Shows
The High Court ReportOral Argument: Hamm v. Smith | IQ Score ShowdownHamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Oral Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: When someone takes multiple IQ tests to prove intellectual disability in a capital case, do courts look at all the scores together, or can one low score alone save their life?OverviewThe Supreme Court will decide whether courts must evaluate multiple IQ scores collectively or whether a single qualifying score triggers constitutional protection in death penalty cases. This decision affects hundreds of current death row inmates and reshapes capital litigation nationwide.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner...
2025-12-102h 03The High Court ReportOral Argument: FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal LawsuitsFS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal Lawsuits | Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 gives private plaintiffs a federal cause of action to seek rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act.OverviewThe Supreme Court will decide whether activist investors can sue investment funds directly in federal court when funds adopt governance provisions that allegedly violate federal securities law. Four closed-end funds adopted Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act provisions to strip voting rights from shareholders acquiring more than 10...
2025-12-101h 20The High Court ReportOral Argument: NRSC v. FEC | Camaign Finance First Amendment FightNRSC v. FEC | Money, Messaging, and Muzzling: The First Amendment Fight Over Party Coordination | Argument Date: 12/9/15 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the First Amendment permits limits on the amount of money that the national committee of a political party may contribute to political candidates in the form of coordinated expenditures.OverviewThis oral argument involves National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission, a landmark campaign finance case that could fundamentally reshape how political parties operate in federal elections, featuring the extraordinary situation where the Federal Election Commission itself now agrees with...
2025-12-092h 13The High Court ReportOral Argument: Trump v. Slaughter | Presidential Power PlayTrump v. Slaughter | Presidential Power Play : Trump's Total Takedown of Independent Agencies | Case No. 25-332 | Oral Argument Date: 12/8/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Congress can require the President to show cause before removing commissioners of independent agencies, or whether Article II grants the President absolute removal power over all executive officers.OverviewPresident Trump removed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, challenging the constitutional foundation of independent agencies. The Court confronts whether two dozen independent agencies that control $47 trillion in economic activity can maintain protection from at-will presidential removal.Oral...
2025-12-082h 32The High Court ReportWeek in Review: Unanimous Reversals, Texas Redistricting Bombshell, This Week's Oral Argument Analysis, and Presidential Power Showdown AheadOverviewThis week delivered explosive Supreme Court developments with two unanimous decisions and Texas redistricting ruling reshaping voting rights.The Court reversed Clark versus Sweeney and Pitts versus Mississippi while granting Texas a controversial redistricting stay. Oral arguments revealed deep tensions involving internet liability, immigration law, First Amendment standing, and federal court jurisdiction. Next week promises blockbuster cases addressing presidential power, campaign finance regulations, death penalty standards, and investment law. RoadmapExamine three major Supreme Court actions including two unanimous reversals that reinforce core judicial principles and one explosive redistricting decision that...
2025-12-0619 minThe High Court ReportUnanimous Reversals, Texas Redistricting Bombshell, This Week's Oral Argument Analysis, and Presidential Power Showdown AheadOverviewThis week delivered explosive Supreme Court developments with two unanimous decisions and Texas redistricting ruling reshaping voting rights.The Court reversed Clark versus Sweeney and Pitts versus Mississippi while granting Texas a controversial redistricting stay. Oral arguments revealed deep tensions involving internet liability, immigration law, First Amendment standing, and federal court jurisdiction. Next week promises blockbuster cases addressing presidential power, campaign finance regulations, death penalty standards, and investment law. RoadmapExamine three major Supreme Court actions including two unanimous reversals that reinforce core judicial principles and one explosive redistricting decision that...
2025-12-0522 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25 | Docket Link: HereOVERVIEWGabriel Olivier, a Christian who shares his faith on public sidewalks, gets convicted under a Mississippi ordinance restricting demonstrations near a city amphitheater. He sues in federal court seeking only prospective relief to prevent future enforcement against his religious expression. The Fifth Circuit blocks his lawsuit entirely under Heck v. Humphrey, but eight judges dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, setting up a Supreme Court showdown over whether prior convictions permanently bar constitutional challenges.
