Tune in to hear Judge Chris Brook discuss his experience on the NC Court of Appeals and more with Pari!
Happy Monday! On today’s episode, Eva chatted with Judge Allegra Collins of the NC Court of Appeals. We talked about her journey to bench, advice for aspiring lawyers, experience as a world class athlete, and decision not to run for reelection in 2026. We had a fantastic time talking and hope you enjoy this episode. Judge Collins is active on LinkedIn, so visit her page here to learn more.
On today's episode I spoke with Justice Robin Hudson who served on the North Carolina Supreme Court! Justice Hudson mentioned the Informed Voters Project which you can check out here: https://nawj.org/catalog/community-outreach-programs/informed-voters-fair-judges-project.
Hey there! Welcome back to Beyond the Judgement. Today, Eva chatted with Chief Judge Chris Dillon of the North Carolina Appellate Court. Judge Dillon has been on the court for over ten years now. We hope you enjoy this conversation, and we’ll see you in two weeks for the next interview!
Hey y'all!
On today's episode Pari spoke with Judge Christine Walczyk who has been a district court judge for over 18 years and is now running for the NC Court of Appeals. You can learn more about her and her campaign here: https://www.judgechristine.org/. We are so grateful and honored to have had her on!
Hey y'all! On the first episode of Beyond the Judgement we had the honor of speaking with NC Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls. Justice Earls is running for re-election in 2026 and you can learn more about her and her campaign here: https://earls4justice.com/. Stay tuned for our next episode in 2 weeks!
Hey y'all!
We are so excited to announce a new chapter of "Tiers of Scrutiny." We cannot wait to speak with judges and justices across the country about why they do what they do and how. If you're interested in joining us as a speaker please email us at tiersofscrutiny@gmail.com. See you next week for our first episode!
- Eva and Pari
On today's episode Eva and I discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. You can read more about the facts of the case here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/22-7466 .
Here are the resources we used for this episode:
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/22-7466_5h25.pdf
In this episode, Pari and I break down the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Skrmetti, where the Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. We chat about the majority’s rationale, the fierce dissent, various concurrences, and what this ruling might mean for the future of LGBTQ+ rights. We also discuss how Skrmetti fits into the broader post-Dobbs judicial landscape. Additional analysis on the case can be found in the "Gender-Affirming Care (US v. Skrmetti)" episode released on March 10th. As usual, our sources are listed below.
If interested, ACLU-NC, GSA Network, Human Rights Campaign, and Rainbow Collective for Change are hosting a virtual town hall discussing this SCOTUS decision TODAY (Monday, June 23rd at 6 PM EST)!
Sources:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf
https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map
https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/united-states-v-skrmetti/
On today's episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Louisiana v. Callais, a case that the Supreme Court heard arguments for in late March. After a federal court ordered Louisiana to fix a Voting Rights Act violation, the new map—drawn to empower Black voters—sparked backlash from non-Black plaintiffs claiming racial gerrymandering. When, if ever, is racial gerrymandering a legitimate remedy? What does this mean for the future of the VRA? We discuss these questions and more in this episode. As always, sources below.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/louisiana-v-callais/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-109
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-109/335630/20241219161939870_24-109%20Brief-updated.pdf
In this episode, we dive into one of the most talked-about education and religious liberty cases of this term: Mahmoud v. Taylor. At the heart of the case? A Maryland school district's decision to include LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks in the elementary curriculum—and to eliminate the opt-out policy that once allowed parents to excuse their children from these lessons on religious grounds.
We explore the constitutional questions raised by Muslim, Catholic, and Orthodox Christian families who say their religious rights were sidelined, and the school district’s rationale that maintaining opt-outs was unworkable and potentially stigmatizing. What does the First Amendment really protect when it comes to public education, religious upbringing, and curriculum decisions? Tune in as we unpack the legal arguments, the court’s reasoning, and what this case could mean for schools and families across the country.
Here are our sources:
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-297
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-297
- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mahmoud-v-taylor/
Welcome back to Tiers of Scrutiny! This week, Pari and I discussed Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos--a case where the Mexican government takes American gun companies to court.
