In the newest episode of Divided Argument, “Reference Check,” Dan and I speak about two of the Supreme Courtroom’s opinions from final week — the technical jurisdictional determination in Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, and the per curiam opinion in TikTok v. Garland, the latter already being doubtlessly eclipsed by present occasions. This is the total description:
In unpredictable trend, we document an incredibly well timed episode to mirror the Courtroom’s hasty per curiam within the TikTok case. Alongside the way in which, we compensate for the shadow docket happenings, handle to not get derailed by an ethics dialogue, uncover a stunning opinion revision in actual time, and break down the Courtroom’s opinion in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most significantly, Dan—with assist from loyal listeners—collects on a wager Will unwisely made years in the past.
And once more, here’s the episode.