2025-12-031h 26The High Court ReportOral Argument: First Choice v. Platkin | The Jurisdictional Jam: When State Subpoenas Silence SpeechFirst Choice Women's Resource v. Platkin | Case No. 24-781 | Oral Argument Date: 12/2/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether federal courts can hear First Amendment challenges to state subpoenas immediately, or whether challengers must first litigate their constitutional claims in state court.OverviewThis episode examines First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Platkin, a case that generated a stunning 42 amicus briefs and could fundamentally reshape federal court jurisdiction over state investigatory demands. The Supreme Court will determine whether organizations facing state subpoenas for donor information can immediately challenge those demands in federal...
2025-12-021h 24The High Court ReportOral Argument: Urias-Orellana v. Bondi | Asylum Authority Showdown: Cartel Violence and Court DeferenceUrias-Orellana v. Bondi | Asylum Authority Showdown: Cartel Violence and Court Deference | Oral Argument Date: 12/1/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewIn this case, the Supreme Court must decide whether federal courts must defer to immigration officials when determining if undisputed facts constitute "persecution" under asylum law, or whether courts should make independent legal determinations. The case involves a Salvadoran family who fled years of cartel violence, including death threats and physical attacks, but were denied asylum when the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded their experiences didn't rise to the level of persecution. This decision will affect hundreds...
2025-12-0159 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | The Billion-Dollar Broadband BattleCox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | The Billion-Dollar Broadband Battle: When ISPs Face Copyright Catastrophe | Oral Argument Date: 12/1/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestions Presented: (1) Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it? (2) Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U...
2025-12-011h 42The High Court ReportOral Argument: Rutherford and Carter v. United States | Retroactivity RebellionCarter v. United States | Case No. 24-860 | Oral Argument Date: 11/12/25 | Docket Link: Here (consolidated with Rutherford v. United States | Case No. 24-820 | Docket Link: Here)OverviewToday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases Rutherford versus United States and Carter versus United States. These cases examine whether federal prisoners deserve relief based on changes Congress made to gun sentencing laws. Rutherford received 25 years for his second armed robbery—a sentence that would be only 7 years under today's laws. Congress eliminated brutal "stacking" penalties in 2018, but only for future defendants. Now Rutherford and Ca...
2025-11-121h 22The High Court ReportOral Argument: Fernandez v. United States | Sentence Reduction Standoff: Compassion Versus Collateral AttackFernandez v. United States | Case No. 24-556 | Oral Argument Date: 11/12/25 | Docket Link: Here | The Sentence Reduction Standoff: Compassion Versus Collateral AttackOverviewThis is the Supreme Court oral arguments in the case called Fernandez v. United States. Fernandez seeks a sentence reduction under federal law. Fernandez argues legal changes since his sentencing constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for reducing his sentence. The government argues these legal changes don't apply retroactively and cannot justify reduction. The central question: Can courts consider legal changes—even those that don't apply retroactively—as grounds for reducing previously imposed sentences?
2025-11-121h 22The High Court ReportOral Argument: GEO Group v. Menocal | Sovereign Immunity Appeal Fast PassGeo Group, Inc. v. Menocal | Case No. 24-758 | Oral Argument Date: 11/10/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Geo Group versus Menocal, which examines whether derivative sovereign immunity creates a fast-pass to appeal. Detainees sue a private contractor running an ICE facility, claiming forced labor—the company says "the government told me to do it" and wants to skip straight to appeal after the trial court found that the contractor held no derivative sovereign immunity. Must government contractors face years of expensive, potentially politically-motivated litigation first, or can they appeal im...
2025-11-1057 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections | Landor's Lost Locks and Clipped Constitutional ClaimsLandor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections | Case No. 23-1197 | Oral Argument Date: 11/10/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewThis is the Supreme Court oral argument in Landor versus Louisiana Department of Corrections, examining when prison guards clip constitutional claims. Damon Landor kept his Rastafarian vows for nearly two decades, but with just three weeks left in his sentence, Louisiana guards forced him down and shaved his head—even after he showed them a court ruling that said this exact act breaks federal law. Can Landor seek damages against the prison guard after Landor becomes free? Or...
