Counting Down the Supreme Court Term
The Supreme Court's final days of the 2025 term are shaping up to be a high-stakes drama, with 20 cases still pending and the Court's most consequential decisions hanging in the balance. Sarah Isger and David French dissect the remaining cases, from the deeply personal Landor v. Louisiana, where a Rastafarian prisoner's religious rights were violated in a brutal head-shaving incident, to the seismic implications of Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter, which could redefine presidential power over independent agencies. The hosts debate whether the Court will uphold the unitary executive theory, potentially dismantling decades of checks on presidential authority. They also explore the controversial gun ban for drug users in U.S. v. Hamani, where the Court may apply the 'bad man stays in jail' doctrine to justify restrictions on dangerous individuals. Meanwhile, the transgender athlete case, though less talked about in public discourse, could still deliver a 7-2 decision with Justice Kagan crafting a narrow ruling that preserves constitutional protections for marginalized groups. With the Court’s term nearing its end, the hosts warn that even minor delays could signal deep internal divisions — and that the real story may be the silence between the lines. The episode reveals a Court in transition, balancing tradition with bold legal innovation.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its final opinions by the end of June 2026, with only 20 cases remaining.
Landor v. Louisiana could set a precedent on whether religious liberty violations in prison warrant damages under RELUPA, despite egregious facts.
Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter may redefine presidential power, with the Court likely upholding the unitary executive theory and allowing removal of independent agency members without cause.
The transgender athlete case is expected to be decided 7-2, with Justice Kagan likely narrowing the ruling to preserve constitutional protections based on animosity.
Campaign finance limits are being challenged as excessive 'prophylactics' that distort political participation and amplify the influence of angry, fringe donors.
…and 3 more takeaways available in PodZeus
Welcome to the Final Stretch: Supreme Court Bingo and Term Wrap-Up
Sarah and David kick off the episode by setting the stage for the final days of the October Term 2025, introducing the concept of 'Supreme Court Bingo' and reviewing the remaining cases. They highlight the significance of the term’s conclusion and the anticipation surrounding the final opinions.
Landor v. Louisiana: Religious Liberty vs. Statutory Remedies
“The facts are so egregious that you almost have trouble in a country in which the idea that you get compensated for harm done to you, that's sort of a bedrock notion.”
NRSC v. FEC: The Collapse of Campaign Finance Prophylactics
“Money finds a way. It's like Jurassic Park. And so get rid of all of this, go to the same thing that, you know, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas have, which is no limits, full disclosure.”
U.S. v. Hamani: The 'Bad Man Stays in Jail' Doctrine and Gun Rights
“My answer is neither. Neither, right? And to lock it into text history and tradition, I think what the justices would say is if you look at the big sweep of American law, that's what they were trying to do.”
Wolford v. Lopez: Property Rights vs. State Defaults on Public Accommodations
The hosts debate whether Hawaii’s law requiring explicit signage to allow guns on private property violates Second Amendment rights. They explore the tension between private property rights and state-imposed defaults, questioning whether the state can override private ownership in public spaces.
“And so if all of that power is held in a single person, and he's simply delegating it to anyone else who works in the executive branch, then there is no such thing as doing a settlement with yourself.”
“Money finds a way. It's like Jurassic Park. And so get rid of all of this, go to the same thing that, you know, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas have, which is no limits, full disclosure.”
“And so I do think that one of the things that a Justice Kagan might do... is try to get a consensus but narrow ruling that preserves the ability for animosity to be a factor in the legal analysis.”
Hosts
David French
person
Sarah Isger
person
Landor v. Louisiana
other
California
other
Trump v. Cook
other
NRSC v. FEC
other
RELUPA
other
U.S. v. Hamani
other
Trump v. Slaughter
other
Federal Reserve
organization
President Trump’s Losing Streak
59m • 6/2/2026
Live From the Watergate Hotel! | Interview: Sarah Isgur
1h 9m • 6/3/2026
New Problems Need New Solutions - WAN Show May 29, 2026
3h 25m • 5/30/2026
From Tehran to the Border Trump Bets Big on Strength Strategy
33m • 5/30/2026
You voted. Does it matter?
27m • 5/30/2026
Start discovering podcast insights today
Start with a 7-day trial and explore a growing catalog of popular podcasts. No credit card required.
No credit card required • 7-day trial • Cancel anytime

