The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. Frequent guest host Jeff Barnum. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
…
continue reading
A podcast from SCOTUSblog.com
…
continue reading
Haha, gov projects amiright? Cover art photo provided by Gulistan Elidemir on Unsplash: https://unsplash.com/@a_musing
…
continue reading
Podcast by James
…
continue reading
Raw oral argument audio from the US Supreme Court.
…
continue reading
The right to counsel. Cover art photo provided by Carl Raw on Unsplash: https://unsplash.com/@carltraw
…
continue reading
SCOTUStalk is a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog. SCOTUStalk is hosted by Amy Howe and produced and edited by Ellena Erskine. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
…
continue reading
A quick, three-day weblog as a podcast host for the United States Supreme Court's oral arguments regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
…
continue reading
SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View ou ...
…
continue reading
Audio of Supreme Court opinions. Finally. Listen to full-length readings of the most current opinions as they are issued by the Court. Or, browse through a library containing dozens of landmark opinions from the past. Either way, it’s free! A rare find for SCOTUS nerds.
…
continue reading
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Decided December 10, 2024) In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the revocation of a previously approved visa petition under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, whose petition for her noncitizen spouse was revoked …
…
continue reading
1
SEC v. Jarkesy - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
16:50
16:50
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
16:50
On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 6-3 opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications. Feat…
…
continue reading
1
Murthy v. Missouri - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
31:04
31:04
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
31:04
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms. E…
…
continue reading
1
FDA v. AHM - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
23:36
23:36
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
23:36
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding mifepristone. Join us to hear our panel break down the decision and discuss its potential rami…
…
continue reading
1
Loper Bright & Relentless - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
23:02
23:02
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
23:02
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its 6-2 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its 6-3 decision in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These decisions overturning Chevron v. NRDC (1984) may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward. Join us…
…
continue reading
1
Moody v. NetChoice (Social Media / First Amendment)
15:17
15:17
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
15:17
Florida and Texas both enacted laws regulating social media companies and other online platforms. Netchoice alleges a facial challenge to the statutes under the First Amendment. Held: both judgments (of the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits) are vacated, as neither court conducted a proper analysis to the facial challenges under the First Amendment to th…
…
continue reading
1
Trump v. United States (Presidential Immunity)
24:11
24:11
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
24:11
Trump v. United States A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collec…
…
continue reading
1
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (Public Camping Laws)
12:38
12:38
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
12:38
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Grants Pass, Oregon, is home to roughly 38,000 people, about 600 of whom are estimated to experience homelessness on a given day. Like many local governments across the Nation, Grants Pass has publiccamping laws that restrict encampments on public property. The Grants Pass Municipal Code prohibits activities such as c…
…
continue reading
1
Fischer v. United States (Obstruction of Official Proceeding)
8:31
8:31
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
8:31
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.” 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(1). The next subsection extends that prohibit…
…
continue reading
1
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Administrative Law / Chevron Deference)
20:58
20:58
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
20:58
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo This is a consolidated opinion of two cases that were argued this term. Both of them bring into question rules promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act -- which applies the Adminsitrative Procedures Act. The only question on appeal is whether Chevron is still good law. …
…
continue reading
In this very brief Per Curiam decision, RJ Dieken also reads the concurring opinions authored Justice Kagan and Justice Barrett.द्वारा Jake Leahy
…
continue reading
Ohio v. EPA The Clean Air Act requires both the States and federal government to help develop environmental regulations. When the EPA creates certain standards regarding air quality, states have to develop their own "State Implementation Plan," which requires States to both set out how to go about applying the federal regulations, and it also requi…
…
continue reading
1
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma (Bankruptcy)
10:01
10:01
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
10:01
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty in 2007 to a federal felony based on its role in misbranding Oxycontin -- which was far more addictive than the company had made it out to be. Purdue faced seemingly endless lawsuits in the following years based on how addictive the opioid Oxycontin was. For over a decade that followed, the S…
…
continue reading
1
SEC v. Jarkesy (Jury Trial / Securities)
13:45
13:45
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
13:45
SEC v. Jarkesy In the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Congress passed a suite of laws designed to combat securities fraud and increase market transparency. Three such statutes are relevant: The Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. These Acts respectively govern the registr…
…
continue reading
1
Murthy v. Missouri (Standing / Social Media / First Amendment)
12:12
12:12
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
12:12
Murthy v. Missouri Missouri, alongside a few other states, sued the federal government alleging that certain federal officials illegally coordinated with social media companies to effectively silence certain viewpoints -- which they claim, amounts to these companies becoming state actors within the meaning of First Amendment jurisprudence. Held: Ne…
…
continue reading
1
Snyder v. United States (Corruption)
10:59
10:59
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
10:59
Snyder v. United States Snyder served as the Mayor in a town in Indiana. After the town awarded a $1.2 million contract to a trucking company, he received a $13,000 payment from that company, he said this was for consulting services. He was prosecuted by the federal government and convicted for taking an illegal gratuity. He said that Section 666, …
…
