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?

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?

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/.