A Dubious Expediency

<p>The Court is back, and this week it heard oral arguments in two high-profile cases against Google and Twitter that will decide the extent of the protection they can claim when their users support terrorism. It also issued opinions in a bankruptcy case, a capital-murder case, and a fair-wage case. After covering those developments, GianCarlo interviews Professor Gail Heriot of the University of San Diego School of Law. The two talk about her research on racial preferences and what it means for the Harvard and UNC cases and the future of racial preferences after those cases are decided. Lastly, GianCarlo hits Zack with some cinematic SCOTUS trivia.</p><br><p>You can find a copy of Professor Heriot's book here: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Dubious-Expediency-Preferences-Damage-Education/dp/1641771321" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><em>A Dubious Expediency</em></a>.</p><br><p>Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.</p><br><p>Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.</p><br><p>Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a <a href="https://shop.heritage.org/products/scotus-101-mug" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">SCOTUS 101 mug</a>.</p><br /><hr><p style='color:grey; font-size:0.75em;'> Hosted on Acast. See <a style='color:grey;' target='_blank' rel='noopener noreferrer' href='https://acast.com/privacy'>acast.com/privacy</a> for more information.</p>