You ready?

I was born ready.

Welcome to the advisory opinions podcast. I always say this Sarah that we have an action packed pot. I always say it.

We really do. We really do. We really do. Okay, we've got a lot. All right, Sarah is going to introduce you to a

Kate, a union case that's being argued that we'll talk about Thursday where we can listen to the whole thing.

We're going to talk about the Briar Justice Briar Retirements Veculation.

We're going to talk about a DC Circuit dissent by Judge Silverman that set the conservative part of the internet on fire.

We're going to talk about domestic terrorism and hate crimes. We're going to talk about MAGA originalism or

shall we say the rejection of originalism, my MAGA legal advocates.

And then we're going to wind up talking about the Oscar nominated movie that I wanted Sarah to watch and that she watched and she has

about called promising young woman. And then we're also going to throw in a bonus quote from a very spicy Justice Roberts.

And a little bit more than that too, right? Sarah, there was an interesting surgrant today.

Yes. Yeah. So let's start with the surgrant. The justices granted the US versus Sarnayev. If that name sounds familiar to you, it's because he is one of the brothers who was responsible for the Boston bombing. His guilt is not in question.

But the appellate court overturned the death sentence. And their reasons they, I mean, they had to stretch for these reasons. So one was that in this massive war, dear, they did interviewing all the jurors.

The appeals court found error in that they didn't the judge, the trial judge didn't ask the jurors specifically what news they had consumed.

Like listing, you know, which news sources they had ever heard about the case from. And second, that they, the trial judge did not allow evidence about the other brothers involvement in a previous murder, which in theory could have shown that he was really the worst brother.

Now, the appellate court said, like, look, he acknowledged his guilt. So that's not an issue. But you have to redo the whole sentencing phase, which would be a, I mean, a huge undertaking.

The government filed for cert, the Department of Justice under the Trump administration at the Supreme Court. And I just read you a couple things here, because I think it'll go to what the outcome of this will certainly be.

And the action below improperly vacated the capital sentences recommended by the jury and imposed by the district court in one of the most important terrorism prosecutions in our nation's history. In doing so, the court of appeals announced an unexpected and inflexible, voire deere rule that denies district courts, the broad discretion to manage juries that this court's precedence provide dot, dot, dot, dot, I'm going to skip some stuff.

And the court of appeals errors are largely case specific. The context of this case makes them exceptionally significant.

So David, you and I've talked that cert petitions are usually about circuit splits or sort of these intractable issues that will keep coming up over and over again.

This is sort of that third bucket of yep, there's not likely to be anything else that's like this. If there's no circuit split really it's just that the case itself is so dang important. And the Boston bombing is certainly one of those things.

...