Season 2, Episode 45 (Show 97): The News in Brief

November 2, 2022

We continue our dissection of the amicus brief in the ISL case – Moore v. Harper – and discuss outside reaction.

It’s a week since the amicus curiae brief in the case of Moore v. Harper – the ISL case – was filed by Professor Amar, Dean Vik Amar, and Professor Steven Calabresi, and the reaction has been pouring in.  What arguments have been made to attempt to refute the brief?  The answer may surprise you.  Meanwhile, we take you through the remainder of the brief, explaining and expounding, providing backstory, and challenging you to reason along with us.  We suggest that you print out the brief to make it easier to follow along.  It’s a unique opportunity to delve into what may be the most important Supreme Court case of this decade, in advance of the December 7 oral arguments.

Show Notes:

Amicus brief in Moore v. Harper

The “Brief Of Amici Curiae Professors Akhil Reed Amar, Vikram David Amar and Steven Gow Calabresi In Support Of Respondents” filed in the case of Moore v. Harper.  We recommend that you download this and follow along it as we review, explain, and expound on the argument and backstory.

Read and/or Download

Arizona State Legislature v. AIRC (2015)

The Arizona redistricting case, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission et al (2015), wherein Chief Justice Roberts dissents, voicing a theory of a distinction between supplementing and supplanting a legislative body’s function.  He will later renounce this dissent in Rucho (below), and properly so, we maintain and explain in the podcast.

Read and/or Download

Rucho v. Common Cause et al (2019)

The important 2019 case, Rucho et al v. Common Cause et al, wherein the Chief Justice and the other dissenting justices in AIRC join to verify that AIRC was correctly decided, and to renounce the supplant/supplement would-be distinction discussed in the dissent of that case.

Read and/or Download