In our complex modern society, federal agencies regulate nearly every important element of American life, from the quality and safety of our air, water and food to the safety and availability of medications and consumer products. Recent Supreme Court decisions are significantly changing how those agencies can operate. Agencies may no longer be able to regulate matters of great economic and political significance without express Congressional direction. No longer are courts required to defer to an agency’s expertise when interpreting ambiguities in regulatory statutes.

The Supreme Court has just decided three major cases that will profoundly shape First Amendment limits on governments' ability to regulate social media, and First Amendment law more generally - NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice (involving Texas and Florida laws restricting social media companies' content moderation) and Murthy v. Missouri (addressing who may challenge government communications that allegedly compel content moderation).

0:13:03 Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of upholding a 1994 ban on persons with restraining orders having access to firearms. While the outcome in U.S. v. Rahimi wasn’t entirely unexpected, it did offer our first glimpse into how the conservative-majority Court would handle gun rights cases going forward.

#gunrights #supremecourt #gunlaws #secondamendment #podcast

Speakers:
- Duke Law Professor Joseph Blocher
- Duke Center for Firearms Law Co-founder Darrell A.H. Miller*
- Duke Center for Firearms Law Exec. Director Andrew Willinger

​In this episode of the Duke Law Podcast, Andrew Willinger, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, discusses 'United States v. Rahimi' – the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Court since its landmark ruling in 'New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen last summer' – leading up to the Supreme Court hearing oral argument on November 7.

While the artist Prince rocked fans for decades, an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a 1981 portrait of him could potentially rock America's copyright law and fair use doctrine. 

In this episode of the Duke Law Podcast, two of the most highly citied scholars on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen – Duke Law Prof. Joseph Blocher and Prof. Darrell A. H. Miller – unpack what happened and what’s at stake with the U.S. Supreme Court’s November 3 hearing of its first major gun rights case since 2008.

In this discussion, entitled "Deciphering the U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments in NYSRPA v. Bruen," Duke Law Professor Joseph Blocher, faculty co-director of Duke’s Center for Firearms Law, and Duke Law Lecturing Fellow Jake Charles, the Center’s executive director, host a discussion with Mary McCord, Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. The conversation focuses on takeaways from the Nov. 3, 2021, Supreme Court oral arguments in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v.

The Duke Law community came together to honor the life and legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Remarks were delivered from those who knew Justice Ginsburg personally or studied, taught, or engaged with her life's work.

We have also set up a KudoBoard to allow members of the Duke community to share the ways in which Justice Ginsburg has influenced or inspired them (https://www.kudoboard.com/boards/OKeLQ5LK).

Sponsored by The Women's Law Students Association, the Program in Public Law, and the Dean's Office.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty discuss implications of the ruling for current law and future constitutional challenges.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and Ames Simmons (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty discuss marginalized persons that remain excluded from the ruling’s protections.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and Ames Simmons (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty discuss how the ruling might impact President Trump’s recent orders rolling back health care protections for transgender people.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and Ames Simmons (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty discuss Justice Gorsuch’s opinion.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and Ames Simmons (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Professor Trina Jones calls the decision “a glimmer of hope” in the midst of an assault on rights.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and James Coleman (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty share their reactions to the historic decision.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and Ames Simmons (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty share potential insights for students in the Supreme Court’s historic decision.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and Ames Simmons (Duke Law).

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty reflect on how this ruling might strengthen claims for employment discrimination.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and Ames Simmons (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

On June 15, 2020, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Duke Law faculty discuss Justice Gorsuch’s interpretation of the word ‘sex’ in this decision.

Appearing: Trina Jones (Duke Law), Carolyn McAllaster (Duke Law) and James Coleman (Duke Law)

Originally recorded on June 18, 2020.

A discussion on gun reform after the Supreme Court’s first hearing on the Second Amendment in 10 years, State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York (NYSRPA). The case represents the first time the Supreme Court has heard arguments in a Second Amendment case in almost 10 years. NYSRPA concerns a challenge to a New York City regulation that restricted individuals who hold “premises licenses”—those that allow individuals to possess a gun at home—from bringing their firearms to shooting ranges or second homes outside the City.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses the Court's 2018-19 term, followed by an interview with Duke Law Professor Neil S. Siegel. The event took place in Washington, D.C. on July 24, 2019.

Duke Law Professors Curtis Bradley, Margaret Lemos, Stephen Sachs and Ernest Young discuss the future direction of the Supreme Court in light of the replacement of Justice Kennedy with Justice Kavanaugh. Moderated by Marin Levy.

Sponsored by The Program in Public Law.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses the Court's 2017-18 term, followed by an interview with Duke Law Professor Neil S. Siegel.

This event was sponsored by Duke Law and Duke DC, and held in the Washington office of Jones Day on August 1, 2018.

At a July 21 Duke Law event in Washington, D.C., Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recapped the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016-17 term and discussed its recent consensus among the justices, its rulings on the scope of the Trump administration’s “travel ban” executive order, and her legal legacy during an interview with Professor Neil Siegel.

What does the future of reproductive rights look like? Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a recently decided Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requiring abortion clinics in the state to have facilities comparable to an ambulatory surgical center, may give us a hint. Tara Romano, the Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina, joins Prof. Neil Siegel and Prof. Katharine Bartlett on the panel.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses Justice Antonin Scalia and summarizes the major cases of the 2015-16 term, followed by a wide-ranging interview with Duke Law Professor Neil S. Siegel. This event was sponsored by Duke Law's D.C. Summer Institute on Law & Policy and DukeDC, the Duke Alumni Association chapter in the Washington, DC region, and held in the Washington office of Jones Day on August 4, 2016.

A discussion with Professors Neil S. Siegel and Christopher H. Schroeder of Duke Law and Professor William P. Marshall of UNC Law on the process, pitfalls, and potential reforms surrounding the Supreme Court's vacancy following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Sponsored by the American Constitution Society.