Federal Judicial Center Operational Status:

Due to a lapse in appropriations, the Federal Judicial Center (Center) has ceased all non-excepted activities until funding is restored.

The Center will post any changes in operational status on this web page. Please check back for updates.

You are here

Term Talk: Gutierrez v. Saenz; Andrew v. White

The nation's top legal scholars discuss what federal judges need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court's most impactful decisions. 

See all episodes

Laurie Levenson, Evan Lee, James A. Chance
October 2, 2025

Criminal Law and Procedure. Experts discuss Supreme Court clarifications of the redressability standard when analyzing standing in Gutierrez v. Saenz, and how clearly established law is determined in the context of the admission of prejudicial evidence in Andrew v. White.

Participants. Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law and David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School; Evan Lee, Emeritus Professor at UC Law, San Francisco; and Jim Chance, Senior Judicial Education Attorney, Federal Judicial Center.


Tags:
Certiorari | Capital Habeas | Exhaustion of State Remedies | Stay of Execution | Civil Rights | Equal Protection | Constitutional Law | Article III | Bill of Rights | Due Process | Equal Protection | Federalism | Fourteenth Amendment | Judicial Review | Criminal Justice | Criminal Litigation & Procedure | Death Penalty | Evidence | Admission | Character & Conduct Evidence (608-609) | Character Evidence (404) | DNA | Exculpatory Evidence | Relevance (401-403) | Habeas Corpus | State Remedies Exhaustion | Jurisdictional Issues | Federal Jurisdiction | Justiciability | Standing | State Law | Section 1983 Litigation | Alternate Remedies | Procedural Due Process | Substantive Due Process | Supreme Court: The Term in Review | Term Talk

Subscribe to Term Talk