The Supreme Court- has been pulled into its first dispute over a Trump administration action with more cases likely coming its way. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the justices in an emergency request to toss out a temporary restraining order that stopped President Donald Trump from firing the head of the US Office of Special Counsel. Lower courts have issued TROs in response to Trump’s executive actions now testing presidential authority to reshape the federal workforce, government spending, and citizenship rights. Thomas Berry, the director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, joins Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler to discuss the first case before the high court. Guest: Thomas Berry, Cato Institute Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler Producer: Mo Barrow Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies, Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The US Supreme Court is confronting the stark reality that, unlike the other two branches of government, the court has no real power to enforce its decisions. Should someone — whether government official or private citizen — refuse to comply, the justices have no army or constitutional spending power to use as a cudgel, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr writes in a new longform essay. That age-old quandary is becoming newly relevant as Donald Trump tries to bulldoze his way through longstanding legal constraints in the opening weeks of his second term as president. As lawsuits over birthright citizenship, spending cuts, and workforce purges make their way to the high court, the cases carry the potential for a genuine constitutional crisis. What happens, Chief Justice John Roberts must ask himself, if Trump loses and then defies the court? A lawsuit filed in 1801 when the Supreme Court was an untested institution posed a similar dilemma for Chief Justice John Marshall — and more recently, danger signs have been growing. Article by Greg Stohr read by Catherine Vassilopolos Do you have feedback on Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690