Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/036-runyon-v-mccrary Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep427/usrep427160/usrep427160.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. Michael McCrary and Colin Gonzales, two Black children in Virginia, were turned away by private schools, Bobbe's School and Fairfax-Brewster School, which did not admit Black students. Their parents sued under Section 1981, a Reconstruction-era statute originally enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guarantees all persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens. Justice Stewart, for a seven-to-two majority, held that Section 1981 reaches private acts of racial discrimination in making contracts, including a private school's refusal to admit students because of race. The schools' arguments based on freedom of association and parental rights did not save them. Justices Powell and Stevens concurred while expressing doubts about the earlier precedent they felt bound to follow. Justice White, joined by Justice Rehnquist, dissented, arguing the 1866 Congress meant only to give Black citizens the legal capacity to contract, not to forbid private refusals. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Jones, supra, at 441-443, n. 78 at 441-443, n. 78 [as printed: Jones, supra, at 441-443, n. 78; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending) - Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., 410 U.S. 431 at 439-440 [as printed: Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., 410 U. S. 431, 439-440 (1973); Dissent (Mr. Justice White)] (episode link pending) - Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454 [as printed: Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U. S. 454 (1975); Dissent (Mr. Justice White)] (episode link pending) - NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 [as printed: NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] episode - Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 at 469 [as printed: Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455, 469; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending) - Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 [as printed: Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending) - Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 [as printed: Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending) - 534-535. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 [as printed: 534-535. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] episode - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 [as printed: Roe v. Wade, supra; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] episode - Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 [as printed: Holmberg, supra; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending) (+18 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 142 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/036-runyon-v-mccrary
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/035-youngstown-sheet-tube-co-v-sawyer Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep343/usrep343579/usrep343579.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. In April 1952, with the Korean War underway and a nationwide steel strike about to begin, President Truman ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize and run the nation's steel mills. No statute authorized it. Congress had actually considered and rejected giving the President seizure power in labor disputes. Truman relied on his inherent powers as President and Commander in Chief. Justice Black, for a six-to-three majority, held the seizure unconstitutional. The President's power must come from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself, and this order was lawmaking, which belongs to Congress. Everyone remembers this case, though, for Justice Jackson's concurrence, which sets out three zones of presidential power: when he acts with Congress's authorization, in the twilight zone of congressional silence, and against Congress's will, where his power is at its lowest ebb. Jackson's framework now governs nearly every fight over executive power. Chief Justice Vinson dissented for three justices. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 at 341, 346 [as printed: Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 341, 346; Concurrence (Mr. Justice Frankfurter)] (episode link pending) - McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 at 415 [as printed: McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819); Concurrence (Mr. Justice Clark)] (episode link pending) - Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 at 530 [as printed: Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 530; Concurrence (Mr. Justice Frankfurter)] episode - Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 at 209 [as printed: Springer v. Philippine Islands, 277 U. S. 189, 209; Concurrence (Mr. Justice Frankfurter)] episode - La Abra Silver Mng. Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423 [as printed: La Abra Silver Mng. Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 423; Concurrence (Mr. Justice Frankfurter)] (episode link pending) - Act. Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U.S. 383 at 396 [as printed: Bus Employees v. Wisconsin Board, 340 U. S. 383, 396; Concurrence (Mr. Justice Burton)] (episode link pending) - Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 [as printed: Myers v. United States, supra; Dissent (Mr. Chief Justice Vinson)] episode - United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U.S. 459 [as printed: United States v. Midwest Oil Co., supra; Dissent (Mr. Chief Justice Vinson)] (episode link pending) - , supra [as printed: , supra; Dissent (Mr. Chief Justice Vinson)] (episode link pending) (+20 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 87 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/035-youngstown-sheet-tube-co-v-sawyer
Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/034-regents-of-the-university-of-california-v-bakke Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep438/usrep438265/usrep438265.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. The medical school at the University of California, Davis, set aside sixteen of its one hundred seats each year for minority applicants under a special admissions program. Allan Bakke, a white applicant and former Marine, was rejected twice, though his scores were higher than those of some admitted through the special program. He sued under the Equal Protection Clause and Title Six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court split in a way that produced no majority rationale. Four justices would have struck down the program under Title Six, and four would have upheld it. Justice Powell cast the deciding votes: the quota was unlawful and Bakke must be admitted, but race could be considered as one factor in admissions, in pursuit of a diverse student body. Powell's solo diversity rationale governed college admissions for forty-five years, until the Court rejected it in Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard in 2023. Six justices wrote opinions here, so this is a long listen. