Looking Back at Bostock
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
The Heritage Foundation
4.5 • 527 Ratings
🗓️ 12 March 2021
⏱️ 44 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
This week, news that all of the Justices have received COVID-19 vaccines sparked a debate among advocates and law professors about remote vs in-person arguments. Zack fairly discusses both sides, while GianCarlo stakes out an aggressive position early on. GianCarlo also unpacks the one opinion this week, which answers the question: If the government violates your civil rights and you only ask for nominal damages, can you sue? The hosts jointly interview their new colleague, Sarah Parshall Perry, about the ripple effects of the Bostock decision. Lastly, the hosts play trivia and the theme is "Where in the world is Justice Carmen Sandiego?"
You can read two of Sarah's recent pieces on the topics of our interview here and here.
Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @scotus101 and 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. |
| 0:06.1 | I'm John Carlo Canoparo. |
| 0:07.9 | I'm Zach Smith. |
| 0:09.0 | 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. |
| 0:21.5 | Welcome back to another episode of SCOTUS 101. |
| 0:24.7 | It's been a relatively quiet week at the court, but there are a few orders, |
| 0:29.1 | oral arguments, and opinions that we need to discuss. |
| 0:32.1 | Are you ready, G.C.? |
| 0:33.6 | Absolutely. Let's dive on in. |
| 0:35.8 | Great. |
| 0:36.6 | So for the orders this week, there is one new grant in the case of Thompson v. Clark. In this case, Larry Thompson brought a Section 1983 action, which is a federal civil rights lawsuit against NYPD officers for unreasonable seizure after they arrested him, and he was detained in jail for |
| 0:56.1 | two days before the charges against him were ultimately dismissed. The justices are being asked |
| 1:02.1 | to decide whether a plaintiff must show that the criminal proceedings ended in a way that is not |
| 1:07.1 | inconsistent with his innocence, or whether a plaintiff must show that the criminal proceedings |
| 1:12.2 | ended in a way that shows he was actually innocent. The latter is, of course, much harder to show. |
| 1:20.2 | There were no oral arguments this week, and the justices aren't scheduled to hear arguments again |
| 1:25.4 | until the week of March 22nd. |
| 1:32.3 | But did you hear the interesting news about the justices being vaccinated, G.C.? I did. |
| 1:34.3 | Well, what we found out from the court's public information officer is that all of the |
| 1:39.2 | justices have now been fully vaccinated. |
| 1:42.2 | This has led to speculation about whether the court will resume |
| 1:45.2 | in-person arguments for their April sitting. My guess is probably not, since it's likely that |
... |
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.