In the season 2 finale we re-argue the Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp.

WM, a Black man, was sentenced to death for murder. On appeal, he submitted statistical evidence to show that the race of the victim (and, to a lesser extent, of the defendant) is associated with whether the defendant gets sentenced to death or not.

The question before the court: does statistical evidence of racial disparities in a state’s capital sentencing system prove racism? Does the evidence make that system unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th amendments?

#20 McCleskey v. Kemp

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.

High school students wrote and edited articles as the staff for their school newspaper. One day, they found that their articles about divorce and teen pregnancy had been removed from their newest issue. The principal cut them because he thought they were “inappropriate.” That’s a violation of the First Amendment, right?

#19 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

In this special episode we bring you the first ever edition of Objection! The Relitigated Game Show.

3 of our justices, Sarah, Adam, and Preston, compete for points to see who will be crowned the official Chief Justice of Relitigated and earn the commemorative gavel. To make things spicy, contestants can object when they believe a colleague is wrong and wager points to get either a boost or a setback. With 6 rounds of questions on the most recent Supreme Court term, and some of the, honestly, most unfair questions ever asked in a multiple-choice trivia game, the contestants have their work cut out for them.

Who will be victorious and crowned the official Chief Justice of Relitigated?

#18 Objection! The Relitigated Game Show

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Company.

In the wake of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in employment, a major company changed its hiring and promotion policies and implemented alternate requirements. Black employees, who largely did not advance, complained of continuing discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated and substantiated their allegations. The employer denied.

The question before the court: did the company’s promotion requirements violate the Civil Rights Act?

#17 Griggs v. Duke Power Company

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Watts v. U.S.

At a protest, a young man made a statement about getting the president in the sights of his rifle, and was convicted of threatening the life of the president. Was he, though?

The question before the court: Was his statement actually a threat? Was it prohibited by the law?

#16 Watts v. United States

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins.

A man is arrested, informed of his rights, and interrogated. But for two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, he is mostly silent. At trial he argued that he was exercising his right to silence under Miranda v. Arizona, and police should have stopped the interrogation. The Appeals Court thought so, too.

The question before the court: was the Appeals Court correct in its interpretation of the right to remain silent?

---

For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/29/15-berghuis-v-thompkins/.

#15 Berghuis v. Thompkins

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Butler.

A man is arrested by the FBI, who gave him both a verbal and written notification of his rights. WB refused to sign a form indicating that he wished to waive his rights. Statements to the agents were included in evidence against him at trial. He was convicted, the North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction, and the State cried foul.

The question before the court: can a suspect’s statements be used against him if he did not explicitly say he was waiving his Miranda rights?

---

For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/23/14-north-carolina-v-butler.

#14 North Carolina v. Butler

In this episode, we speak with Dr. Paul Lombardo, Regents’ Professor and Bobby Lee Cook Professor of Law at Georgia State University. He is a historian and legal scholar who has written on eugenics, medical ethics, and Buck v. Bell. He tells us about Carrie Buck, those at the Virginia Colony who drove her case to the Supreme Court, and the impact of the Court’s decision.

---

For more information about Dr. Lombardo's book Three Generations, No Imbeciles, visit https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12262/three-generations-no-imbeciles.

---

For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/16/13-reflections-on-buck-v-bell-an-interview-with-dr-paul-lombardo.

#13 Reflections on Buck v. Bell: An Interview with Dr. Paul Lombardo

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell.

A young woman was committed to an institution, due to the state’s concerns about her disability and vulnerability. After a formal legal proceeding, it is determined that she should be sterilized.

The question before the court: is the law authorizing sterilization of a disabled person valid under the 14th Amendment?

#12 Buck v. Bell

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Colorado v. Connelly.

A man walked up to a police officer who was minding his own business and announced that he wished to confess to a murder. The police repeatedly informed him of his rights, and he insisted upon making his statement. It turned out this man was experiencing acute symptoms of mental illness.

The question before the court: did taking FC’s statements and using them as evidence against him violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?

#11 Colorado v. Connelly

A podcast about real Supreme Court cases. No law degree required.

Join hosts Jarret and Nikki as they re-argue a real Supreme Court case in front of 3 friends role-playing as "justices". Each episode includes an overview of the case, arguments from the hosts, deliberations and opinions issued by our panel of "justices", and finally a reveal of what the real Supreme Court ruled and how their decision impacts us today.

Also, we should mention no one on the show is a lawyer.

Our goal is to present the history and decisions of the Supreme Court in an engaging and accessible way. If you're not a lawyer, that's okay, we aren't either!

Damage Algebra

Shows