Advisory Opinions — “The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Term”
Podcast: Advisory Opinions (The Dispatch)
Date: October 2, 2025
Hosts: Sarah Isgur and David French
Episode Overview
This episode offers a fast-paced, insightful preview of the Supreme Court’s upcoming (October Term 2025) docket. Hosts Sarah Isgur and David French break down nine major cases poised to shape constitutional law, plus a last-minute surprise 10th case involving the Federal Reserve. Topics span presidential tariff powers, federal agency removal protections, transgender athletes in women’s sports, conversion therapy bans, racial gerrymandering, religious liberty for prisoners, campaign finance, the death penalty, and critical questions about who can challenge state subpoenas targeting politically sensitive organizations.
Key Segments & Discussion Points
1. Federal Reserve Board Emergency Docket Surprise
Timestamps: [01:58]–[04:53]
- The Supreme Court unexpectedly agreed to oral argument on whether Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can be fired—a rare move.
- Sarah: “This proves the point that the emergency docket, quote unquote, cannot be called emergency anymore when we're just gonna wait until January...”
- David: Compared to past agency firing stays, the decision to allow Cook to continue is significant and raises questions about differentiated treatment for the Federal Reserve.
Notable Quote
“They’re going to really have to explain why this is different, other than the consequences of it being not different.”
—Sarah Isgur ([03:58])
2. Trump’s Tariffs and the Major Questions Doctrine
Timestamps: [04:53]–[09:05]
- Two consolidated cases examine the legality of Trump-era tariffs.
- Discussion covered procedural maneuvers (Federal Circuit vs. D.C. District Court) and the expansion of the “major questions doctrine.”
- Debate centers on Congress’ authority to delegate tariff powers to the President, especially in emergencies or matters of foreign policy.
- David: Suggests that because tariffs are a clear congressional prerogative (Article I), the administration’s chances are slim.
Notable Quote
“We’re just left with the statutory interpretation here that goes against Trump.”
—David French ([08:50])
3. Trump v. Slaughter (FTC Commissioner Removal)
Timestamps: [09:05]–[15:03]
- Case could overturn Humphrey’s Executor (1935), which for decades insulated independent agency commissioners from at-will presidential removal.
- Discussion reviews originalism, separation of powers, and the “unitary executive theory.”
- Sarah: Reads extensively from Judge Kavanaugh’s writings questioning both the wisdom and constitutionality of shielding commissioners from presidential control.
- David: Notes a growing originalist challenge to unitary executive arguments; scholarly perspectives vary.
Notable Quote
“It’s beyond zombie at this point. What’s worse than zombie precedent?”
—David French ([09:46])
4. Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports (Little v. Hecox & West Virginia v. BPJ)
Timestamps: [15:03]–[24:23]
- Two cases question the constitutionality of state laws banning transgender girls from female sports teams.
- David: Frames the key legal question as whether transgender women are “similarly situated” to biological females under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. He argues sex, not gender identity, is the legally relevant category in sports.
- Coverage includes the mootness debate, statutory analysis, and why the hosts feel the outcome is predictable: upholding the bans.
Notable Quotes
“Are biological males, trans women, similarly situated to biological females when it comes to sports participation? ...Absolutely not.”
—David French ([19:11])
“I would be less shocked that Humphrey’s Executor lives than if the Supreme Court strikes down... sex distinctions in sports.”
—David French ([22:18])
5. Conversion Therapy Ban (Chili’s v. Salazar, Colorado)
Timestamps: [25:23]–[29:14]
- Challenges a Colorado law prohibiting conversion therapy for minors, focusing on whether counseling speech by licensed professionals is protected by the First Amendment.
- Sarah: Draws a dangerous parallel—if the state can ban conversion therapy speech, could it also ban affirming speech?
- David: Expects the Supreme Court’s strong free speech leanings to lead them to treat therapy as protected speech, rejecting mere rational basis review.
Notable Quote
“When you’re talking about therapy, which is just inherently talk ...this is going to be a zone where the First Amendment is going to extend into this, at least to some extent.”
—David French ([28:18])
6. Racial Gerrymandering (Louisiana v. Calais)
Timestamps: [29:14]–[33:14]
- Yet another Voting Rights Act Section 2 challenge, now from Louisiana, puts states in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position—ordered to create a second majority-minority district, then sued for unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.
- David: The overlap between race and partisanship in Southern states “stumps” him on predicting the outcome.
- Sarah: Recalls that the Court’s prior split decisions make this a highly unpredictable, contentious case.
Notable Quote
“This is the case in the term that I am completely stumped by the outcome. Don’t make me predict it, because I don’t know.”
—David French ([32:32])
7. Religious Liberty in Prison (Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections)
Timestamps: [33:14]–[36:57]
- A Rastafarian prisoner was forcibly shaved against his religious beliefs despite clear Fifth Circuit precedent protecting him under RLUIPA.
- The Supreme Court will decide if damages are available for violations.