continue reading
1
Texas v. New Mexico (Rio Grande Compact)
8:18
8:18
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
8:18
Texas v. New Mexico Approved by Congress in 1938, the Rio Grande Compact is an interstate agreement that apportions the waters of the Rio Grande River among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The Compact relies on the Federal Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of an irrigation system called the Rio Grande Project. Under the Compact, New Mexico must de…
…
continue reading
1
Department of State v. Munoz (Immigration)
8:33
8:33
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
8:33
Department of State v. Munoz Sandra Munoz is an American citizen who married Luis Ascenio-Cordero -- an El Salvador resident -- in 2010. He was denied entry into the United States by the consulate in San Salvador. Generally, these are finally determinations. But, Munoz, his wife, filed suit, claiming that his denial represented a fundamental libert…
…
continue reading
1
Erlinger v. United States (Sixth Amendment -- Jury Trial)
11:14
11:14
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
11:14
Erlinger v. United States Paul Erlinger pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922(g). At sentencing, the judge found Mr. Erlinger eligible for an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, §924(e)(1), which increases the penalty for a 922(g) conviction from a maximum sentence of 10 years…
…
continue reading
Smith v. Arizona The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him. In operation, the Clause protects a defendant’s right of cross-examination by limiting the prosecution’s ability to introduce statements made by people not in the courtroom. The Clause thus bars the admission …
…
continue reading
1
United States v. Rahimi (Second Amendment)
11:30
11:30
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
11:30
United States v. Rahimi Respondent Zackey Rahimi was indicted under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(8), a federal statute that prohibits individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. A prosecution under Section 922(g)(8) may proceed only if the restraining order meets certain statutory criteria. In particular, the orde…
…
continue reading
Gonzalez v. Trevino The decision of the 5th Circuit is vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Gonzalez was 72 years old, when in 2019, she was elected to a seat on her local City Council in Texas. She collected signatures for a petition trying to get the City Manager removed. There was a long debate at the meeting about this topic. The Mayor…
…
continue reading
Moore v. United States Congress generally taxes the income of American business entities in one of two ways. Some entities, such as S corporations and partnerships, are taxed on a pass-through basis, where the entity itself does not pay taxes. 26 U. S. C. §§1361–1362. Instead, the entity’s income is attributed to the shareholders or partners, who t…
…
continue reading
1
Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (Malicious Prosecution)
5:37
5:37
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
5:37
Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon This case involves a dispute between petitioner Jascha Chiaverini and police officers from Napoleon, Ohio. The officers charged Chiaverini, a jewelry store owner, with three crimes: receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor; dealing in precious metals without a license, also a misdemeanor; and money laundering, a felon…
…
continue reading
1
Diaz v. United States (Evidence / Expert Testimony)
5:39
5:39
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
5:39
Petitioner Delilah Diaz was stopped at a port of entry on the United States-Mexico border. Border patrol officers searched the car that Diaz was driving and found more than 54 pounds of methamphetamine hidden in the vehicle. Diaz was charged with importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§952 and 960, charges that required the Governme…
…
continue reading
1
United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (Bankruptcy Fee Remedy)
7:38
7:38
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
7:38
United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC Two Terms ago, in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U. S. 464, the Court held that a statute violated the Bankruptcy Clause’s uniformity requirement because it permitted different fees for Chapter 11 debtors depending on the district where their case was filed. In this case, the Court is asked to dete…
…
continue reading
1
Campos-Chavez v. Garland (Immigration)
7:38
7:38
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
7:38
Campos-Chavez v. Garland To initiate the removal of an alien from the United States who is either “inadmissible” under 8 U. S. C. §1182 or “deportable” under §1227, the Federal Government must provide the alien with “written notice” of the proceedings. §§1229(a)(1), (2). Two types of “written notice” are described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of §1229…
…
continue reading
1
Garland v. Cargill (2nd Amendment)
10:10
10:10
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
10:10
The National Firearms Act of 1934 defines a “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” 26 U. S. C. §5845(b). With a machinegun, a shooter can fire multiple times, or even continuously, by engagi…
…
continue reading
1
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (Birth Control)
11:10
11:10
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
11:10
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration approved a new drug application for mifepristone tablets marketed under the brand name Mifeprex for use in terminating pregnancies up to seven weeks. To help ensure that Mifeprex would be used safely and effectively, FDA placed additional restrictions on the drug’s u…
…
continue reading
1
Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (NLRB / Labor)
6:59
6:59
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
6:59
After several Starbucks employees announced plans to unionize, they invited a news crew from a local television station to visit the store after hours to promote their unionizing effort. Starbucks fired multiple employees involved with the media event for violating company policy. The National Labor Relations Board filed an administrative complaint…
…
continue reading
1
Vidal v. Elster (First Amendment / Trademark)
11:06
11:06
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
11:06
Drawing on a 2016 Presidential primary debate exchange between thencandidate Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio, respondent Steve Elster sought to federally register the trademark “Trump too small” to use on shirts and hats. An examiner from the Patent and Trademark Office refused registration based on the “names clause,” a Lanham Act prohibition…
…
continue reading
1
Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum (Bankruptcy)
8:23
8:23
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
8:23
Petitioner Truck Insurance Exchange is the primary insurer for companies that manufactured and sold products containing asbestos. Two of those companies, Kaiser Gypsum Co. and Hanson Permanente Cement (Debtors), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after facing thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits. As part of the bankruptcy process, the Debtors filed …
…
continue reading
1
Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe
12:33
12:33
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
12:33
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U. S. C. §5301 et seq., enables an Indian tribe to enter into a “self-determination contract” with the Indian Health Service to assume responsibility for administering the healthcare programs that IHS would otherwise operate for the tribe. §5321(a)(1). When IHS administers such programs…
…
continue reading
Connelly v. United States Michael and Thomas Connelly were the sole shareholders in Crown C Supply, a small building supply corporation. The brothers entered into an agreement to ensure that Crown would stay in the family if either brother died. Under that agreement, the surviving brother would have the option to purchase the deceased brother’s sha…
…
continue reading
In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court reviewed a Second Circuit decision that struck down a New York bank regulation, finding that the State's authority was preempted by federal law. The Court held that Dodd-Frank requires a nuanced analysis -- rather than a bright line test -- on the issue of federal preemption. Justice Kavanaugh, writi…
…
continue reading
Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) sued respondent Maria Vullo—former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)—alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. The Second Circuit held that Vullo’s alleged actions constitut…
…
continue reading
1
Thornell v. Jones (Ineffective Assistance)
11:26
11:26
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
11:26
Thornell v. Jones Respondent Danny Lee Jones was convicted of the premeditated firstdegree murders of Robert and Tisha Weaver and the attempted premeditated murder of Robert’s grandmother Katherine Gumina. Arizona law at the time required the trial court to “impose a sentence of death” if it found “one or more” statutorily enumerated “aggravating c…
…
continue reading
Coinbase v. Suski The dispute here involves a conflict between two contracts executed by petitioner Coinbase, Inc., operator of a cryptocurrency exchange platform, and respondents, who use Coinbase. The first contract—the Coinbase User Agreement that respondents agreed to when they created their accounts—contains an arbitration provision with a del…
…
continue reading
These cases concern the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act to state drug convictions that occurred before recent technical amendments to the federal drug schedules. ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on defendants who are convicted for the illegal possession of a firearm and who have a criminal history thought to demonstrat…
…
continue reading
1
Alexander v. NAACP (Redistricting / Gerrymandering)
13:07
13:07
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
13:07
Alexander v. NAACP The Constitution entrusts state legislatures with the primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts, and legislative redistricting is an inescapably political enterprise. Claims that a map is unconstitutional because it was drawn to achieve a partisan end are not justiciable in federal court. By contrast, if a legisl…
…
continue reading
1
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
10:00
10:00
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
10:00
On March 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre. At issue was whether or not the government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that respondent's removal from the government’s No Fly List mooted his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. Join us to hear Joseph Davis break down the decision and discuss its pot…
…
continue reading
1
Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
16:33
16:33
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
16:33
On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski. At issue was whether a court or an arbitrator must decide which contract governs where parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts. …
…
continue reading
1
Harrow v. Department of Defense (Equitable Tolling / Jurisdictional Deadlines)
5:36
5:36
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
5:36
In Harrow v. Department of Defense, Stuart Harrow appealed an adverse administrative decision after the 60-day deadline -- claiming that he was unaware of the deadline. He filed this appeal to the Federal Circuit. Because the Federal Circuit saw the mandatory "shall" language in the statute (that is, it shall be filed within 60 days), the Court den…
…
continue reading
Smith v. Spizzirri The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) sets forth procedures for enforcing arbitration agreements in federal court. Section 3 of the FAA, entitled “Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration,” provides that when a dispute is subject to arbitration, the court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the tr…
…
continue reading
1
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial
10:12
10:12
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
10:12
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ET AL. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., ET AL. The Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc subject to the command that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Art. I, §9, cl. 7. For most federal agencies, Congr…
…
continue reading
1
Culley v. Marshall (Asset Forfeiture)
8:35
8:35
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
8:35
Culley v. Marshall Petitioner Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was later pulled over by Alabama police officers and arrested for possession of marijuana. Petitioner Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who was stopped by Alabama police and arrested for trafficking methamphetamine. In both cases, petitioners’ cars were seized under an…
…
continue reading
1
Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (Copyright)
4:29
4:29
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
4:29
Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy Under the Copyright Act, a plaintiff must file suit “within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U. S. C. §507(b). On one understanding of that limitations provision, a copyright claim “accrue[s]” when “an infringing act occurs.” Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U. S. 663, 670. But under an alternative v…
…
continue reading
1
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
15:28
15:28
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
15:28
On February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. At issue was whether choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law. Join us to hear Professor Andrew Hessick break down the decision and discuss its potential ramificatio…
…
continue reading
1
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
15:54
15:54
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
15:54
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri. At issue was whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. Join us to hear Alis…
…
continue reading
1
Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
15:27
15:27
बाद में चलाएं
बाद में चलाएं
सूचियाँ
पसंद
पसंद
15:27
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC. At issue was whether a transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Join us to hear Professor Samuel Estreicher break down the decision and discuss i…
…
continue reading