A major morning drop at the Supreme Court completely reshaped the landscape of administrative law and the unitary executive theory. In this episode of Rightly Decided, Laura Beth Latimer is joined by Nathan Seltzer and Clayton Calvin to break down two blockbuster, newly released opinions: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook.

Are independent agencies officially a thing of the past, or has SCOTUS carved out a permanent "headless fourth branch" for the Federal Reserve? Tune in for a comprehensive, originalist breakdown of how these rulings affect democratic accountability and the balance of power between Congress and the Executive.

• Trump v. Slaughter (6-3): The Supreme Court officially overrules the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, holds that the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) "for-cause" removal protections violate the Vesting Clause of Article II, restoring the president's unilateral authority to fire independent agency board members. We discuss the historical context—from the Decision of 1789 to James Wilson's views on executive unity—and what Justice Gorsuch’s powerful concurrence signals for the future of the non-delegation doctrine.

• Trump v. Cook (5-4): In a surprising shift via the shadow docket, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh cross over to side with the liberal bloc, ruling that the president cannot immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Why did the court handle the Fed differently than the FTC? We unpack the critical roles of party presentation, historical national bank precedents (McCulloch v. Maryland), and the statutory procedural due process issues that triggered Justice Thomas’s solo dissent.

What happens when a Texas Supreme Court Justice walks into a podcast studio? You get an episode packed with everything from Monsters, Inc. jokes to hardcore constitutional theory.

Hosts Laura Beth Latimer and Clayton Calvin are joined by Justice James P. Sullivan (aka "Judge Sully") of the Texas Supreme Court to talk life, law, why judicial opinions don’t have to be a snooze fest, and what it takes to display judicial courage – even when it means risking an election.

Also in this episode:

• The "Judge Sully" Origin Story: How a college football injury (and hitting Drew Brees in practice) accidentally created a Texas Supreme Court Justice.
• Old School Process: Why he prefers printing hard copies and "drawing mustaches in the margins" over relying on the cloud.
• Pop Culture & The Law: Why he channels his inner Antonin Scalia to inject wit, zingers, and The Big Lebowski context into legal writing.
• The Ultimate Law Nerd Debate: Breaking down the real difference between Textualism and "Bloodthirsty Originalism."
• The Lightning Round: Why he’d keep the even-numbered Bill of Rights amendments, his favorite pre-1950 Justice, and his definitive (originalist) Star Wars take.

In this episode of Rightly Decided, the litigators from the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future begin by breaking down a major Fifth Circuit victory that struck down an 1869 federal ban on home distilling of spirits. They analyze the McNutt and Hobby Distillers Association v. U.S. Department of Justice case, dissecting standing doctrine, the limits of the taxing power, and the Necessary and Proper Clause’s role in preserving federalism.

They also highlight their litigation targeting the Hughes Amendment’s ban on post-1986 machine guns (Temple Gun Club v. Blanche), and the FinCEN case (Corley v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury) involving Treasury rules on residential real estate transfers.

In this episode of Rightly Decided, the litigators from the Texas Public Policy Foundation return to the hallowed (and slightly dusty) halls of the Supreme Court. Fresh off getting sworn into the SCOTUS bar, Clayton Calvin gives us a behind-the-scenes look at drop days in June and what it’s really like to watch the justices read from the bench.

Then, the team unpacks a trio of fascinating cases that touch everything from delivery vans to death penalty appeals:

• The "Last Mile" Loophole: How a Gorsuch-authored, unanimous decision in Flower Foods impacts interstate commerce, delivery drivers, and why originalists aren't crying into their pillows over it.
• The Magic Words of Jury Selection: A deep dive into Pitchford v. Cain and the messy reality of trial law. What happens when a judge cuts off a Batson challenge? How far does an attorney have to go to preserve a constitutional claim without completely infuriating the bench?
• The FCC's Empty Threats: An 8-1 breakdown of FCC v. AT&T. The government completely rewrites its own playbook on the fly, leading Chief Justice Roberts to send an emphatic message to agencies about how they interpret their rules.

Key Takeaways From the Episode

• The Wickard Distinction: Why the Flower Foods case is a traditional application of interstate commerce routing rather than an aggressive expansion of the substantial effects test.
• The Debate Over Party Presentation: Chance and Laura Beth lock horns (amicably) on Article 3, footnotes, and how much a judge should rely strictly on the arguments framed by the litigants.
• An Invitation to Ignore: Why the Supreme Court's ruling on the FCC's non-self-enforcing penalties might just incentivize companies to start tossing administrative "orders" straight into the recycling bin.

Enjoying our mostly originalist takes? Leave us a review, drop a comment, and don't forget to subscribe for more breakdown of the nation's biggest legal battles.

TPPF's National Election Protection Project Director Josh Findlay provides a timely deep dive into the seismic changes in redistricting following the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais.

Josh, a veteran election lawyer who served as the RNC’s first National Director of Election Integrity, breaks down how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has shaped congressional maps for decades. We explore the shift away from race-based districting as the predominant factor, the practical fallout in states like Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia, and the controversial push for mid-decade redistricting.

We also get into the Purcell principle, the tension between race and partisan considerations in map-drawing, standing and mootness issues in election litigation, and what the post-Callais landscape means for the 2026 and 2028 election cycles. With up to 70 congressional seats potentially in play, this episode offers critical insight into the new frontier of election integrity battles.

What happens when cruise lines dock at “stolen” Cuban property? In Havana Docks v. Royal Caribbean, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that using confiscated Havana docks triggers massive liability under the LIBERTAD Act — even after the original property interest expired. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion drops a history lesson from 1905 to the Cuban Revolution.

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.”

When the FDA openly admits it skipped its own procedural rules to fast-track the Biden administration’s post-Dobbs agenda, who exactly has the right to drag them into court over it?

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.

This week, the crew wades into two fresh-from-the-Court opinions (with a healthy dose of side-eye and sword-of-Damocles metaphors). First up: Can a pro-life pregnancy center sue in federal court when the New Jersey AG demands their donor list (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport)? The Supreme Court delivers a unanimous, common-sense smackdown on standing that’ll warm the hearts of First Amendment (and standing) fans everywhere.

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.