Plus: The Court DIGs (dismisses as improvidently granted) the Hamm v. Smith death penalty case after 23 relists — a messy Atkins v. Virginia intellectual disability fight with borderline IQ scores.

And a quick hit on states suing states: Florida & Texas vs. California on driver’s licenses and Justice Thomas’s fiery original jurisdiction dissent.

Originalist takes on property rights, cruel and unusual punishment, and why the Court sometimes says “never mind.”

This week on Rightly Decided, Laura Beth Latimer, Nathan Seltzer, and Chance Weldon bypass the cultural hair-on-fire reporting surrounding the mifepristone litigation (Danco v. Louisiana) to talk about what’s actually keeping appellate lawyers awake at night: Article III standing.

We’re tracing the legal gymnastics of standing—from the controversial "special solicitude" granted to states in 2007’s Massachusetts v. EPA, all the way to Louisiana's current attempt to force the federal government to enforce the law.

What we’re covering: 

• The 10,000-Foot View: How the Biden Administration's post-Dobbs push to "pull every lever" led to bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and FDA patient safety protocols. 
• The Standing Problem: Why an emergency room doctor doesn't have the standing to sue the FDA, but Louisiana thinks it does. 
• Shadow Docket Chaos: What a "stay of a stay" actually means on the ground for drug manufacturers and state laws. 
• The Dissents: Why Justice Alito wanted to hit the brakes, and Justice Thomas’s one-page mic-drop invoking the Comstock Act to point out a problem of criminal proportions.

If you want to understand the actual mechanics of how the administrative state gets challenged in federal court, let’s get into it.

Then it’s time for a deep dive into Louisiana’s Voting Rights Act showdown (Louisiana v. Callais). Expect spirited conversation about racial gerrymandering, partisan map-drawing, cracking and packing, constitutional avoidance, and why Section 2 of the VRA isn’t quite as simple as the media says it is.

Laura Beth Latimer is joined by Chance Weldon and Nathan Seltzer to break down Nathan v. Alamo Heights ISD. We discuss why the court held that Stone v. Graham no longer controls after the Supreme Court killed the Lemon test in Kennedy v. Bremerton, and what the new historical “hallmarks of establishment” test means going forward.

We cover:

— Vertical stare decisis and when lower courts can move past undermined precedent

— The six historical hallmarks of religious establishment

— Issues of coercion, compelled financial support, and compulsory school attendance

— Offended-observer standing and the limits of Article III jurisdiction

A sharp, originalist discussion on religion in public schools and the future of Establishment Clause jurisprudence—with a likely Supreme Court appeal ahead.

What do you think—did the Fifth Circuit go too far, or get it right?

Also, we pull back the curtain on the "Shadow Docket." While often criticized by the mainstream media as a "secret" tool, we explain the legal necessity of the emergency docket, how it actually functions, and why it remains a vital component of the Court’s ability to provide timely relief in urgent cases.

In This Episode:

— The Lion of the Court: Key takeaways from Justice Thomas’s UT speech and his "unyielding" approach to the Constitution.

— A Breach of Tradition: Analyzing the legal and ethical implications of the recent SCOTUS leak.

— Demystifying the Shadow Docket: The difference between the merits docket and the emergency docket, why the "shadow" moniker is a misnomer for standard procedural stays, and the impact of emergency rulings on national policy.

— The Future of Judicial Integrity: How the conservative legal movement should respond to increasing pressure on the judiciary.

We are joined by two key figures in this unfolding legal drama:

— Haley Kyles: A Dallas resident and lead plaintiff in the first major citizen-led enforcement lawsuit under HB 2127. Haley discusses why she stepped forward as a client in the Death Star litigation to challenge dozens of Dallas ordinances that she argues are unconstitutionally preempted by state law.

— Ben Crockett: A Policy Scholar at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and expert on local government issues. Ben breaks down the policy intent behind the bill, how it aims to protect small businesses, and the mechanics of its implementation.

In this episode, we discuss:

— How the law allows private citizens—not just the state—to sue their local governments for failing to repeal preempted rules.

— What "Death Star" implementation looks like on the ground for taxpayers and property owners.

— The future of local control in Texas and the legal precedents these lawsuits will set for the entire state.

In this episode of Rightly Decided, we take a close look at Villareal v. Alaniz, a case the Supreme Court declined to hear, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s sharp dissent from that denial.

Our discussion unpacks qualified immunity from soup to nuts. We then turn to the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity and to Justice Sotomayor’s broader critique of how the doctrine operates in practice. We examine her argument that qualified immunity increasingly functions as a near-absolute bar to relief, even where constitutional violations are plausibly alleged, and consider what this means for civil rights enforcement, police accountability, and the rule of law.

