I very much respect your perspectives and I generally enjoy the episodes, but perhaps there is a blind spot you are not seeing. Both of you consistently, in episode after episode, dismiss Justice KBJ’s opinions. You both seem to almost revel in it. I am sure you will deny it but in a moment of honest self reflection, you might want to look into that. It is my only sore point about the entire podcast.

I work for DOJ and listen to the show during my commute to and from work. It is my favorite podcast.

Long time listener, always enjoy the podcast as you stumble roughshod over general morals to explain where the court is coming from. But honestly.. you guys are clearly flush with cash given your career choices.. do we really need the ai generated covers for these episodes? They are always fitting, but equally devoid of life. Hire an artist.. although I suppose if trampling about to fit pieces into holes comes so naturally.. Who cares.

Even when I, as a non-lawyer, get lost when precedents are cited, I still appreciate the back and forth and microscopic and macroscopic analyses.

This is the best Supreme Court podcast.

Amazing show

When my professors cold call me, I just say I stayed up all night reading the Constitution in Congress.

I enjoy this podcast a lot. Among all the Supreme Court podcasts I t’s more “conservative” than, say, Law and Chaos, but less so than Advisory Opinions. For example, Dan and Will were comfortable with the (obvious to liberal me) fact that the Court has, in its recent election opinions, produced the appearance, if not the fact, of partisanship benefiting Republicans. Advisory Opinions scoffed at the very idea of an appearance of partisanship. Law and Chaos says the Court is unambiguously partisan. This podcast finds a reasonable middle ground, which I appreciate. Always a good listen.

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!

As a retired trial lawyer I thoroughly enjoy learning about this part of the practice. I even enjoy their off topic conversations.

As a fellow jurist I can appreciate a well informed examination of American jurisprudence.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Continues to be the most interesting, entertaining, and educational Supreme Court podcast out there. Keep it up.

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.

Title

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.

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!

Two highly regarded and influential legal scholars discuss topical national legal issues.

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.

Best SCOTUS podcast around. Hosts challenge each other’s perspectives and the listener comes away with a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of the law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If Advisory Opinions is the ESPN of Supreme Court podcasts, Divided Argument is the NPR (low-key, soothingly intellectual).

One of the few media sources out there providing well-informed analysis of the goings-on of the US Supreme Court made in good faith. Would highly recommend.

Two smart professors diving deep into the weeds with some mildly entertaining sidebars provide for an interesting listen. However, if you believe, as I do, law exists to serve the interests of the community and is in service of those interests, you will find no real discussion here of the real world impacts of the court’s decisions. William “nothing to see here” Baude is impressive in his limitless ability to waive a hand at the court’s egregious behaviors as his smart co-host, Dan Epps, offers flaccid reactions as he gently and deferentially walks Baude through his thinking. A fine podcast but plenty of better options that address the far reaching implications of law.

I really enjoyed this podcast and the insight and banter of the show’s hosts. It used to be an instant listen. But, with the exception of some the recent episodes with guests, the podcast has started to swap interesting discussions between two smart people about the substance of cases for the sort of hyperbole that is found on cable news programming. I hoped the decline in the quality was attributable to the wait for a new term to start, but I’m starting to doubt that. Update: The nearly forty-five minute detour about immigration enforcement, tweets, and White House photo captions in the most recent episode continues to confirm my doubt. I’m sure many people will like the podcast’s current focus, but it’s not for me.

I learn so much from this podcast. But it's also just smart fun.

The best law podcast out there very unscheduled and unpredictable

NPR pretty-tend law

Best podcast.

I love this show. As a law student it is interesting to hear their conversations on these different legal issues of our day.

Maybe more ERISA?

Intellectually serious but interpersonally lighthearted, this antidote to unserious legal caterwauling among partisans of both sides should be the podcast of choice for those who actually want to learn about the Supreme Court (or ERISA).

I really wanted to like this podcast after finding about it through Advisory Opinions. Unfortunately, the hosts spend too much time talking about themselves and tedious, irrelevant facts of Supreme Court litigation. I failed to find much substance.

A one stop shop for all things ERISA. Infrequent, if insightful SCOTUS commentary too.

I used to enjoy this podcast but have been pretty disappointed in the recent episodes, particularly the co-hosted episodes with Sarah Isgur and Stephen Sachs, being increasingly dominated by Baude’s triumphant takes on the Supreme Court’s recent opinions. I don’t feel like Dan has pushed back as much as he did in the past, and the moderate position has been drowned out. The praise for Justice Barrett’s universal injunction opinion was embarrassing, as was the denigration of Justice Jackson’s dissent. For a podcast titled “Divided Argument,” I would expect more diverse perspectives. Maybe “Conservative Argument” is a more apt name now.

This is a great supplement to Advisory Opinions. It’s a high-quality, objective look at legal proceedings.

A refreshing level of analysis compared to certain other programming. Very excited about the blog!

I’ve been listening to this show since Season 1, and am *finally* heeding the admonition to provide a rating and review. It’s difficult to find balanced legal commentary. I appreciate how Dan and Will work towards consensus in good faith and yet are comfortable disagreeing with each other: it’s a model of what our legal discourse should look like and is much needed in these divisive times.

Every time I open my podcast app I am overwhelmed by the number of unplayed episodes that have been recently released. Keep it up, gents. Do more case preview episodes ;)

Divided Argument is the best Supreme Court podcast out there—smart, funny, wildly informative, and somehow always just unhinged enough to stay interesting. Will Baude and Dan Epps (longtime co-hosts, legal scholars, and apparently a couple?) manage to walk this perfect line between deep constitutional analysis and total chaos. It’s like listening to two extremely overqualified guys argue about Section 1983 liability while trying to remember if they left the oven on. What makes the show work is the dynamic: Will is the coolly methodical originalist who somehow makes citations feel flirty, and Dan’s the animated realist who interrupts with “that’s bananas” at just the right moment. They go off-script constantly, the release schedule is dictated by vibes, and somehow it all feels lovingly structured in its mess. They make you care about cert petitions. They make you understand the major questions doctrine. They make you laugh at things like “shadow docket,” which—if you know, you know. The chemistry is ridiculous. You get the sense they’ve been having this exact argument for the last ten years, and the podcast is just a formal excuse to record it between dinner and whatever show they’re binging together. Five stars. Better than oral argument. More intimate than chambers.

The best sounding show yet!

This podcast has become my go-to source for SCOTUS commentary that is anything but blithe. Both Prof. Baude (brainy) and Prof. Epps (fewer plosives per minute) demonstrate facility at thinking about Court-related issues and providing insightful commentary. When I want blithe, I go to the other guys. Not here. Five stars.

While Dan and Will often explain concepts at a level above this science undergraduate, this is most certainly the most rigorous legal podcast available. Even better, both hosts are quite funny and cordial even during complex legal analysis. America would be in a much better place if this podcast was the primary news source over the new anti-establishment social media services. It seems to me that most of the haters of this show are subject to the partisan mind-virus that infects so much of our current political ecosystem. Both hosts may or may not be partisan off the show, but during the show it is non-partisan law professor talk that takes the day.

I’m a law student and this podcast was the first time I’ve ever heard a professor use the word “based” as an adjective. Congratulations.