Hello, fellow law nerds.

Welcome to another episode of Boom Lawyard, a rewire.

Dot News podcast hosted by the legal journalism team that wouldn't mind if there were a take

a dragon, leave a dragon jar so we could fly one around, just laying waste to the

land. I'm Imani Gandhi. And I'm Jess Piclo. Rewire. News is dedicated to bringing you the best

reproductive rights and social justice news, commentary, and analysis on the web, and the team legal

podcast is part of that mission. So a big thanks to our subscribers and a welcome

to our new listeners. Today we're going to talk about how the Supreme Court's ruling in a

relatively boring case about tax law and civil procedure demonstrates that contrary to popular

belief and contrary to what justices may have claimed during their confirmation hearings,

Brad McBear, conservative justices on the court don't really care about precedent and will

gladly wipe out nearly 50 years of it in order to reach a result that they like.

The case is called Franchise Board of California versus What, what, Ammon, what Amani?

Ammani, did you not just fall asleep in the middle of saying the case name.

You did not do that.

But the case is so, but the case is so boring, Jess, and I don't want to.

I know, but we have to because it has serious implications

for stuff we care about, like Roe v. Wade. If the court is willing to wipe out 50 years of

precedent in a case about something like sovereign immunity, we have to tell our listeners what

that means for abortion rights. Okay, fine, you're right. You're absolutely, you're totally

right. The case is, you're totally right.

The case is called Franchise Board of California versus... Amani.

...