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - , supra [as printed: , supra; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Powell Me. Justice White. Mr. Justice Marshall. Mr. Justice Blackmun)] (episode link pending) - Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) at 78 [as printed: Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Powell Me. Justice White. Mr. Justice Marshall. Mr. Justice Blackmun)] (episode link pending) - McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U.S. 430 (1940) at 434 [as printed: McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generate Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 434; Dissent (Me. Justice Stevens)] (episode link pending) - Title VI. See Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 [as printed: Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563; Dissent (Me. Justice Stevens)] episode - United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U.S. 534 (1940) at 543-544 [as printed: United States v. American Trucking Assns., 310 U. S. 534, 543-544 (1940); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Powell Me. Justice White. Mr. Justice Marshall. Mr. Justice Blackmun)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Carotene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 at 152 [as printed: United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Powell Me. Justice White. Mr. Justice Marshall. Mr. Justice Blackmun)] episode - Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) at 22 [as printed: Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 22 (1948); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Powell Me. Justice White. Mr. Justice Marshall. Mr. Justice Blackmun)] episode (+83 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 573 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/034-regents-of-the-university-of-california-v-bakke
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/033-morrison-v-olson Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep487/usrep487654/usrep487654.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created independent counsels, appointed by a special court and removable by the Attorney General only for good cause, to investigate high executive officials. Independent counsel Alexia Morrison was investigating Theodore Olson, a former Assistant Attorney General, over testimony to Congress. Olson argued the whole arrangement violated the separation of powers. Chief Justice Rehnquist, for a seven-to-one majority, upheld the law. The independent counsel was an inferior officer whom Congress could vest a court with appointing, and the good-cause limit did not unduly interfere with the President's executive power. Justice Scalia dissented alone, and his dissent is now more influential than the majority. He warned that the law placed prosecutorial power outside the President's control and predicted how it would be used. "This wolf comes as a wolf," he wrote. After the Starr investigation, Congress let the law expire in 1999, and recent cases on presidential removal power lean heavily on Scalia's view. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Sealed Case, 665 F.Supp. 56 (DC) [as printed: Sealed Case, 665 F. Supp. 56 (DC); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - Sealed Case, 267 U.S.App.D.C. 178 (1988) at 224, n. 13 [as printed: Sealed Case, 267 U. S. App. D. C. 178, 224, n. 13, 838 F. 2d 476, 522, n. 13 (1988); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 (1919) [as printed: Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273 (1919); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - Sealed Case, 264 U.S.App.D.C. 125 (1987) [as printed: Sealed Case, 264 U. S. App. D. C. 125, 827 F. 2d 776 (1987); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508 (1879) at 511 (discussing United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 393 (1868)) [as printed: United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508, 511 (1879) (discussing United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385, 393 (1868)); Dissent (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending) - Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) at 140-141 [as printed: Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 140-141 (1976); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] episode - Germaine, supra, at 511 at 511 [as printed: Germaine, supra, at 511; Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331 (1898) [as printed: States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331 (1898); Dissent (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending) - Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344 (1931) [as printed: Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344 (1931); Dissent (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending) (+28 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 157 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/033-morrison-v-olson
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/032-lochner-v-new-york Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep198/usrep198045/usrep198045.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. New York's Bakeshop Act of 1895 limited bakery employees to ten hours a day and sixty hours a week. Joseph Lochner, who owned a bakery in Utica, was convicted of letting an employee work more than sixty hours. Justice Peckham, for a five-to-four majority, struck down the hours limit as an unreasonable interference with the liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Baking, he said, was not an unhealthy trade, and the law was really a labor law dressed up as a health law. Two dissents made the case immortal. Justice Harlan argued the legislature could reasonably believe long hours harmed bakers' health. Justice Holmes wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics, and that a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory. "Lochnerism" became an insult for judges imposing their own policy views, though some libertarian scholars now argue the decision was right. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 at 589 [as printed: Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 589; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] episode - Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 at 391 [as printed: Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 391; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] (episode link pending) - Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U.S. 207 at 223 [as printed: Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 223; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] (episode link pending) - Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U.S. 13 at 21, 22 [as printed: Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13, 21, 22; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] (episode link pending) - Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164 [as printed: Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Peckham)] (episode link pending) - Jacobson v. Massachusetts, supra [as printed: Jacobson v. Massachusetts, supra; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Peckham)] (episode link pending) - Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 [as printed: Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Peckham)] (episode link pending) - Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 [as printed: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] episode - Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501 [as printed: Patterson v. Kentucky, supra; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] (episode link pending) - Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27 [as printed: Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] (episode link pending) - Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 [as printed: Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] (episode link pending) - Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133 [as printed: Lawton v. Steele, supra; Dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan)] (episode link pending) (+5 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 17 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/032-lochner-v-new-york
