Advisory Opinions (The Dispatch)
Episode: "An Inconsequential Term?" – July 17, 2025
Hosts: Sarah Isgur, David French
Guest: Canon Shanmugam (Supreme Court litigator)
Episode Overview
In this annual “Truth Tradition” live episode for Paul Weiss summer associates, Sarah, David, and Canon Shanmugam dissect the just-concluded Supreme Court term and discuss circuit court quirks, judicial philosophies, the practicalities (and absurdities) of Supreme Court filings, and some classic summer associate lore. The core theme: Was this term really consequential, or is the Court entering a quieter phase? Alongside, the hosts analyze trends in judicial philosophy and respond to critiques of their branding of Justice Jackson, peppered with lively banter about legal traditions and, of course, barbecue.
Key Topics & Discussion Points
1. Summer Associate Lore and Legal Work Culture
[03:41] - [06:28]
- Opening banter is full of “summer associate drama” stories—most notably this year’s notorious “biter” who was fired for literally biting other interns, likened to the infamous “Aquagirl” who drunkenly jumped off a booze cruise into the Hudson and needed Coast Guard rescue.
- Sarah Isgur [04:07]: “...a picture of a bite going around that is on the arm with a full bite, like, bruising and everything.”
- Reflections on how such legendary tales signal a return to the pre-2008 boom-mentality and “ecosystem health” of legal firms.
- Sarah Isgur [05:58]: “Maybe this is a sign of the ecosystem's health that we're returning to crazy summer associate stories. It means the firms are back.”
2. Supremes: Florida Immigration Law and the Non-Party Injunction Dilemma
[06:28] - [18:46]
- Deep-dive into Florida’s SB4C, which criminalized illegal entry into the state. The law faced an injunction that not only covered the listed defendants but also sweepingly enjoined “non-party” law enforcement.
- Sarah Isgur [08:38]: “So we had the Supreme Court unanimously, it appears, no noted dissents reject an appeal from the state of Florida...”
- Implications of Trump v. Casa and putative class action maneuvers, contrasting non-party plaintiffs and non-party defendants in multi-jurisdictional enforcement contexts.
- David French [10:53]: “If you're talking about in a law enforcement context, you have...all different kinds...Is the answer...we’ve got to sue every law enforcement official in Florida?...”
- Canon Shanmugam [09:57]: Courts are achieving “largely similar results” post-Casa using class actions, but overall impact is “relatively modest.”
- Discussion of the birthright citizenship litigation in New Hampshire—challenges of defining class scope when individual cases may differ by legal fact.
- Sarah Isgur [13:39]: “But like if the class for the birthright citizenship case up in New Hampshire is all babies born in the United States to a mother here without permanent status...That seems like a problem.”
3. Judicial Philosophy & the "Resistance Justice" Debate (Justice Jackson)
[20:22] - [34:50]
- The hosts field an incisive listener email (Joshua Windom of the Institute for Justice) pushing back on their “Resistance Justice” label for Jackson, emphasizing that her dissent is not merely partisan but stems from her deep methodological critique (especially of text/history/tradition originalism).
- Email excerpt [21:39]: “...Justice Jackson is merely staking out her disagreements with the dominant judicial philosophy of the day, the text, history, and tradition variant of originalism. Whatever one thinks of her approach, she deserves more credit than to reduce her to the hashtag resistancejustice...”
- Canon acknowledges both parts: Jackson is “the sharpest critic of textualism” but also uniquely “strident” in dissent, sometimes critiquing the majority’s motives.
- Canon Shanmugam [23:58]: “I don't see why both of those things can't be true...she has been very sharply critical of the majority’s motives, going so far as to suggest that the majority is...doing the President’s bidding.”
- David zooms out: This vitriol is a product of an era with “very high anxiety and...pressure being applied” to public officials, leading even-tempered people (like Jackson) to sometimes “lose their temper” in dissent.
- David French [25:44]: “Pressure bursts pipes...the pressure of a moment is going to find the cracks, it’s going to find the seams.”
- They agree: Time will tell if this is Jackson’s permanent style or an outlier. Her jurisprudence is still evolving, perhaps closest to “purposivist”—-emphasizing legislative purpose/context over textual literalism.
4. The Court This Term: Blockbuster or Sleepy?
[44:06] - [47:59]
- Consensus: Not a “blockbuster” term—few transformative 5-4 or 6-3 cases and little doctrinal upheaval.
- Canon Shanmugam [44:06]: “I don't think it was a blockbuster term...there just were not the number of truly consequential cases...”
- Even headline cases (Trump v. Casa, the Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for minors) may have limited down-the-road impact or merely follow popular democratic sentiment, not disrupt it.
- David French [46:03]: “...a term less consequential...when it’s just kind of gone along with the crowd, if that makes sense.”
5. The Evolving Docket and Disappearing Blocks of Case Law
[67:02] - [72:34]
- Hazardously shrinking docket: Fewer merits cases (now 55–60 per year), rise of the “emergency docket,” vanishing business and criminal procedure cases.
- Canon Shanmugam [67:02]: “The business docket feels like it has really disappeared...The Fourth Amendment cases have really disappeared. Very few cases coming from state courts more generally.”
