A Dubious Expediency
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
The Heritage Foundation
4.5 • 527 Ratings
🗓️ 23 February 2023
⏱️ 52 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
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 scotus101@heritage.org.
Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.
Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court. |
| 0:06.4 | I'm John Carlo Conoparo. |
| 0:08.4 | I'm Zach Smith. |
| 0:09.6 | 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. |
| 0:21.7 | Welcome back to another episode of SCOTUS 101. |
| 0:25.2 | It's good to be back, and the Supreme Court is back, too, with the busiest week we've seen |
| 0:29.4 | from the justices in the last couple of weeks. |
| 0:32.0 | We had oral arguments and opinions. |
| 0:34.9 | The court heard only two oral arguments this week, but they were big ones, |
| 0:38.3 | involving the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Now, Section 230 has |
| 0:45.5 | been the subject of a lot of debate recently because it provides broad immunity to many tech |
| 0:50.4 | companies. It bars claims that seek to hold providers of quote interactive computer |
| 0:55.5 | services, which are websites like YouTube and Google, liable as the publisher or speaker of any |
| 1:02.5 | content that the service did not create or develop. In other words, if a website is simply |
| 1:07.6 | hosting third-party content, it generally cannot be sued for what's contained |
| 1:12.7 | within that content. Both of the cases the court heard arguments in this week, one involving |
| 1:18.4 | Google and the other involving Twitter, involve family members of terror attack victims who are |
| 1:24.2 | bringing claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, the ATA, against Google and Twitter. |
| 1:30.0 | In Twitter v. Tomna, the family of an individual killed during a 2017 ISIS attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, |
| 1:38.4 | sued Twitter for allowing ISIS to use its platform. |
| 1:42.1 | The Anti-Terrorism Act allows suits against anyone who |
| 1:45.2 | aids and abets by knowingly providing substantial assistance to international terrorists. |
... |
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.