Damocles' Donor List & Racial Gerrymander Mayhem

$440 Million Cruise Ship Showdown + Supreme Court DIGs Death Penalty Case

What happens when cruise lines dock at “stolen” Cuban property? In Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that using confiscated Havana docks triggers massive liability under the LIBERTAD Act — even after the original property interest expired. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion drops a history lesson from 1905 to the Cuban Revolution. Plus: The Court DIGs (dismisses as improvidently granted) the Hamm v. Smith death penalty case after 23 relists — a messy Atkins v. Virginia intellectual disability fight with borderline IQ scores. And a quick hit on states suing states: Florida & Texas vs. California on driver’s licenses and Justice Thomas’s fiery original jurisdiction dissent. Originalist takes on property rights, cruel and unusual punishment, and why the Court sometimes says “never mind.”

Still Standing? Mifepristone Lights Up the Shadow Docket

When the FDA openly admits it skipped its own procedural rules to fast-track the Biden administration’s post-Dobbs agenda, who exactly has the right to drag them into court over it? This week on Rightly Decided, Laura Beth Latimer, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon bypass the cultural hair-on-fire reporting surrounding the mifepristone litigation (Danco v. Louisiana) to talk about what’s actually keeping appellate lawyers awake at night: Article III standing. We’re tracing the legal gymnastics of standing—from the controversial "special solicitude" granted to states in 2007’s Massachusetts v. EPA, all the way to Louisiana's current attempt to force the federal government to enforce the law. What we’re covering:  * The 10,000-Foot View: How the Biden Administration's post-Dobbs push to "pull every lever" led to bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and FDA patient safety protocols.  * The Standing Problem: Why an emergency room doctor doesn't have the standing to sue the FDA, but Louisiana thinks it does.  * Shadow Docket Chaos: What a "stay of a stay" actually means on the ground for drug manufacturers and state laws.  * The Dissents: Why Justice Alito wanted to hit the brakes, and Justice Thomas’s one-page mic-drop invoking the Comstock Act to point out a problem of criminal proportions. If you want to understand the actual mechanics of how the administrative state gets challenged in federal court, let’s get into it.

Damocles' Donor List & Racial Gerrymander Mayhem

This week, the crew wades into two fresh-from-the-Court opinions (with a healthy dose of side-eye and sword-of-Damocles metaphors). First up: Can a pro-life pregnancy center sue in federal court when the New Jersey AG demands their donor list (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport)? The Supreme Court delivers a unanimous, common-sense smackdown on standing that’ll warm the hearts of First Amendment (and standing) fans everywhere. Then it’s time for a deep dive into Louisiana’s Voting Rights Act showdown (Louisiana v. Callais). Expect spirited conversation about racial gerrymandering, partisan map-drawing, cracking and packing, constitutional avoidance, and why Section 2 of the VRA isn’t quite as simple as the media says it is.

Written in Stone: Stare Decisis and the 10 Commandments

In a razor-thin 9-8 en banc decision, the Fifth Circuit upheld Texas’ law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom. Laura Beth Latimer is joined by Chance Weldon and Nathan Seltzer to break down Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD. We discuss why the court held that Stone v. Graham no longer controls after the Supreme Court killed the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton, and what the new historical “hallmarks of establishment” test means going forward. We cover: — Vertical stare decisis and when lower courts can move past undermined precedent — The six historical hallmarks of religious establishment — Issues of coercion, compelled financial support, and compulsory school attendance — Offended-observer standing and the limits of Article III jurisdiction A sharp, originalist discussion on religion in public schools and the future of Establishment Clause jurisprudence—with a likely Supreme Court appeal ahead. What do you think—did the Fifth Circuit go too far, or get it right?

Defending Justice Thomas and Demystifying the “Shadow Docket”

In this week’s episode, we begin with Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent address [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXijcySC0ZU] at the University of Texas, where he offered a glimpse into his judicial philosophy and the interaction between natural law and the Constitution. We take a little journey into the influence of progressivism and legal positivism, and discuss what’s on the horizon for the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. Also, we pull back the curtain on the "Shadow Docket." While often criticized by the mainstream media as a "secret" tool, we explain the legal necessity of the emergency docket, how it actually functions, and why it remains a vital component of the Court’s ability to provide timely relief in urgent cases. In This Episode: — The Lion of the Court: Key takeaways from Justice Thomas’s UT speech and his "unyielding" approach to the Constitution. — A Breach of Tradition: Analyzing the legal and ethical implications of the recent SCOTUS leak. — Demystifying the Shadow Docket: The difference between the merits docket and the emergency docket, why the "shadow" moniker is a misnomer for standard procedural stays, and the impact of emergency rulings on national policy. — The Future of Judicial Integrity: How the conservative legal movement should respond to increasing pressure on the judiciary.