2025-11-101h 51The High Court ReportOral Argument: Trump Tariff Cases | A Constitutional Clash: Trump's Tariffs and the Separation of PowersTrump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. | Oral Argument: November 5, 2025 | Case No. 25-250 | Docket Link: HereConsolidated with: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump | Case No. 24-1287 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Trump Tariff cases—Trump versus V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources versus Trump—a constitutional clash over tariffs and separation of powers. President Trump put sweeping tariffs on trillions of dollars in imports using a 1977 emergency law that says he can "regulate" trade—but the law never mentions tariffs, duties, or taxes...
2025-11-052h 39The High Court ReportOral Argument: Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Forum FightHain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Case No. 24-724 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group versus Palmquist, a forum fight about when courts keep cases they never should have had. A Texas family sued two companies over their child's heavy metal poisoning from baby food—but after a federal court wrongly kicked out one defendant and ran a two-week trial, an appeals court said the case never belonged in federal court, forcing everyone back to square one. Questions Presented:Whether a...
2025-11-0442 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Time Trap TangleConey Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | Case No. 24-808 | Oral Argument Date: 11/5/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts versus Burton, a time trap tangle examining when void verdicts gain validity. Coney Island's bank account gets frozen for nearly $100,000 based on a 2015 Tennessee judgment they claim they never knew about. When Coney finally fights back seven years later, the Sixth Circuit dismisses the case, saying that you waited too long to challenge the judgment Coney didn’t even know about. "If something never existed in th...
2025-11-0436 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Hencely v. Fluor | Battlefield Immunity BattleHain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Case No. 24-724 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewA father seeks justice after his son, Army Staff Sergeant Ryan Hencely, was killed in a 2016 terrorist attack at Bagram Airfield. The Army's own investigation found contractor Fluor failed to supervise the Afghan worker who carried out the attack, calling it the "primary contributing factor." Yet Fluor claims federal law shields them from any state tort liability. Question Presented: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort...
2025-11-031h 30The High Court ReportOral Argument: Rico v. United States | Disappearing Defendant DilemmaRico v. United States | Case No. 24-1234 | Oral Argument Date: 11/3/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Rico versus United States, the disappearing defendant dilemma examining when sentence clocks stop ticking. Isabel Rico went on the run during her 42-month release term. The government says her time on the run doesn't count toward her sentence. Question Presented: Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Joshua K. Handell, Assistant to...
2025-11-0355 minThe High Court ReportCase Preview: Trump Tariff Cases | A Constitutional Clash: Trump's Tariffs and the Separation of PowersTrump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. | Oral Argument: November 5, 2025 | Case No. 25-250 | Docket Link: HereConsolidated with: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump | Case No. 24-1287 | Docket Link: HereSeptember 10th Episode (A Constitutional Clash: Trump's Tariffs and the Separation of Powers): https://scotus-oral-arguments.captivate.fm/episode/a-constitutional-clash-trumps-tariffs-and-the-separation-of-powers/OverviewThis episode examines the Supreme Court's September 9, 2025 Order that expedited review of two consolidated cases challenging President Trump's authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), representing a constitutional clash over the separation of powers a...
2025-10-3018 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25Oral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 Link to Docket: HereConsolidated with: Robinson v. Callais | Case No. 24-110 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: HereCase Preview: HereBackground: Over the State's strenuous objections, the Middle District of Louisiana held, Robinson v. Ardoin , 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022)-and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Robinson v. Ardoin , 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023)-that Louisiana likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by failing to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The Fifth Circuit gave the Legislature...
2025-10-152h 31The High Court ReportOral Argument: Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25Oral Argument: Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: HereQuestion Presented: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Los AngelesFor Respondent: Christian B. Corrigan, Solicitor General, MontanaUnited States as Amicus Curiae: Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of JusticeLink to Opinion: TBD....
2025-10-151h 15The High Court ReportOral Argument: Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25Oral Argument: Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: HereQuestion Presented: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D.C. argued for petitioner. For Respondent in Support of Vacatur: Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice argued for respondent in support of vacatur. For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: John F. Bash, Austin...
