Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Laura Beth Latimer, Chance Weldon, Nathan Seltzer, and Clayton Calvin are unpacking the final drops of the Supreme Court's October 2025 session. The team is zeroing in on two landmark Second Amendment decisions: United States v. Hemani (the "guns and drugs" case) and Wolford v. Lopez (the Hawaii guns case).
Before diving into the heavy constitutional lifting, the crew geeks out over some breaking SCOTUS lore: the official rebranding of the notorious "Shadow Docket." From there, the team breaks down the Bruen test, exploring why constitutional text and historical traditions are treated a lot like 1930s poultry contracts (seriously, it makes sense when you hear it).
In this episode:
— The Shadow Docket is Dead: Why the Supreme Court is officially pivoting to the highly neutral "Interim Docket" (and why Nathan is having a hard time adjusting).
— United States v. Hemani (9-0): We break down 42 USC 922(g)(3) and whether the government can disarm occasional users of controlled substances. We discuss the historical "habitual drunkard" laws, Alito's pragmatism, and Justice Thomas’s spicy Commerce Clause concurrence.
— Wolford v. Lopez (6-3): Hawaii tried to flip the default rules for carrying firearms on private property open to the public. We discuss property rights versus gun rights, Justice Barrett's brilliant First Amendment hijab analogy, and why post-Civil War "Black Codes" are completely invalid historical analogs.
— Originalism in Action: A masterclass in the Bruen test, the flaws of "means-end scrutiny," and how the court uses text, history, and tradition to interpret the Constitution.
Before diving into the heavy constitutional lifting, the crew geeks out over some breaking SCOTUS lore: the official rebranding of the notorious "Shadow Docket." From there, the team breaks down the Bruen test, exploring why constitutional text and historical traditions are treated a lot like 1930s poultry contracts (seriously, it makes sense when you hear it).
In this episode:
— The Shadow Docket is Dead: Why the Supreme Court is officially pivoting to the highly neutral "Interim Docket" (and why Nathan is having a hard time adjusting).
— United States v. Hemani (9-0): We break down 42 USC 922(g)(3) and whether the government can disarm occasional users of controlled substances. We discuss the historical "habitual drunkard" laws, Alito's pragmatism, and Justice Thomas’s spicy Commerce Clause concurrence.
— Wolford v. Lopez (6-3): Hawaii tried to flip the default rules for carrying firearms on private property open to the public. We discuss property rights versus gun rights, Justice Barrett's brilliant First Amendment hijab analogy, and why post-Civil War "Black Codes" are completely invalid historical analogs.
— Originalism in Action: A masterclass in the Bruen test, the flaws of "means-end scrutiny," and how the court uses text, history, and tradition to interpret the Constitution.
Creators and Guests
Host
Guest
Guest
Clayton Calvin
Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for the American Future. He has worked on a variety of constitutional matters, focusing mainly on separation-of-powers and federalism issues and narrowing the scope of administrative power. Prior to joining the Foundation, he worked with Colorado’s Independence Institute on constitutional and budget issues, and worked independently to limit qualified immunity and to defend the constitutional right to earn a living.
What is Rightly Decided?
Rightly Decided is a legal podcast from the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for the American Future, whose attorneys defend the Constitution through legal opposition to government overreach.