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

Ok, SCOTUS Boomer

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

The Heritage Foundation

Government

4.5527 Ratings

🗓️ 16 January 2020

⏱️ 46 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Elizabeth & Tiffany talk about the riveting first opinions of 2020 and new grants, (Trump tax returns, failed 4th Amendment seizures, and more!). They recap oral argument in the "Bridgegate" case and whether "Ok, Boomer" is canceled. Elizabeth also chats with Judge Chad Readler of the 6th Circuit about being a Michigan fan in the heart of Ohio Buckeye territory. Stay tuned for Supreme Trivia. Tiffany's in the hot seat!


Follow us on Twitter and Instagram @scotus101 and send comments, questions, 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: https://shop.heritage.org/products/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

I'm Elizabeth Lattery 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.

0:14.7

This week we're talking about some very exciting recent arguments, some actually exciting grants, and Sixth Circuit Judge Chad Radler joins us.

0:23.8

So the court is back hearing oral arguments after its winter break. But first we're going to

0:31.0

talk about a couple of opinions that came out, the first of 2020. Yes, and they're real winners.

0:38.0

So the first one's a bankruptcy case, Ritson Group, Inc.

0:41.3

versus Jackson Masonry LLC.

0:43.9

I'll keep it very short since my eyes were rolling over as I was trying to read this.

0:48.7

So this is a unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg, and the court held that a bankruptcy

0:54.0

court's order denying

0:55.4

relief from an automatic stay constitutes a final, immediately appealable order under 28 U.S.C.

1:02.4

Section 158A.

1:04.4

So the short version is typically parties can only appeal final decisions from cases, but

1:10.0

the bankruptcy project is really unique,

1:12.2

and Section 158 allows parties to appeal from all final judgments, orders, and decrees in cases

1:19.3

and proceedings. And the court has previously held that the statute allows parties to immediately

1:24.7

appeal when the bankruptcy court has finally disposed of a

1:28.3

discrete dispute within that larger case because that falls under the word proceedings and not

1:34.6

just case. So the court concluded in this case that an order ruling on a creditor's motion

1:39.4

for relief from the automatic stay was properly considered a discrete dispute qualifying as an independent

1:45.5

proceeding within the meaning of the statute. Very fascinating stuff. If that wasn't exciting enough,

1:51.7

next up was Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander. This is a per curiam opinion,

1:57.9

and the court vacated and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to consider the

...

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.