2025-10-141h 04The High Court ReportOral Argument: Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25Oral Argument: Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: HereBackground: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added).Question Presented:Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of a...
2025-10-141h 31The High Court ReportOral Argument: Postal Service v. Konan | Case No. 24-351 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25Oral Argument: Postal Service v. Konan | Case No. 24-351 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: HereBackground: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq .), generally waives the United States' sovereign immunity for suits seeking damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of the federal government "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law...
2025-10-081h 06The High Court ReportOral Argument: Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections | Case No. 24-568 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25Oral Argument: Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections | Case No. 24-568 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: https://scotus-oral-arguments.captivate.fm/episode/upcoming-oral-argument-bost-v-illinois-ballot-box-bout-when-can-candidates-challenge-election-rules/Background: Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7; and 3 U.S.C. § 1. Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. Petitioners contend these state laws are preempted under the Elections and Electors Clauses. Petitioners sued to enjoin Illinois' law allowing ballots to...
2025-10-081h 43The High Court ReportOral Argument: Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25Oral Argument: Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: Here Question Presented: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va.For United States as Amicus Curiae: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Respondent: Shannon W. Stevenson, Colorado Solicitor GeneralLink to Opinion: TBD.Website...
2025-10-071h 25
The High Court ReportOral Argument: Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25Episode Title Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: HereQuestion Presented:Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree.Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) (3)(A), a question left open after" United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney , 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023).Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Matthew B. Larsen, Assistant Federal Defender, New York, N. Y. F...
2025-10-071h 25The High Court ReportOral Argument: Barrett v. United States | Case No. 24-5774 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25Oral Argument: Barrett v. United States | Case No. 24-5774 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: HereQuestion Presented:Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree.Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) (3)(A), a question left open after" United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney , 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023).Oral Advocates:For...
2025-10-071h 01The High Court ReportOral Argument: Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25Oral Argument: Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 Link to Docket: HereEpisode Preview: HereBackground: Question Presented: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Frederick R. Yarger, Denver, CO.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps:
2025-10-061h 04The High Court ReportOral Argument: Villarreal v. Texas | Case No. 24-557 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25Oral Argument: Villarreal v. Texas | Case No. 24-557 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 Link to Docket: HerePreview Episode: HereQuestion Presented: Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Stuart Banner, Los Angeles, Cal. For Respondent: Andrew N. Warthen, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, San Antonio, Tex.; and Kevin J. Barber, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
2025-10-061h 17The High Court ReportOral Argument Preview | Bost v. Illinois | Ballot Box Bout: When Can Candidates Challenge Election Rules? Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections | Case No. 24-568 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewThis episode examines Bost v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that could reshape how candidates challenge election laws in federal court. Congressman Michael Bost and two Republican presidential elector nominees are challenging Illinois's law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to 14 days after Election Day, creating a fundamental test of Article III standing doctrine in the election law context. The case sits at the intersection of constitutional standing requirements and the unique competitive dynamics of electoral politics...
2025-09-2622 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument Preview | Postal Service v. Konan | Dictionary Duel Over "Loss," "Miscarriage," and Government LiabilityPostal Service v. Konan | Case No. 24-351 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 | Docket Link: HereEpisode OverviewThis episode examines United States Postal Service v. Lebene Konan, a Supreme Court case that asks whether the federal government has immunity when postal employees intentionally refuse to deliver mail as part of a campaign of racial harassment. The case centers on the interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act's "postal exception" and whether terms like "loss" and "miscarriage" cover intentional wrongdoing or only negligent acts.Episode RoadmapOpening: A Deceptively Simple QuestionCan you...
2025-09-2511 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument Preview | Chiles v. Salazar | Battle Over Conversion Therapy and Therapist Free Speech RightsChiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.Other Referenced Episodes:August 19 – Road Work Ahead: How Four 2024 Cases May Be Reshaping First Amendment Scrutiny | HereOverviewThis episode examines one of the most anticipated cases of the October 2025 Supreme Court term - a First Amendment challenge to Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban that has generated over 50 amicus briefs and sits at...
