Divided Argument
An unscheduled, unpredictable Supreme Court podcast.
In partnership with SCOTUSblog.
Latest Reviews
Best legal pod
DA is by far the best legal pod. A real commitment to discussing the law and doctrine and taking the cases at face value puts DA in a league of its own. While some pods are essentially just recitations of the facts and holdings of the cases with some hackery layered on top, DA provides useful commentary and discussion that goes well beyond what one would get from simply reading the cases. One request - the people (me) want an unscheduled and unpredictable hat!
Delightfully Inside Baseball
As a retired trial lawyer I thoroughly enjoy learning about this part of the practice. I even enjoy their off topic conversations.
Smart, engaging discussion
As a fellow jurist I can appreciate a well informed examination of American jurisprudence.
My favorite Supreme Court podcast
There are quite a few popular podcasts focused on the Supreme Court these days. Divided Argument is in a class of its own. If you’re looking for partisan takes that confirm your priors, look elsewhere. Baude and Epps are serious legal scholars who would find hackery embarrassing. If Learned Hand was right that the spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right, Divided Argument exudes the spirit of liberty. Baude comes from the right-of-center originalist world, Epps from the left-of-center project-skeptical world, but even these tentative descriptions suggest pigeon holes that the hosts avoid. Their tone is droll and witty, and I find their digressions and geeking out over Supreme Court minutiae — both were Supreme Court clerks — charming and enlightening. Their analyses of Supreme Court cases remind me of the best law school classes, the ones that pushed back, explored problems and puzzles, and resisted tidy closure. Whether you went to law school or not, Divided Argument offers smart, serious commentary that generates more light than heat and is a breath of fresh air.
Top notch
Funny, informative and really smart. Just the right amount of conflict, too. I’m hoping for decades of running commentary on the Court from this duo.
Good stuff
A couple bros who take the law thing seriously, yapping. Scratches the conlaw cartalk itch. Not for people who want super-political takes or can’t fathom law existing conceptually beyond tribalist politics. Repeat themselves often, go on some bizarre tangents, but always at least intellectually stimulating or entertaining. Often both. Caveat, I’m occasionally lost by some commentary if I didn’t read the case.
Likely best legal pod
Not always for non-lawyers, but for lawyers it’s probably the best legal podcast—at least for appellate/SCOTUS cases. Both hosts are brilliant, challenge each other’s ideas, and bring top-notch analysis to complex legal issues. Also pretty funny.
Latest episode
Continues to be the most interesting, entertaining, and educational Supreme Court podcast out there. Keep it up.
The best discussion of SCOTUS legal doctrine
In an era when most people want to complain about — or cheer about — the OUTCOMES of cases, Will and Dan focus on explaining (and sometimes debating) the legal arguments, doctrine, and precedent that leads to those outcomes. They do so in a way that is smart, informed (I believe both clerked at the Supreme Court, so they know what they are talking about in both the law and court procedure), and clear for non-experts. We need more of this kind of discussion to counter what appears to be a solidifying beliefs that the Court is “illegitimate” or “just doing politics.” It’s not. The Court is nine really smart people generally doing their best to answer often challenging questions in good faith based on relevant legal texts, the evidence presented to them, and reliable methods of logic and reasoning. And this podcast is two smart people doing their best to explain the texts, evidence, and methods for us non-experts. The result is better understanding of and, hopefully, more faith the branch of government that is currently functioning the most like its original design.
Vocal fry hall of fame
Title
Charmingly Genuine
I find Will and Dan to be the most willing of all the current court-watching podcasts to have genuine discussions about the validity of their opinions. Will is immensely well-informed, and Dan does a great job of reminding Will when he’s losing sight of the forest for the trees regarding the real world implications of the Court’s decisions. DA remains just about the only legal podcast where I can’t automatically predict the hosts views purely from partisan break down. I suppose at times the deep dives into minute points of law could be a bit dry for non-legal nerds, but I think they are delightful. Not to mention, the guys are down right funny.
Fun but sometimes esoteric
I like both posts! Been listening to Dan’s pods since 2018. Sometimes DA discussions are a bit too esoteric for me (as a hobbyist but not a lawyer) but I still enjoy the show. And the AI art is very fun!
Great Show
Two highly regarded and influential legal scholars discuss topical national legal issues.
Light annoyance usually subsides before next episodes drop. Drawn to hosts brilliant personalities.
Appreciate the knowledge wisdom and opinions though I am swayed by your persuasions mostly because you enlighten me on the law. At times I wish you were both one standard deviation to the left, resulting in what I’d consider Dan Epps becoming left of center and Will Baude taking Epps current position in my opinion, of centrist or moderate. I wish y’all could describe your definition of each archetypes on the political spectrum. Thanks keep up the great work.
Cream of the crop
Best SCOTUS podcast around. Hosts challenge each other’s perspectives and the listener comes away with a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of the law.
Delicious
My favorite legal podcast, and I listen to a lot of them. These guys are super smart, funny, and eminently fair. They're so low key, it's like the male version of Delicious Dish. I'm still waiting for the Schwetty Balls episode.
A good deep dive
It is very difficult to find a relatively balanced take on the Supreme Court, and while you can guess the leanings of each host, they do a great job of weighing the merits of both sides of many arguments. I find most SC podcast hosts have a very difficult time objectively considering POVs that fall against their pre-existing worldviews.
Excellent Podcast
Professor Baude and Professor Epps are both extremely impressive. Their ability to reason and work through arguments makes the show a treat to listen to. There’s no better (and more interesting!) place to get Supreme Court coverage.
The LeBron James of Supreme Court Podcasts
At the end of our anniversary date each year, I make my move: “What do you say we head back to our place and listen to Divided Argument with Will Baude and Dan Epps?” Year after year, my wife says, “No, you weirdo.” If this were Bumble ten years ago, this would be when I’d hit “unmatch.” But marriage is about accepting your partner’s flaws – even the big ones. Thankfully, hers is a very short list. 5/5 stars.
NPR Vibes
If Advisory Opinions is the ESPN of Supreme Court podcasts, Divided Argument is the NPR (low-key, soothingly intellectual).
Latest Episodes
Mechanical / Animal
We're in triage mode as the Court clears its end-of-term backlog. We run through the week's opinion dump before focusing on two cases that look unrelated but turn on the same question: when may a state rewrite background property law to limit a constitutional right? In Wolford v. Lopez , the Court s...
Alcoholic Originalism
The big opinions are starting to drop, and we're doing our best to keep pace. We first discuss Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections , which concerns religious liberty, the scope of Congress's power to create remedies against individuals under the Spending Clause, and whether there's any red...
Watch Snobs
We open with the usual grab bag—the "foot fault" pun buried in a Justice Thomas opinion, reading Justice Alito's clerk-hiring tea leaves, and a detour into the metaphysics of conditional resignations and whether you can be confirmed to a vacancy that doesn't exist yet. Then to the merits: Keathley v...