SCOTUS 101: A Dubious Expediency


SCOTUS 101: A Dubious Expediency

Feb 24, 2023 1 min read

Commentary By

GianCarlo Canaparo

Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center

Zack Smith @tzsmith

Senior Legal Fellow, Meese Center for Legal Studies

Rudy Sulgan/Getty Images

The Court is back, and this week it heard oral arguments in two high-profile cases against Google and Twitter that will decide the extent of the protection they can claim when their users support terrorism. It also issued opinions in a bankruptcy case, a capital-murder case, and a fair-wage case. After covering those developments, GianCarlo interviews Professor Gail Heriot of the University of San Diego School of Law. The two talk about her research on racial preferences and what it means for the Harvard and UNC cases and the future of racial preferences after those cases are decided. Lastly, GianCarlo hits Zack with some cinematic SCOTUS trivia.

You can find a copy of Professor Heriot's book here: A Dubious Expediency.

Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to [email protected].

Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.

Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug.