As someone who is needy enough to want to keep up with SCOTUS news (up to and including esoteric Takings Clause cases) but who does not have the time or a job that allows me to do the legwork myself, this is the perfect podcast for me to get recaps of cases, from the most contentious to the least.

Finally, a podcast centered around legal substance and not slapdash political musings. I absolutely love the back and forth between Baude and Paulsen. This podcast consistently galvanizes me to learn more about the intricacies of the law. Keep it up!

I pay good money for this podcast, tuned in to hear your thoughts on the Section 3 argument, and I don’t even get to hear Will’s reaction to Justice Kagan’s sarcastic “Oh then I must be right” when J Mitch brought up the article? For shame.

I can’t do this one justice. It’s a couple of constitutional law professors discussing the Supreme Court’s doings. Medium takes and very good short backgrounders on constitutional law. You can listen rapt for hours and have zero to show for it in dinner conversation. It sounds boring. It’s wonderful. The supposed hook here is that one of the cohosts is supposed to be a liberal, and the other, I guess, some Harvard Law flavor of conservative. Fine. But the show is really about lighting up the Court’s non-blockbuster cases, the ones about California pork regulation and whether we do what the law says or what Congress intended. It’s about giving the boring stuff 45 minutes, because it turns out, when you do that, it’s not boring. It’s true that the cohosts’ voices can sound similar at first. The key is to watch a few episodes of Over the Garden Wall first. Will Baude is the cheerful younger brother with the teapot hat and the frog named James Madison; Dan Epps is the doleful older brother with the triangle nose. I hope this helps.

Probably the best legal podcast out there. The discussion is always interesting. Will and Dan are entertaining and always presenting arguments in the best light, regardless of the constitutional interpretation approach. Other podcasts do not treat fringe ideas (i.e., originalism) fairly, so the discussion here is very welcome. Some suggestions: I love the frivolity, but I would appreciate if the case preview were a bit more detailed. Please find an excuse to do an episode entirely about general law. Dan was great on Short Circuit, and Will’s Privileges or Immunities Clause article was great. Bring in more of Will’s originalist friends as guests (e.g, Stephen Sachs, Jud Campbell, Michael Stokes Paulsen.)

I love this show, easily my favorite legal podcast. Instead of ranting about why, I would rather offer some constructive feedback. Please stop with the Supreme Court “ethics” pieces. If I want to learn about Justice Thomas letting a friend pickup the tip at a restaurant, or former clerks buying Christmas gifts for Justices at the annual chambers reunion, I’ll go read the NYT or turn on CNN. Let’s stick to legal arguments before the Court? I’ll end on a positive note, though. The hosts add great balance to the show, and explore legal topics and doctrines you won’t get elsewhere (especially in any meaningful depth).

This is one of my go to podcasts about the Supreme Court and I love how two people with different opinions are able to converse in such a civil and adult like way. As someone that is applying to law school and always wants to keep up with the news and events around SCOTUS and the cases they hear or what’s going on with the Shadow Docket this Podcast is tops! Keep up the amazing content!

Following through on Dan and Will’s request to say nice things about them. Dan and Will are both insightful, witty, and undogmatic. Plus, the vibe of this scotus pod is refreshingly mellow. I mainly come here for the implicit propaganda that the world isn’t burning. It’s very good, and I want them to keep making it for a long time.

This is simply a fabulous podcast. Will Baude is brilliant and Dan Epps is definitely also a person, and they bring a depth of expertise and insight to complicated topics that is second to none in the podcast universe. What’s more, they do it in an accessible way — even non-experts can follow the discussion — and with good humor. They spar seriously and rigorously, but they disagree on substance and never dissolve into ad hominem attacks (except when Dan calls Will a nerd). They are a model of healthy discourse. I’d recommend this podcast to anyone who has even a passing interest in the Supreme Court.

This podcast is one of my favorite things. I truly look forward to every new episode. Dan and Will always add so much nuance and enjoyment to everything they talk about on the show. I have gotten many of my fellow law friends hooked on this show. Dan and Will are brilliant legal minds and I hope they know how much people out there (like me) appreciate their work.

I put Amarica’s Constitution on ahead of anything each week because I’m less of a law nerd and more of a Constitution and America’s founding nerd. For the more law-focused content I’ve tried a couple of others and they were just way too partisan, and not bashful about it. I am looking for analysis of Supreme Court cases that a person with no formal legal training can understand. Some of what these guys put in the episodes is lost on me but the general ideas are mostly within reach of a reasonably intelligent person. I enjoy how they genuinely like each other yet poke each other pretty regularly.

There’s an old Quaker joke based on a talk given by Quaker theologian Pink Dandelion (that is his real name). For a variety of theological reasons (namely a belief in “continuous revelation” the belief that God continues to reveal truths to humanity) Quakers do not have a written creed. Dandelion once said that there should be one. Someone from the audience shouts “our creed is that we have no creed!” Seems like a better term that agnostic.

