{"href":"https://api.simplecast.com/oembed?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdividedargument.com%2Fepisodes%2Fbootlegging-adjacent-muGfxhg5","width":444,"version":"1.0","type":"rich","title":"Bootlegging-Adjacent","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_url":"https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/9f48e94e-1ea8-4f54-a58c-27e99971f8cb/eee54104-48c1-4f2d-a7cd-5ba681b4656f/dividedargument-fotor.jpg","thumbnail_height":300,"provider_url":"https://simplecast.com","provider_name":"Simplecast","html":"<iframe src=\"https://player.simplecast.com/365d6f2e-aecb-476f-bf31-fcefba0416e4\" height=\"200\" width=\"100%\" title=\"Bootlegging-Adjacent\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"></iframe>","height":200,"description":"After discussing a few pending issues at the Court, we look back to analyze several decisions from last month-- FBI v. Fikre, a mootness case with national security implications, and the shadow docket dispute in one of many cases named United States v. Texas (the SB4 case)-- and then turn to last Friday's more recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado about the Takings Clause and local land use policies."}