- Both hosts express hope for a pro-claimant ruling—without damages, religious liberty rights are toothless in prisons.
Notable Quote
“If you can’t get damages, there’s literally nothing that prevents this from happening...”
—Sarah Isgur ([35:15])
8. Campaign Finance and Coordinated Expenditures (NRSC v. FEC)
Timestamps: [39:01]–[43:36]
- Likely to overturn previous precedent upholding limits on party-candidate coordinated spending.
- Sarah: Walks through all the campaign finance “prophylaxes,” predicting a 6–3 split and focus on the corruption rationale.
- Judge Thapar’s dissent urges importing “text, history, and tradition” (the Second Amendment test) into First Amendment analysis—potentially a seismic doctrinal shift.
- David: Warns this would bring a flood of new historical arguments into campaign finance and free speech litigation.
Notable Quote
“If we go text, history and tradition in the First Amendment, there will be a primal scream that will be literally audible on the podcast feed without opening the podcast app.”
—David French ([43:08])
9. Death Penalty & Intellectual Disability (Ham v. Smith)
Timestamps: [43:36]–[48:16]
- Revisiting when an inmate with borderline IQ scores can be executed—whether rigid IQ cutoffs or “holistic” evaluation should apply.
- Both hosts find reliance on a hard IQ threshold scientifically and legally dubious, advocating a flexible, holistic approach aligned with Eighth Amendment values.
Notable Quote
“The ambiguity here is found in a test that’s inherently imprecise. And it strikes me that the holistic response is...the fair way to deal with ambiguity...”
—David French ([47:37])
10. Subpoena Disputes: Federal or State Court? (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin)
Timestamps: [48:16]–[53:33]
- Crisis pregnancy centers challenge subpoenas from the New Jersey AG seeking donor information, raising First Amendment retaliation concerns.
- The core issue: can groups get federal court review before the state enforces subpoenas, or do they risk being “locked out” of federal forum due to state court preclusion?
- Both hosts stress the rising dangers of partisan investigations and the need for federal judicial oversight to avoid state-level abuses.
Notable Quote
“If you’re red in a blue state or blue in a red state, you are in a position often of acute vulnerability...the federal courts were a saving grace at that very dark time.”
—David French ([52:20])
Memorable Moments & Tone
- Sarah’s Popcorn Moment: “How are they going to grapple with the originalism aspect of this? I'm eating my popcorn.” ([14:35])
- Humor: David likens Humphrey’s Executor’s survival to famous sports upsets and uses playful language (“beyond zombie at this point”).
- Expertise in Context: Both hosts flex their legal backgrounds (Sarah on campaign finance, David on free speech), offering both technical and practical perspectives.
- Urgency & Stakes: The hosts repeatedly emphasize how this term’s cases cut across ideological lines and reflect sharp contemporary political and cultural divides.
Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Issue | Timestamp | Likely Outcome | |------|-------|-----------|---------------| | Federal Reserve firing (Cook) | Presidential power to remove Fed governors | [01:58] | Awaiting rationale; likely significant | | Trump Tariffs | Major questions doctrine; exec power | [04:53] | Trump admin expected to lose | | FTC Commissioner | Presidential removal power | [09:05] | Humphrey’s Executor likely overturned | | Trans Sports | Trans women in women’s sports | [15:03] | State bans likely upheld | | Conversion Therapy | Ban for minors, speech protection | [25:23] | Ban likely struck as speech restriction | | Racial Gerrymandering | VRA, redistricting | [29:14] | Unclear—close call | | Religious Liberty (Landor) | Damages under RLUIPA | [33:14] | Damages likely allowed | | Campaign Finance | Coordinated exp limits | [39:01] | Limits likely overturned | | Death Penalty (Ham) | Intellectual disability definition | [43:36] | Holistic approach may prevail | | Subpoenas | Forum for First Amendment challenge | [48:16] | Federal forum likely preserved |
Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)
- Sarah Isgur:
- “They’re going to really have to explain why this is different, other than the consequences of it being not different.” ([03:58])
- “If you can’t get damages, there’s literally nothing that prevents this from happening...” ([35:15])
- David French:
- “It’s beyond zombie at this point. What’s worse than zombie precedent?” ([09:46])
- “Are biological males...similarly situated to biological females when it comes to sports participation? ...Absolutely not.” ([19:11])
- “This is the case in the term that I am completely stumped by the outcome.” ([32:32])
- “If we go text, history and tradition in the First Amendment, there will be a primal scream...” ([43:08])
- “The ambiguity here is found in a test that’s inherently imprecise...” ([47:37])
Conclusion
This OT2025 Supreme Court preview episode of Advisory Opinions delivers an essential, engaging rundown of what is primed to be a historic term. The hosts’ legal acumen, clear explanations, and willingness to debate both law and real-world consequences make this episode a must-read (or listen) for anyone interested in the intersection of law, politics, and American life. From key fights over agency power, free speech, and the culture wars, to the procedural intricacies that shape access to justice, this is the Supreme Court at the center of the nation’s most pressing debates.