Yes, the trailing off is a problem. Overall, it would be great if you both kept your voices up. It can sound like you’re murmuring to each other in the back of class. Thanks!

Invariably, the first 15 minutes or so of your podcast reminds me of the opening schtick by Click and Clack on Car Talk. But once you get down to the nitty gritty, it’s a fascinating insight into the court and the cases. Keep up the good work.

I have been looking for a balanced and rigorous podcast covering the Court for a long time, finally find was I was looking for (and more) here!

Simultaneously the smartest but most naive SCOTUS pod

I love this podcast. It gives nuanced takes on legal issues regardless of your priors and both hosts are sensible people. I have one request though: please don’t let your voices trail off so much. I often listen while mowing the lawn and it makes it difficult to hear. Unfortunately for both of us, I really have no choice about mowing so it’d be bigly kind of you to talk at a more consistent volume.

90-120 mins in perfect length. Please give us at least one a week but 3 in on week has been awesome!

If you want delirium about how the evils of the other side, this podcast isn’t from you. If you want measured analysis and to think through all sides of a Supreme Court case, you’ve found your podcast.

The hosts seem to view this podcast as a corrective to other sources that approach SCOTUS decisions from an exclusively political lens. It is a reasonably good listen when the hosts bring subject matter expertise to the table and get more deeply into doctrine than other coverage. But it is cringe listen when it devolves into Dan goading Will into defending various positions, and Will responding with the kind of whataboutisms that only law professors can tolerate, while declining to offer his own views. (One episode daring to ask - are Justice Gorsuch’s complaints about Biden’s COVID-era policies really no different than complaints about Japanese internment? Um, ok?). No matter your preference, there are better podcasts out there.

I enjoy listening to the podcast because it clearly avoids piggybacking on the media's flavor of the moment. When Will and Dan are ready, they make the episode, and it is thoughtful and polished. But when something adjacent to the court is mentioned, the show weakens. For example, to critically analyze everything BUT Alito's "transportation facilities" is a silence that speaks enormously loudly. Dan can at least condemn Sotomayor's book signing choices. If Will could argue with his chest about the Court in the way he detests the Sequel Trilogy, we would have a much improved show.

This is a great podcast and I’d recommend it. Will faithfully recites the creed of the holy brotherhood of originalism at all opportunity’s. Dan’s just kind of there. But it’s fun, calming, rational, and nice. They both have strong views but are very open to changing their minds. On the little things at least. I spend a lot of time while listening thinking Dan is right and Will is wrong. But Will is the extremely smart, well reasoned, kind of wrong. And that’s what I want in a law podcast. Record as many episodes as you want, you guys are great!!

I enjoy and learn something each episode, and welcome them whenever they come.

This is a good podcast. You should listen to it. The fact that Professor Baude exists (a committed originalist that is not a partisan hack) makes me sometimes think that all these arguments in favor of originalism might actually have merit. Though I guess I am not a huge fan of how often he seems to defend the conservative crew when they are acting like partisan hacks. I guess I am biased because he was my teacher and he was a great one. Dan Epps is an excellent interlocutor and also gives great insights. He is not whiny. I am slightly disturbed by how undisturbed they seemed by all the ProPublica revelations. Overall this is a great listen for law nerds everywhere. Keep the voicemail songs coming.

A little heads up would be nice next time you guys decide to take a multi-week, mid-June vacation. In all seriousness, this is far and away the best legal podcast out there—despite Dan’s whining.

This is my favorite Supreme Court podcast, hands-down. Always insightful, and always introducing me to new ideas and new ways of thinking about the law. I am a litigator myself and tell all my coworkers about it. (While I generally agree with Will whenever there is a dispute between the two, I absolutely agree with Dan that Pale Fire is the best Nabokov novel.)

As a rule, I don’t review podcasts - I’ve never done so before, and I will likely not do so again. Divided Argument warrants an exception. For a podcast that markets itself as “unscheduled and unpredictable,” it is uncanny how Will and Dan’s commentary never manages to be untimely, uncouth, or unsophisticated. To the contrary, both professors consistently serve as fantastic foils to one another, drawing deep insights from each other’s sometimes (but not always) conflicting arguments. This podcast blows its competition out of the water, and if you are seeking a source for thoughtful analysis about the Supreme Court and its docket, look no further.

My only criticism is that they haven't done a deep dive on Jones v Hendrix but perhaps they will do so when the opinion is issued.

Will and Dan each bring an incredible perspective to legal issues, and boldly explore the nuances of issues that seem obvious on their face. Special shout-out to their analysis of the decision in Tyler v. Hennepin, in which they managed to take a case that seemed cut and dry on its face, and analyzed the complex and competing in actually justifying the just resolution and why this case might be worth cert. If you only half-listen, the podcast quickly risks becoming boring. But, when giving it the full attention it deserves, it is a fascinating and enlightening analysis of the Court.