2025-09-1921 minThe High Court ReportSCOTUS 2025 Term Launches: Your Preview Series Begins NowEpisode OverviewThe Supreme Court returns from summer recess with a blockbuster lineup of cases for October and November 2025. This episode provides a comprehensive preview of the 19 cases already scheduled for oral argument, spanning critical issues from voting rights to conversion therapy bans to criminal procedure reforms. We examine why this term opens with such consequential cases and what practitioners and citizens should watch for as the arguments unfold.What You'll LearnComplete October & November argument schedule with key dates and case pairingsWhy Louisiana v. Callais could be the most significant voting rights case...
2025-09-1511 minThe High Court ReportThe Bostock Bounce Back? How Skrmetti's Retreat from Bostock Sets Up a SCOTUS Sports ShowdownThis episode revisits the Supreme Court's 2020 Bostock decision and examines how the Court's recent retreat from Bostock in United States v. Skrmetti sets up a constitutional showdown over transgender rights in school sports. We analyze the methodical legal reasoning behind Bostock's landmark ruling that Title VII protects gay and transgender employees, then explore how each faction of justices treated Bostock differently in Skrmetti's constitutional challenge to Tennessee's transgender healthcare ban. The episode concludes by examining how both sides strategically deployed Bostock and anticipated Skrmetti's outcome in their cert petitions for the upcoming transgender sports cases...
2025-08-1118 minThe High Court ReportEmergency Docket Summary: SCOTUS Green Lights Mass Firings at Education Dep'tThis episode examines a July 14th Supreme Court emergency docket ruling that reveals fundamental tensions about executive power over federal agency firings at the Education Department and the limits of congressional authority. This episode also compares and contrasts this case (McMahon v. New York) with OPM v. AFGE, a government workforce reduction case discussed in our July 9th episode. In both cases, the government raised virtually identical arguments about standing, jurisdiction and the merits. In both cases, SCOTUS permitted the reductions to take effect while litigation played out.Case Covered:McMahon v. New...
2025-07-1516 minThe High Court ReportReading the Eagle County Tea Leaves: How the Justices' Oral Argument Questions Foreshadowed Their OpinionsReading the Eagle County Tea Leaves: How the Justices' Oral Argument Questions Foreshadowed Their Opinions This episode of SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions delves into the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition versus Eagle County, decided on May 29, 2025. The episode compares and contrasts the oral arguments and written opinions of Justices Kavanaugh and Sotomayor. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion emphasized broad judicial deference to federal agencies and the economic impact of extensive environmental reviews. In contrast, Justice Sotomayor's concurrence focused on the narrow legal authority under federal transportation law. The episode highlights how Justices...
2025-05-3012 minThe High Court ReportReading the Kousisis Tea Leaves: How the Justices' Oral Argument Questions Foreshadowed Their OpinionsI created this episode to highlight and contrast the Justices' questions and comments at oral argument to the written opinion in Kousisis.While all Justices agreed on rejecting the economic-loss requirement, their different concerns and questioning approaches during oral argument directly predicted the fragmented reasoning that would characterize their written opinions. The oral argument served as a laboratory for testing legal theories that would ultimately prove difficult to reconcile in a single coherent framework, explaining why this unanimous result required four separate opinions to express the Court's reasoning. Specifically:Justice Barrett used oral argument to test...
2025-05-2209 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | Case No. 24-304 | Date Argued: 4/29/25Case Info: Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | Case No. 24-304 | Date Argued: 4/29/25Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether a federal court may certify a class action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Noel J. FranciscoFor United States, as Amicus Curiae: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General For Respondents: Deepak GuptaWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:06 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins02:16...
2025-04-292h 15The High Court ReportOral Argument: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Case No. 24-249 | Date Argued: 4/28/25Case Info: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Case No. 24-249 | Date Argued: 4/28/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) require public entities and organizations that receive federal funding to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. In the decision below, the Eighth Circuit held that, for discrimination claims "based on educational services" brought by children with disabilities, these statutes are violated only if school officials acted with ''bad faith or gross misjudgment."That test...
2025-04-281h 26The High Court ReportOral Argument: Parrish v. United States | Case No. 24-275 | Date Argued: 4/21/25Case Info: Parrish v. United States | Case No. 24-275 | Date Argued: 4/21/25 | Date Decided: 6/12/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Ordinarily, litigants must file a notice of appeal within 30 or 60 days of an adverse judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), however, district courts can reopen an expired appeal period when a party did not receive timely notice of the judgment. The Courts of Appeals have divided about whether a notice of appeal filed after the expiration of the ordinary appeal period but before th...
2025-04-2153 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Kennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. | Case No. 24-316 | Date Argued: 4/21/25Case Info: Kennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. | Case No. 24-316 | Date Argued: 4/21/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), which sits within the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issues clinical recommendations for preventive medical services, such as screenings and medications to prevent serious diseases. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111 -148, 124 Stat. 119, health insurance issuers and group health plans must cover certain preventive services recommended by the Task Force without...
2025-04-211h 26The High Court ReportOral Argument: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic | Case No. 23-1275 | Date Argued: 4/2/25Case Info: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic | Case No. 23-1275 | Date Argued: 4/2/25Link to Docket: Here. Background:More than 30 years ago, this Court first applied what would become known as the "Blessing factors," holding that a Medicaid Act provision created a privately enforceable right to certain reimbursement rates. Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 509-10 (1990). Later, the Court distilled from Wilder a multi-factor test for deciding whether a "statutory provision gives rise to a federal right" privately enforceable under Section 1983. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340 (1997). Five years later, though, the Court...
2025-04-021h 33The High Court ReportOral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Date Argued: 3/24/25Case Info: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Date Argued: 3/24/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Over the State's strenuous objections, the Middle District of Louisiana held, Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022)-and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Robinson v. Ardoin, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023)-that Louisiana likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by failing to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The Fifth Circuit gave the Legislature a small window of time to adopt its own remedial plan, or else the State would have to go to...
2025-03-241h 19The High Court ReportOral Argument: Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. | Case No. 23-1270 | Date Argued: 3/24/25Case Info: Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. | Case No. 23-1270 | Date Argued: 3/24/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Petitioner Pierre Riley, ineligible for cancellation of removal or discretionary relief from removal, sought deferral in withholding-only proceedings, pursuant to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. After the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision reversing an immigration judge's grant of relief, Riley promptly petitioned for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Although both parties urged the court to decide the merits of...
2025-03-2456 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Velazquez v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | Case No. 23-929 | Date Argued: 11/12/24Case Info: Velazquez v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | Case No. 23-929 | Date Argued: 11/12/24 | Date Decided: 4/22/25Link to Docket: Here. Background: Federal immigration law allows the government to grant a "voluntary departure" period of up to 60 days to a noncitizen "of good moral character" who receives an adverse decision in removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b). If the noncitizen fails to depart during that window, he or she is subject to a civil fine and is ineligible for various forms of immigration relief (like cancellation of removal or adjustment of status) for 10 years. §1229c(d...
2024-11-121h 07The High Court ReportOral Argument: San Francisco v. EPA | Case No. 23-753 | Date Argued: 10/16/24Case Info: San Francisco v. EPA | Case No. 23-753 | Date Argued: 10/16/24 | Date Decided: 3/4/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Congress designed the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act) to ensure that anyone holding a discharge permit issued under the Act has notice of how much they must control their discharges to comply with the law. The CWA requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and authorized states provide this notice by prescribing specific pollutant limitations in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits they issue. Consistent with its text, this...
2024-10-161h 37The High Court ReportOral Argument: Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger | Case No. 23-677 | Date Argued: 10/7/24Case Info: Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger | Case No. 23-677 | Date Argued: 10/7/24 | Date Decided: 1/15/25Link to Docket: Here.Questions Presented:Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.Holding: When a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal to federal court, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over t...
