In the most recent episode of Divided Argument, “Reference Check,” Dan and I talk about two of the Supreme Court’s opinions from last week — the technical jurisdictional decision in Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, and the per curiam opinion in TikTok v. Garland, the latter already being potentially eclipsed by current events. Here’s the full description:
In unpredictable fashion, we record a shockingly timely episode to reflect the Court’s hasty per curiam in the TikTok case. Along the way, we catch up on the shadow docket happenings, manage not to get derailed by an ethics discussion, discover a surprising opinion revision in real time, and break down the Court’s opinion in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger. Most importantly, Dan—with help from loyal listeners—collects on a bet Will unwisely made years ago.
And again, here’s the episode.
