Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.

I'm John Carlo Canoparo.

I'm Zach Smith.

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.

Welcome back, G.C.

We've got another week of court arguments to talk about.

It's been an interesting and important week at the court.

It certainly has, Zach.

But before we get to this week's arguments, I wanted to start with a couple of new cases that the court has agreed to hear.

In fact, the court granted cert in four new cases this past week.

There's Roon v. United States and Convue, United States, which the court consolidated.

And these cases address whether a physician who's alleged to have prescribed controlled substances

outside the usual course of his professional practice may be convicted of unlawful

distribution under federal law without regard to whether in good faith he reasonably believed

or subjectively believed that his prescriptions fell within the course of his professional practice.

The court also granted review in another case involving several aspects of the

Medicare Secondary Payer Act, and finally, the court grand review in Egbert v. Bull. This case

involves several questions surrounding whether and when federal agents can be subjected to Bivens

liability for various actions. One of the questions presented in the cert petition for this case

had asked the court to reconsider Bivens itself, but the court did not grant review on that question.

Zach, for anyone who doesn't know, can you tell us what Bivens is?

Sure. So Bivens is essentially the federal analog to Section 1983. It would allow federal agents or officers

...