2024-10-071h 05The High Court ReportOral Argument: Moyle v. United States | Case No. 23-726 | Date Argued: 4/24/24 | Date Decided: 6/27/24Oral Argument: Moyle v. United States | Case No. 23-726 | Date Argued: 4/24/24 | Date Decided: 6/27/24 Case consolidated with Idaho v. United States, Case No. 23-727.Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether EMTALA preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions, like Idaho's Defense of Life Act.Holding: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.Result: Dismissed.Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Per curiam opinion. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and in which Justice Jackson joined as to Part II. Justice Barrett filed a concurring...
2024-04-241h 53The High Court ReportOral Argument: Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney | Case No. 23-367 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/13/24Oral Argument: Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney | Case No. 23-367 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/13/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Under the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issues, prosecutes, and adjudicates complaints alleging that employers committed unfair labor practices. 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Section 10(j) of the Act authorizes federal district courts, while the NLRB adjudication remains pending, to grant preliminary injunctive relief at the NLRB's request "as [the court] deems just and proper." Id. § 160(j).Question Presented: Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB's requests for section 10(j) in...
2024-04-2352 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Department of State v. Muñoz | Case No. 23-334 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24Oral Argument: Department of State v. Muñoz | Case No. 23-334 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., the decision to grant or deny a visa application rests with a consular officer in the Department of State. Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), any noncitizen whom a consular officer "knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in* * * unlawful activity" is ineligible to receive a visa or b...
2024-04-231h 31The High Court ReportOral Argument: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson | Case No. 23-175 | Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24Oral Argument: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson | Case No. 23-175 | Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:In Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prevents cities from enforcing criminal restrictions on public camping unless the person has "access to adequate temporary shelter." Id. at 617 & n.8. In this case, the Ninth Circuit extended Martin to a classwide injunction prohibiting the City of Grants Pass from enforcing its public-camping ordinance even though civil citations. That decision cemented a...
2024-04-222h 25The High Court ReportOral Argument: Smith v. Spizzirri | Case No. 22-1218 Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 5/16/24Oral Argument: Smith v. Spizzirri | Case No. 22-1218 Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 5/16/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important statutory question under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.1-16. The FAA establishes procedures for enforcing arbitration agreements in federal court. Under Section 3 of the Act, when a court finds a dispute subject to arbitration, the court "shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until [the] arbitration" has concluded. 9 U.S.C. 3 (emphasis added). While six...
2024-04-2243 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Thornell v. Jones | Case No. 22-982 | Date Argued: 4/17/24 | Date Decided: 5/30/24Oral Argument: Thornell v. Jones | Case No. 22-982 | Date Argued: 4/17/24 | Date Decided: 5/30/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background: Over thirty years ago, Respondent Danny Lee Jones beat Robert Weaver to death and also beat and strangled Weaver's 7-year-old daughter, Tisha, to death, for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. The district court denied habeas relief following an evidentiary hearing on Jones's ineffective-assistance-of-sentencing-counsel claims. But a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court, giving no deference to the district court's detailed factual findings. Judge Mark Bennett authored a nine-judge dissent from the denial...
2024-04-171h 04The High Court ReportOral Argument: Fischer v. United States | Case No. 23-5572 | Date Argued: March 25, 2024Oral Argument: Fischer v. United States | Case No. 23-5572 | Date Argued: March 25, 2024 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?Holding: To prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.
2024-04-161h 40The High Court ReportOral Argument: Snyder v. United States | Case No. 23-108 | Date Argued: 4/15/24 | Date Decided: 6/26/24Oral Argument: Snyder v. United States | Case No. 23-108 | Date Argued: 4/15/24 | Date Decided: 6/26/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background: 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) makes it a federal crime for a state or local official to "corruptly solicit[,] demand[,] ... or accept[] ... anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any" government business "involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more."Question Presented: Whether section 666 criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid p...
2024-04-151h 38The High Court ReportOral Argument: Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon | Case No. 23-50 | Date Argued: 4/15/24 | Date Decided: 6/20/24Oral Argument: Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon | Case No. 23-50 | Date Argued: 4/15/24 | Date Decided: 6/20/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:To make out a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that legal process was instituted without probable cause. Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332, 1338 (2022). Under the charge-specific rule, a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge, even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause. Under the "any-crime" rule, probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff's malicious p...
2024-04-1558 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Erlinger v. United States | