Supreme Court Rules Against NCAA

Advisory Opinions

The Dispatch

News, Government, Politics

4.7 • 4K Ratings

🗓️ 22 June 2021

⏱️ 67 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Student athletes have reason to celebrate after Monday’s big Supreme Court NCAA decision. In today’s episode, David and Sarah discuss the ins and outs of National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, a unanimous ruling that paves the way for college athletes to receive compensation beyond scholarships as long as it is tied to their education. Our hosts talk about how the case will set a precedent for the future, and analyze a concurrence from the court’s very own basketball coach, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Also on the podcast, Sarah walks through two other Supreme Court rulings on security fraud and patents. Finally, David and Sarah chat about her recent Twitter spat with Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler about standing in the Obamacare case. Show Notes: -National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston -Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System -United States v. Arthrex Inc. -Jonathan Adler’s Reason article about the Supreme Court Obamacare case Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Welcome to the Advisory Opinions podcast. Sarah, we have Supreme Court opinions. Sarah, we have
0:10.4	NCAA. Very, very exciting. For some reason, so Scott and I completed some of our chicken
0:18.8	sandwich updates this weekend. And our conversation was all about the NCAA case. I must have had
0:25.4	a six-sense intuition that we were getting it very popped. Yeah, this case, okay, I'm just going
0:32.0	to go ahead and I'm just going to lay my cards on the table. Any trust makes my head hurt, okay,
0:41.7	this is not their aspects of this case that are going to be easy to talk about. Their aspects of
0:47.9	this case that are not going to be super easy to talk about. And I know for a fact, we have anti-trust
0:54.5	lawyers who listen to this podcast. I'm going to just go ahead and right now ask for your grace,
1:01.1	okay, because we're going to do our best. I'm going to do my best, but there's some big themes
1:06.5	we're going to talk about. And some really kind of fun facts that we're going to talk about. So
1:14.0	this case is going to be this case is like peeling an onion of legal goodness, but just as with
1:23.0	peeling the onion, it parts of it will kind of make my head hurt so much. I might bring a tear or
1:28.3	two to my eye. This is complicated. Any trust is complicated stuff. So we're going to dive into
1:34.0	that. We also have, or let me just offer a different perspective on any trust. It's all made up.
1:42.2	There you go. There you go. That makes it sound better. All right, we also have other
1:47.6	Supreme Court cases we're going to talk about. Not nearly as exciting as NCAA. And we're going
1:54.1	to have some additional commentary on California V Texas, the Obamacare case and some closing
2:01.2	thoughts about Fulton versus Philadelphia, the religious liberty case that we talked about last
2:06.1	week. So there is a lot. But before we get into it, Sarah, let's start with what do we have left
2:15.0	at the Supreme Court and is Bingo telling us anything then we'll dive into the NCAA?
2:21.6	So we've got 15 cases left. They've decided 48, by the way. I mean, this is,
2:27.4	this is a low number of opinions this year for sure. And that brings me to why Bingo was really
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Dispatch, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The Dispatch and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.