meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture

#223: Upon Further Reflection

Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture

The Heritage Foundation

Government

4.5527 Ratings

🗓️ 8 March 2018

⏱️ 24 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

What happens when a new administration changes the government's legal position? Elizabeth & Tiffany discuss the Trump Administration's about-face in a few cases. Also on tap: the nondelegation doctrine, Williamson County, and an interview with SCOTUS litigator Ginger Anders.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

I'm Elizabeth Slattery and I'm Tiffany Bates and welcome to SCOTUS 101 where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

0:13.2

This week we're talking about new cert grants and opinions and when the government changes its litigation position and we'll interview former assistant to the Solicitor General

0:21.2

Ginger Anders.

0:22.7

So what is happening at SCOTUS this week?

0:25.6

Well, the court granted cert in two new cases, and we're pretty excited about them.

0:30.4

Yeah, listeners should have, we should have recorded our conversation when I called Elizabeth

0:35.0

to yell about the new grants because they were so exciting.

0:38.5

So first up is Gundy v. United States.

0:41.1

The court limited the question presented to whether Congress's delegation of authority to the

0:45.5

Attorney General to issue regulations under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act violates the non-delegation doctrine.

0:52.9

I know that must sound pretty dry, but it's actually a very exciting case.

0:57.8

So Congress did not determine the applicability of Sorna, that's the Sex Offender Registration

1:03.6

and Notification Act, to individuals who were convicted of a sex offense before the law was

1:08.1

passed.

1:08.9

Instead, Congress delegated that determination to the

1:11.7

Attorney General. So was that delegation permissible? Well, going back to a 1928 case, J.W. Hampton,

1:18.5

Jr. and Company v. United States, the Supreme Court said that Congress can delegate some of its

1:24.7

authority to a person or authorized body as long as there was some

1:30.9

sort of intelligible principle.

1:33.1

And the last time the court has invalidated an act of Congress on non-delegation grounds was

1:38.2

in 1935 in two cases involving New Deal era regulations.

1:42.7

So these were the Panama Refining Company and Schechter poultry cases.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Heritage Foundation, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Heritage Foundation and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.