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/031-planned-parenthood-v-casey Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep505/usrep505833/usrep505833.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act required informed consent and a twenty-four-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors with a judicial bypass, notification of a husband, and reporting rules. With five justices appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush, many expected Roe versus Wade to fall. It did not. Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter wrote an unusual joint opinion that reaffirmed what they called Roe's essential holding, while discarding the trimester framework. In its place they adopted the undue-burden standard: a state may not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before viability. The Court upheld every provision except spousal notification. The joint opinion's long discussion of stare decisis and the Court's legitimacy is its most debated passage. Justices Blackmun and Stevens wrote separately. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia wrote dissents arguing Roe should be overruled, which is what Dobbs did thirty years later. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) [as printed: Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973); concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part (Justice Scalia)] episode - Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) at 660-661 [as printed: Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 660-661 (1887); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) at 541 (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) [as printed: Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) at 122 (plurality opinion) [as printed: Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U. S. 110, 122 (1989) (plurality opinion); concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part (ChieF Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) [as printed: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part (ChieF Justice Rehnquist)] episode - Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) [as printed: Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925); concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part (ChieF Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) [as printed: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part (ChieF Justice Rehnquist)] episode (+68 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 575 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/031-planned-parenthood-v-casey
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/029-wickard-v-filburn Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep317/usrep317111/usrep317111.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. Roscoe Filburn ran a small dairy and poultry farm in Ohio. Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, his wheat allotment for 1941 was about eleven acres. He planted twenty-three, intending to use much of the wheat on his own farm, to feed his animals and make flour for his family. He was fined under the Act. Justice Jackson, for a unanimous Court, upheld the penalty. Even if Filburn's own wheat never left the farm, wheat grown for home use reduces what a farmer buys on the market, and taken together with that of many others similarly situated, its effect on interstate commerce is far from trivial. This aggregation principle became the backbone of the modern Commerce Clause, supporting everything from civil rights laws to drug laws. Critics see it as the moment the limits on federal power effectively disappeared. Lopez, Morrison, Raich, and the health-care case all argue over what Wickard means. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U.S. 533 [as printed: United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U. S. 533; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 [as printed: United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] episode - Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 [as printed: Gibbons v. Ogden, supra; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 [as printed: United States v. Knight Co., supra; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] (episode link pending) - Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 at 398 [as printed: Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 398; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] episode - Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 [as printed: Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 342; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110 at 119 [as printed: United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110, 119; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] (episode link pending) - Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 at 308 [as printed: Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 308; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] episode - Santa Cruz Co. v. Labor Board, 303 U.S. 453 at 466-467 [as printed: Santa Cruz Co. v. Labor Board, 303 U. S. 453, 466-467; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] (episode link pending) - Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495 [as printed: Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Jackson)] (episode link pending) (+10 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 53 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/029-wickard-v-filburn
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/028-united-states-v-morrison Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep529/usrep529598/usrep529598.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. Christy Brzonkala, a student at Virginia Tech, said two football players, Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, raped her in 1994. A university disciplinary process went nowhere for her in the end, and no criminal charges were brought. She sued under a provision of the Violence Against Women Act that gave victims of gender-motivated violence a federal civil remedy. Chief Justice Rehnquist, for a five-to-four majority, held that Congress lacked power to enact the provision. Under the Commerce Clause, gender-motivated violence is not economic activity, no matter how large its aggregate effects, and accepting that reasoning would leave nothing reserved to the states. Under Section five of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress can reach state action, not private conduct. Justice Thomas concurred to repeat his attack on the substantial-effects test. Justices Souter and Breyer dissented, arguing that Congress had built a mountainous factual record of national economic harm. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1888) [as printed: Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 (1883); Dissent (Justice Breyer)] episode - United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1883) [as printed: United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629 (1883); Dissent (Justice Breyer)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) [as printed: United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995); Dissent (Justice Souter)] episode - Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) [as printed: Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803); Dissent (Justice Souter)] (episode link pending) - NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) [as printed: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1 (1937); Dissent (Justice Souter)] episode - Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971) [as printed: Perez, supra; Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (upholding civil rights laws forbidding discrimination at local motels) [as printed: Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241 (1964) (upholding civil rights laws forbidding discrimination at local motels); Dissent (Justice Breyer)] episode - United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941) at 114 [as printed: United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 114 (1941); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] episode - Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914) [as printed: Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U. S. 342 (1914); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) - Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911) [as printed: Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U. S. 20 (1911); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] (episode link pending) (+45 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 242 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/028-united-states-v-morrison
Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/025-district-of-columbia-v-heller Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep554/usrep554570/usrep554570.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. Washington, D.C. banned handguns in the home and required other firearms to be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked. Dick Heller, a special police officer who carried a gun on duty at a federal building, applied to keep a handgun at home and was refused. Justice Scalia, for a five-to-four majority, held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, unconnected to service in a militia, and that the handgun ban and the trigger-lock rule violated it. His opinion is a long study of the Amendment's text and its eighteenth-century meaning, treating the prefatory clause about a well-regulated militia as announcing a purpose without limiting the right. Justice Stevens dissented with his own historical reading, focused on the militia. Justice Breyer dissented separately, arguing that even an individual right should yield to the city's interest in reducing gun violence. The clash of originalist histories is the heart of the case. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F.Supp.2d 103 (2004) at 109 [as printed: Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending) - Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (2007) at 401 (case below) [as printed: Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007) (case below); Dissent (Souter)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) at 265 [as printed: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending) - Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [as printed: Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998); Dissent (Justice Stevens)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) [as printed: United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876); Dissent (Justice Stevens)] episode - Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) at 715 [as printed: Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999); Dissent (Justice Stevens)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) [as printed: United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285 (2008); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) at 178 [as printed: United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); Dissent (Souter)] episode - Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) at 281 [as printed: Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending) (+42 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 397 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/025-district-of-columbia-v-heller
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/026-employment-division-v-smith Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep494/usrep494872/usrep494872.pdf Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice. Alfred Smith and Galen Black worked as counselors at a private drug rehabilitation organization in Oregon. They ingested peyote at a ceremony of the Native American Church, of which both were members, and were fired. Oregon then denied them unemployment benefits because they had been dismissed for work-related misconduct, and peyote possession was a crime in Oregon. Justice Scalia, for the majority, held that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse anyone from complying with a valid, neutral law of general applicability. Requiring a compelling government interest for every such law, he wrote, would make each conscience a law unto itself. Justice O'Connor concurred only in the judgment and defended strict scrutiny. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented. The backlash was bipartisan: Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 almost unanimously, and several current justices have questioned whether Smith should survive. Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website. Cases named aloud - Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) [as printed: Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra; Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) at 412 (Douglas, J., concurring) [as printed: Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 412 (1963) (Douglas, J., concurring); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] episode - Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 485 U.S. 660 (1988) [as printed: Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 485 U. S. 660 (1988); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987) [as printed: Hobbie, supra; Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) at 86-88 [as printed: United States v. Ballard, 322 U. S. 78, 86-88 (1944); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978) [as printed: McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67 (1953) at 69 [as printed: Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67, 69 (1953); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending) - Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) [as printed: Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586 (1940); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia Justice O’Connor)] episode (+35 more named aloud; see the website) Full list of 273 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/026-employment-division-v-smith