Takeaways + Predictions | from Cases on Campaign Finance, Death Penalty IQ Tests, and Securities Suits

Overview This episode delivers post-oral argument analysis and predictions for three major Supreme Court cases heard during the December 2025 argument session. We break down the key exchanges, judicial fault lines, and likely outcomes in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (campaign finance limits), Hamm v. Smith (intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases), and FS Credit v. Saba (implied private rights of action in securities law). NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance Revolution • JD Vance standing issues and Article III requirements • Chief Justice Roberts challenges coordinated expenditure "fictions" • Justice Kagan's systematic dismantling of Republican arguments • Super PAC dominance versus party strength dynamics • Justice Alito's revealing "who benefits" question Hamm v. Smith: Life-or-Death IQ Determinations • Joseph Smith's brutal 1997 murder and five IQ test scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74) • Alabama's collective scoring approach versus federal holistic evaluation • Chief Justice Roberts' "results-oriented" methodology critique • Justice Jackson's clinical expertise emphasis • Solicitor General's compromise "circle back" approach FS Credit v. Saba: Securities Law Private Enforcement • Activist investor challenges to fund management poison pills • Justice Kavanaugh as potential swing vote on "anomalous" state court outcomes • Legislative history debate between Sotomayor and textualists • Justice Gorsuch's separation of powers concerns • Practical implications for investment fund governance Episode Highlights Campaign Finance Revelations: • Chief Justice Roberts: "I don't know in substance what the difference is" between coordinated expenditures and direct contributions • Justice Kagan's methodical exposure of existing circumvention loopholes • Republican counsel's admission about partisan fundraising advantages Death Penalty Constitutional Stakes: • Chief Justice Roberts challenging Alabama's statistical consistency • Justice Jackson emphasizing clinical complexity over mechanical score-counting • Three-way methodological split among Alabama, Smith, and federal government Securities Law Enforcement: • Justice Kavanaugh's practical concerns about "very bizarre" state court relegation • Paul Clement's "nugatory statute" argument about defensive-only interpretation • Justice Gorsuch's emphasis on separation of powers in implied rights creation Host Predictions: • NRSC wins 6-3 (Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh plus Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch) • Hamm adopts Solicitor General's compromise approach • Saba wins 5-4 with Justice Barrett as deciding vote