OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3

In this week’s super-sized episode, we conclude our three-part role-playing experiment “You Be The Supreme Court,” using an actual case that is currently pending before the Court:  Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley.

Last time, we went through the State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources’s response brief.  This week, we look at the Petitioner Trinity Lutheran Church’s reply brief, which is the final exchange before the Court hears oral argument and renders an opinion.

In our opening segment, we tackle a pair of viral election what-ifs, examining whether Bernie Sanders (or Evan McMullin) could really win the Presidency if they manage to win one state.  (Hint: there’s a reason we tackled this in “Closed Arguments”!)  In our closing segment, Andrew predicts how the Supreme Court will actually rule in the case.

Be sure to turn in next week when we tackle another famous Espionage Act case — Edward Snowden!

Show Notes & Links

  1. How Bernie Sanders Could Become President With Only 130,000 Votes
  2. 538’s slightly-less-ridiculous-but-still-clickbaity “How Evan McMullin Could Win Utah and the Presidency.”
  3. All of the briefs filed in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley are online.
  4. Petitioner’s reply brief can be found here.
  5. McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)
  6. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988)
  7. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 US 819 (1995)

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

One thought on “OA18: You Be The Supreme Court, Part 3”

  1. This was a great series of episodes–so interesting and informative.

    While watching the debate tonight, we were discussing alternatives to Clinton’s education plan, and a question came up that was relevant to the legal arguments in this case.

    Let’s say that instead of making particular post-secondary institutions (e.g., community colleges) free (which we thought was problematic for a few reasons), the government provided all prospective students with vouchers that could be used at an educational institution of their choosing.

    Would the government have to restrict the use of these vouchers so that they can’t be used at, say, seminaries? In other words, would allowing their use at seminaries be the equivalent of subsidizing religious instruction?

Leave a Reply