Along the way, we place Villareal in the Court’s larger qualified immunity jurisprudence, assess whether Sotomayor’s concerns are borne out in lower-court doctrine, and explore the implications of the Court’s continued reluctance to revisit or clarify the defense.

Tune in for a rigorous, grounded conversation at the intersection of constitutional theory, civil procedure, and real-world effects.

In a massive 8-1 victory for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court just ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that "talk therapy" is protected speech—full stop.

Colorado tried to claim they were just regulating a "medical procedure," but the Court saw right through the smoke. Today, we’re breaking down how Justice Gorsuch and the majority sent a clear message: the state cannot ban a counselor’s viewpoint just because they don't like the message. This isn't just a win for counselors; it’s a firewall for every American professional who refuses to be a mouthpiece for the state.

In this episode, we’re diving into:

🥊 The 8-1 Knockout: Why even the liberal wing couldn't ignore this blatant viewpoint discrimination.

🗣️ Conduct vs. Speech: How the Court dismantled the “professional speech” argument.

🎉 Victory for the First Amendment: Why Chiles v. Salazar is the most important free speech win of the session.

Tune in as we dissect the legal victory that illustrates once and for all: the Constitution means what it says. The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

We dive into the unanimous SCOTUS ruling in Olivier v. City of Brandon, which revitalizes your right to sue the government even with a prior conviction. Then, we pivot to the $4 million "Afroman" trial, where an Ohio jury protected the sacred American tradition of poking fun at public officials (using their own body cam footage, no less).

What we cover in this episode:

🏛️ The Death of Heck? Why the Supreme Court ruled that a past conviction cannot block citizens from challenging unconstitutional laws in federal court.

⚖️ The "Afroman" Verdict: A jury’s March 18, 2026 ruling that political satire—and yes, meme-worthy music videos—isn’t an “invasion of privacy.”

📜 Satire vs. The State: A look at how these two victories prove that the First Amendment is still alive and well in American jurisprudence – and in our hearts.

We also take a quick detour into Sixth Amendment fallout in Burnett v. United States, the possibility of sentences beyond statutory maximums, and the effects of appellate waivers.

What we cover in this episode:

• The Death of Probable Cause? Why the Court in Case v. Montana decided an "objectively reasonable basis" is enough to breach the home when life is on the line.
• Justice Gorsuch’s Concurrence: Exploring his theory that the Fourth Amendment is rooted in criminal trespass and why he warns that these entries must be tightly tied to common-law property rules, not just “reasonable expectations of privacy.”
• The Trap of the Waiver: A look at Burnett v. United States and how a defendant's plea to extended supervised release can result in a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum.

We dig into a California rule that requires teachers to hide a child’s social transition from parents, and why the Supreme Court hit pause on the rule instead of waiting on the Ninth Circuit to weigh in.

What We’re Unpacking:

· Demystifying the "Shadow Docket": What exactly is the emergency docket, and how do courts use it to decide the status quo before a case is even fully argued?

· Conservative Concerns: Discover why the phrase "Substantive Due Process" makes some textualist judges break out in a cold sweat.

· Parental Rights 101: Learn how John Locke, natural law, and the fundamental right to raise your kids predate the government itself.

· Irreparable Harm: Why the state keeping secrets from parents creates a rift and inflicts damage that a court ruling simply can't undo later.

From the basics of ex post facto to the allegedly modern right to actually speak in your own defense, we’re tracing the line from the Founders to the October 2025 term.

This episode covers two cases:

• Ellingburg v. United States: Can you be fined for something that wasn’t illegal when you did it? Does it matter if it’s just a civil penalty? We discuss why Justice Thomas is basically ghostwriting for Justice Samuel Chase and how maybe, just maybe, natural law is suddenly the most relevant doctrine in a 2026 appellate brief.
• Villarreal v. Texas: What happens when a "fundamental" right is younger than the Justices on the bench? We tackle the 6th Amendment conflict of this year: the right to testify vs. the overnight gag order.

Dust off your copy of the Constitution and settle in. We're serving up heavy Originalism with a side of Natural Rights. Whether you’re a FedSoc regular or a Living Constitutionalist, you can’t afford to miss this jurisdictional vibe shift.

Is the president a babysitter with a credit card? Is there a “major questions” exception to the major questions doctrine? How clear does Congress have to be when it delegates its enumerated powers to the president?

What we cover in this episode:
🏛️ The 6–3 SCOTUS ruling: Why the IEEPA doesn't authorize global tariffs
⚖️ The "Major Questions" plurality and the limits of emergency authority
🔮 The future of the major questions doctrine and nondelegation of congressional authority