Trump v. Anderson & Class Action Madness

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

The Heritage Foundation

Government

4.5 • 527 Ratings

🗓️ 8 February 2024

⏱️ 46 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

This week brings us the biggest oral argument of the term: Trump v. Anderson, which will decide whether states can disqualify President Trump from the ballot. Your hosts recap the complicated legal issues and explore oral arguments. Zack and GianCarlo also discuss the two opinions released this week, which involve whistleblower protections and suing the government for false credit reporting. Zack interviews legendary class action lawyer Ted Frank who talks about his career and his now-famous debunking of part of Justice Jackson's opinion in the affirmative action cases. Lastly, Zack takes the trivia hot-seat to answer questions about Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase.

Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, 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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.
0:06.0	I'm John Carlo Conoparo.
0:07.0	I'm Zach Smith.
0:08.0	And welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court,
0:14.0	what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.
0:22.8	Welcome back to SCOTUS 101.
0:24.2	Welcome back, GC.
0:28.8	We've been all for a few weeks, but this has been a big week at the Supreme Court.
0:33.4	The court heard oral arguments in the Colorado case where the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the ballot in that state.
0:37.2	And so we'll get to that argument in
0:39.3	just a moment, and it was a big one. But, G.C., why don't you first tell us about the opinions that
0:44.7	the court released this week? Yeah, absolutely. So the first is Department of Agriculture versus
0:49.0	Kurtz. This was a unanimous decision by Justice Gorsuch, where the court held that a consumer may sue a federal agency for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
0:59.4	So in this case, Kurtz secured and later fully repaid a loan from the Department of Agriculture, but the department repeatedly reported the loan as unpaid, which had devastating effects on his credit, and refused to take any corrective
1:11.9	action when Kurtz made the agency aware of its error. So he sued the agency under the Fair
1:18.0	Credit Reporting Act, which allows you to sue a lender who negligently or willfully supplies
1:22.7	false information to a credit reporting agency. And the department said, well, you can't sue us.
1:27.2	We have sovereign immunity, but the court held, well, you can't sue us. We have sovereign
1:27.7	immunity, but the court held that nope, sovereign immunity is waived in this statute. So there's no
1:33.7	excuses for negligent reporting even for the federal government. Next up, the court released its
1:38.4	opinion in Murray v. UBS securities. This was another unanimous decision this time. This one was written by Justice
1:45.2	Sotomayor, and the court held that if a whistleblower files a claim alleging that he was
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

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.