Two teenagers analyze how the decisions of the Supreme Court and the words of the Constitution play out behind the schoolhouse gate, with the help of legal experts, law professors, and attorneys.
High School SCOTUS
Claim This Podcastby Elise Spenner
4.9(14 reviews)
21 episodes
Updated Daily
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸
Podcast Overview
Two teenagers analyze how the decisions of the Supreme Court and the words of the Constitution play out behind the schoolhouse gate, with the help of legal experts, law professors, and attorneys.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
1/21/2022
2 verified contact emails on file for High School SCOTUS
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
July 23, 2023
A Close Read of the Affirmative Action Decision with Richard Ford
<p>After a brief interlude for an episode of LGBTQ+ rights, Elise is back with a second episode on the affirmative action decision, joined by Professor Richard Ford of Stanford Law School. Professor Ford offers his take on many of the same questions we put forward to Professor Stulberg: Is the diversity rationale still alive? What will the college admissions landscape look like after this decision? And how will socioeconomic status be used as an attempt to maintain diversity? He also walked Elise through the nuances of the majority opinion — namely, the Court refused to overturn Grutter and Bakke, leaving potential room for schools to continue considering race on an individual basis. Finally, Professor Ford spoke to the future of legacy admissions and what the optimal response to this decision would be from institutions of higher education.</p> <p><strong>Cases mentioned:</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023)</a></p> <p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/265/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)</a></p> <p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)</a></p> <p><strong>Further reading:</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/27/17509140/admissions-bias-personalities-harvard-affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"Bias against Asian-American students is real. Affirmative action isn’t the problem."</a> (Stacey J. Lee and Kevin K. Kumashiro, Vox)</p> <p><a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23405267/affirmative-action-supreme-court-ruling-race-harvard-unc-chapel-hill" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"The SCOTUS decision on affirmative action in colleges, explained."</a> (Fabiola Cineas and Ian Millhiser, Vox)</p> <p><a href="https://www.epi.org/blog/the-supreme-courts-ban-on-affirmative-action-means-colleges-will-struggle-to-meet-goals-of-diversity-and-equal-opportunity/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"The Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action means colleges will struggle to meet goals of diversity and equal opportunity"</a> (Adewale A. Maye, Economic Policy Institute)</p>
July 17, 2023
Slowing the Backslide: Protecting LGBTQ+ Rights with Joshua Block
<p>As a brief interlude to coverage of the Court's affirmative action decision, Hannah and Elise sat down with Joshua Block, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU, to discuss the legal battles to stop anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and the implications of the Court's recent decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. This is a long overdue conversation: LGBTQ+ rights are increasingly under attack across the country, but it is children and students who are most frequently the target of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, including attacks on their right to learn about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, their right to read diverse books, and their right to gender-affirming health care. And the conversation is especially timely given the Court's ruling in 303 Creative, holding that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violated a designer’s right to free speech by requiring her to design a website for a same-sex couple (a form of creative expression, the Court said).</p> <p><strong>Mentioned in this episode:</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)</a></p> <p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)</a></p> <p><a href="https://casetext.com/case/obergefell-v-hodges" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)</a></p> <p><a href="https://wp.api.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/23a0146p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">L.W. v. Skrmetti</a> (Sixth Circuit decision lifting injunction against Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care)</p> <p><strong>Further reading:</strong></p> <p><a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/education/3939606-advocates-plan-for-battle-as-desantis-preps-dont-say-gay-expansion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"Advocates plan for battle as DeSantis preps ‘Don’t Say Gay’ expansion"</a> (Brooke Migdon and Lexi Lonas, The Hill)</p> <p><a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/169316/supreme-court-303-creative-elenis" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"The Supreme Court Could Chop Away at Anti-Discrimination Law Based on Literally Nothing"</a> (Matt Ford, The New Republic)</p> <p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/08/opinion/supreme-court-religion.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"The Supreme Court’s Disorienting Elevation of Religion"</a> (Kate Shaw, The New York Times)</p>
July 12, 2023
The end of affirmative action with Lisa Stulberg
<p>Two weeks ago, the Court struck down race-conscious affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. In the first of many episodes to come, Elise and Hannah break down the opinion with Lisa Stulberg, a professor of sociology at NYU's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion answered some of our questions — universities will no longer be able to consider race as they historically have, and this Court no longer sees diversity as a compelling enough reason for affirmative action. But it also raised SO many questions about the future of college admissions and the higher education landscape: Will colleges use socioeconomic status as a proxy for race? Why do the justices fundamentally disagree on the role of racism in American society? What will the Common Application look like next fall? Elise, Hannah, and Professor Stulberg weighed all of those questions, and more, in this episode, so take a listen. And they'll be back in two weeks with more questions (and maybe, more answers).</p> <p><strong>Mentioned in this episode:</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023)</a></p> <p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/539/306/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)</a></p> <p><a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/265/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978)</a></p> <p><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_209,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1996)" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">California Proposition 209</a><strong></strong></p> <p><strong>Further reading:</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.ucop.edu/academic-affairs/prop-209/index.html#:~:text=Proposition%20209%2C%20passed%20in%201996,public%20contracting%20and%20public%20education." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"Research and Analyses on the Impact of Proposition 209 in California"</a> (University of California)</p> <p><a href="https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/11/4/derrick-bell-memory/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"The Living Memory of Derek Bell"</a> (The Harvard Crimson)</p> <p><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/09/16/supreme-court-cases-precedent-00056689" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferer">"The Other Way the Supreme Court is Nullifying Precedent"</a> (Politico)</p>
21 total episodes available
Deep-dive analytics for High School SCOTUS
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is High School SCOTUS?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates daily.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Yes, this podcast regularly features guests.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.