- David observes: Many "classic" culture war disputes are already settled (Roe, guns, public funding for religious institutions) at Supreme Court level. Religion cases, especially free exercise, remain robust.
- David French [71:13]: “...If I could find it, it would say settled, decided, settled, decided. Now, there are lots of ancillary issues...but a lot of the classic culture war issues have been in many ways largely resolved...”
6. Circuit Court Geography, Politics, and Personality
[50:02] - [63:20]
- Sarah guides listeners through a U.S. Circuit Court geography lesson, colored with stereotypical state rivalries and jokes about Texas and California.
- Sarah Isgur [53:24]: “I’m just very pleased that, as Texans, Oklahoma and Arkansas aren’t in our circuit. Like, that feels so right...”
- Analysis of Circuit Court composition by president-appointee—First, DC, Federal, and coastal Circuits are heavily Democratic; Fifth and Eighth are the most solidly Republican.
- Discussion of circuit “personalities”: The erstwhile “fractious” Sixth Circuit, fast-healing Eighth, and why lawyers still strategize case placement for maximum advantage.
- Canon Shanmugam [56:36]: “The Republican appointees in one circuit may be very different from Republican appointees in another but...there is a lot of truth to the fact that...the identity of the presidents who have made the nominations tells you something about the jurisprudence of the circuit.”
- Texas-centric banter and the “vacation circuit” status of the Tenth.
7. Supreme Court Rituals: Paper, Pens, and Quills
[36:51] - [43:51]
- The absurdity (and charm) of Supreme Court’s paper brief requirements: 40 bound copies per filing, special paper/ink/format, thousands in printing and shipping costs. Sarah proposes only printing copies for granted certs.
- Canon Shanmugam [39:06]: “For a big case it could run into five figures. And that is an enormous amount of money at a time when more and more people...are reading...in electronic form.”
- Quills, colored pens—legal "flexes" for Supreme Court practitioners.
8. Q&A – Hot Topics
[63:20] - [78:55]
Splitting the Ninth Circuit:
- The hosts explain that splitting would be complicated and potentially a political hot potato, with Canon noting administrative improvements have reduced the old urgency.
- Canon Shanmugam [65:30]: “I think now [the 9th Circuit] operates largely the same way as any other circuit.”
- Sarah Isgur [66:18]: “Split California in half and split the circuit, and that’s the way life works.”
Docket Choices and Non-Blockbuster Terms:
- Is the pedestrian term due to the RC’s own choices? Canon: The docket is shrinking, but it’s not that they’re “ducing” big cases; more that certain issue areas (business, criminal) are less present.
- Canon Shanmugam [67:02]: “The size of the docket has now seemingly bottomed out...emergency docket seemed almost more consequential than the merits docket.”
Parental Rights Cases and the Supreme Court’s Reluctance:
- Why did the Court grant cert in Mahmoud (religion/parental opt-out) and not Scarmetti (parents, gender-affirming care)? Sheer issue avoidance; reluctance to expand unenumerated rights.
- Sarah Isgur [78:49]: “The state had banned private schools...and so the school sued...The parental right to send your kid to a school.”
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- Sarah Isgur [03:41]: “...a standout summer associate story of the biter. This is a summer associate who has been fired from a law firm this summer, allegedly for biting multiple people.”
- Canon Shanmugam [09:57]: “Putative class action is enough...the practical impact of CASA is going to turn out to be relatively modest.”
- David French [23:58]: “I think one of the issues...is we’re living in a time of very high anxiety and...pressure...I feel like with Justice Jackson...she kind of lost her temper here over this issue in a way that did malign the motives of the majority.”
- David French [71:13]: “A lot of the classic culture war issues have been in many ways largely resolved at the Supreme Court...What are the big culture war issues that are just still hanging out there?”
- Sarah Isgur [53:24]: “...don’t mess with Texas...Matthew McConaughey blow darting people who litter and throwing their lifeless bodies in the back of his truck...and dumps them in Arkansas.”
Timestamps by Segment
| Start | Topic | |:---------:|----------------------------------------------| | 03:41 | Summer associate stories | | 06:28 | Florida SB4C, national + statewide injunctions, Trump v. Casa | | 18:46 | Ad break (skip) | | 20:22 | Judicial philosophy, Justice Jackson pushback | | 34:50 | Changing dynamics: the Court, Kagan, etc. | | 44:06 | Evaluating the term (“blockbuster” or not) | | 50:02 | Circuit geography and quirks | | 54:35 | Circuit composition – party of appointing president | | 56:36 | Circuit “personalities”; strategy in forum selection | | 61:21 | Circuit court health, 5th Circuit trends | | 63:20 | Q&A: Splitting the 9th, docket choice, parental rights | | 78:55 | Wrap-up and barbecue jokes |
Conclusion
The hosts and guest conclude that the 2024–25 Supreme Court term, despite ample noise and culture war heat in the background, changed little at the ground level. There’s more consensus with public opinion, less major constitutional innovation, and a Court unsettled on some methodological divides. The personality and philosophy of individual justices (especially new arrivals) matter more than ever, yet the real engine behind change—the cases taken—suggests quieter years ahead. All this, delivered with their signature dry wit and lawyerly specificity.