First Fun-Days. It helps to keep in mind Will is efforting to raise devil's avocado points for podcast entertainment purposes.

This podcast combines insightful analysis with lots of fun repartee. I enjoy every episode!

Dan’s whiny requests for reviews have finally gotten to me. This is one of the best SCOTUS podcasts out there - both in terms of quality of analysis and listenability.

I can’t believe that someone told them about the secret Fed Soc Morrison v. Olson chant. I’ll have to propose a new Scalia dissent to chant at the next meeting—maybe PGA Tour v. Martin.

As a dad of a law student, I find the podcast indispensable. I have learned so much and it gives me and my son so much to talk about. I appreciate the thoughtful balance (as does my son) and insightful takes. It’s simply superb! Thank you both.

I rated before reviewing. Very much enjoy the podcast in substance but especially in tone. Amicable disagreement about major questions is essential to the health of a democracy, which seems to be on people’s minds these days. Thanks for modeling such friendship by allowing us to listen in.

I want to write a bad review just so they’ll read it on the show but, alas, I am an honest man. And honestly, this is by far the best SCOTUS podcast.

There aren’t many places where a progressive and a conservative discuss the Court calmly and intelligently. Both hosts have a good manner. I am a Suprrne Court nerd and I learn something from each episode. And is odd: I almost feel as if I know them.

This is my favorite legal podcast. I’m not a lawyer. I like the straightforward analysis without overprint of hot takes. If you’re ever searching for topics, then I would be interested in a better understanding of the various legal philosophies … originalism, textualism, etc.

Don’t disappear all summer!

I’ve listened to every episode. I’m an attorney who has been practicing for five years. I think the title is perfect- this is a place to come for some more ideological shows, which I listen to from both side. But thank you Professor Bode and Professor Epps for this valuable contribution. Also, side bar, is the plural of professors hosting a podcast a to that of attorneys general? Asking for a friend- thanks again keep up the great work.

The podcast is brilliant and entertaining and the professors are Nabokov fans!

Thoughtful, civil and informative. Up there with Advisory Opinions podcast as among the best legal podcasts.

The two maintain understated indoor voices while rambling about the law. You can put them on in the background and pretend they are your semi-charming dinner guests.

The truth is I want to leave a scathing review saying that Will is a useful idiot for the conservative legal movement (a thing that, after all, he doesn’t even acknowledge exists) and that Dan is a whiny liberal shill (something he freely acknowledges, albeit tongue in cheek). Then I might get my review read on air. But unfortunately I can’t do that. In truth, this is the best Supreme Court podcast out there. It has everything: Ritualistic chanting of Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson, unpersuasive scholar trolling (ee i ee i o), and yes, also useful in-depth analysis of all the Court’s decisions. My only complaint is that I wish they made more episodes, even if that would come at the cost of being so “unscheduled and unpredictable.” 10/10 would recommend.

I dabble in a few legal podcasts but this is by far the best. Such deep, thoughtful dives on important (and seemingly unimportant) cases. If teaches me so much and avoids the pitfalls of the superficial reporting of most popular legal and Supreme Court news pods. Since I normally listen to podcasts at the gym and this one actually motivates me to go, I only wish it were more frequent—I really need the exercise!

This is one of the few podcasts on my list that I catch every episode of. I appreciate the diverse perspectives the hosts bring, and their maturity as friends and colleagues despite their differences. They bring clarity and information to Supreme Court news and issues in a time full of terrible journalism from every direction. As a legal layman, I get lost a bit probably every 3 or 4 episodes, and maybe the significance of an argument or ruling is lost on me more often than that. But even so, my time is well spent listening. My only complaint is they do mumble enough that I can’t speed up the playback.

Insufficient coverage of the criminal side of the SCOTUS docket — and how many big non-capital criminal issues get ignored — would be my only “knock” on a great podcast. Especially because originalism ought to be (and sometimes is) quite pro-defendant in many respects, the SCOTUS criminal docket provides an important setting to explore how various Justices reveal their jurisprudential and political commitments.

This is the by far the most intellectual honest legal podcast I listen to. Dan and Will certainly both have their priors (and Will is also always willing to play devil’s advocate as well… I guess it comes from being a professor…), but even when they disagree, they are never disagreeable.

They try hard and other than the pedantic lib Dan and the insufferable guest Steve Vladeck, it’s a pretty entertaining podcast. Sometimes a little unprepared or scared to state a position. Suppose Will is an upgrade intellectually from Ian Samuel (RIP), but not as charming or personable. Good overview of the Supreme Court, not as stridently biased and obnoxious as their competitor podcast Strict Scrutiny.

Thanks, Dan and Will for making the effort to consider viewpoints you don’t agree with - it’s not something that most people do these days. Love the show and I am always pleasantly surprised when it pops up in my feed. Keep up the great work (and keep playing the voicemail songs)!