Some relevant resources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1141
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/smith-wesson-brands-inc-v-estados-unidos-mexicanos/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1141/332815/20241126130359423_23-1141%20ts.pdf
Hi everyone! On today's ToS episode, Pari and I discuss Oklahoma State Charter School Board v. Drummond. This case raises various questions about the First Amendment's relationship to state-funded religious schools. Is it possible that the Free Exercise Clause prohibits states from excluding religious schools from charter-school programs? Alternatively, does the Establishment Clause require states to exclude these schools? We chat about these questions, as well as a few others here. As always, resources are listed below--thank you for tuning and we'll see you in two weeks!
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/24-394
Hey y'all! On today's episode Eva and I discuss US v. Skrmetti. Here are the resources we used:
- https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map
- https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2793977
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/17-1618
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-477
- https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0001.pdf
- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/300984/20240220190248213_23-477%20United%20States%20v.%20Skrmetti%20-%20final.pdf
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/299674/20240202161645864_23-466%20-477%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20Final.pdf
On today’s episode of Tiers of Scrutiny, Pari and I discuss Barnes v. Felix, a case concerning the “moment of threat doctrine”--a legal principle limiting review of police officers’ use of force to only the “moment of threat” in which they perceived a threat. Opponents of the doctrine call for an evaluation of “totality of circumstances”--arguing that courts must review any and all actions leading up to the moment of threat.
Barnes v. Felix is named for Ashtian Barnes, a Black man who was shot and killed by a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop in 2016.
Listed below are relevant resources:
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/barnes-v-felix/
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/barnes-v-felix/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/
In this episode, we dive into the legal battle between e-cigarette manufacturers and the FDA—a case that’s making waves all the way to the Supreme Court. Back in 2009, Congress put vaping under FDA oversight, but fast forward to 2021, and manufacturers claim the agency pulled a last-minute rule change, shutting down their applications without warning. The FDA says it’s just doing its job to protect public health—especially kids. So, did the agency play fair, or did it pull a “regulatory switcheroo,” as the Fifth Circuit called it? We break down the arguments, the legal implications, and what this case means for government transparency, corporate accountability, and the future of flavored vapes.
Tune in as we unpack the puffs, politics, and procedures behind this high-stakes case!
Here are our sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1038
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/12/justices-hear-fda-case-on-flavored-vapes/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/323413/20240826164114741_23-1038tsFDA.pdf
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/what-we-do
Happy Monday, folks! On today's episode, Pari and I discuss Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, a case in which SCOTUS must decide the correct scrutiny test to apply to age verification laws on porn sites. Other questions we touch on...Should governments be able to require that porn websites verify viewers' ages? Do such laws infringe on First Amendment protections and anonymity?
This is a case that will have significant implications for free speech protections regarding sexual/obscene content. We recorded this episode before the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case, so we've linked the January 15th arguments for you below--alongside a host of resources if you're interested in learning more.
See you in two weeks!
Eva & Pari
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-1122
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton/
https://www.aclu.org/cases/free-speech-coalition-inc-v-paxton
Hello listeners! In this episode, Pari and I discuss Republic of Hungary v. Simon, a SCOTUS case that concerns Hungarian Holocaust survivors suing the Republic of Hungary in pursuit of compensation for seized property. Pari was actually lucky enough to be present in the chamber during oral arguments for this case! Listen for her observations about the justices' statures, behaviors and body languages during arguments, and more. As always, we've linked some information for you below and we'll see you in two weeks!
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/case-preview-foreign-sovereign-immunity-comity-and-the-holocaust/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/23-867
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/323352/20240826122931272_23-867%20Petitioners%20Opening%20Brief.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-867/324002/20240903185425980_23-867tsacUnitedStates.pdf
https://tlblog.org/hungary-v-simon-offers-supreme-court-stark-choice/
Hey y'all!
On today's episode Eva and I discuss the SCOTUS case about the Tik Tok ban. Here are the sources we used:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336144/20241227161148472_24-656tsGovt_final.pdfhttps://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-656/336136/20241227160309446_24-656%20ts.pdf
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-tiktok-ban-law/
In today's episode, Eva and I discuss Glossip v. Oklahoma. The case is about Richard Glossip who has been sentenced to the death penalty despite the prosecution hiding information about a key witness' mental health and that same witness admitting that he lied on the stand. We dive into the ethical implications of what will happen if the Supreme Court decides to uphold Glossip's sentence. Here are the sources we used:
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2024/22-7466
- https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7466/308603/20240429163200162_22-7466%20ts.pdf
- https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/clemency
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-7955
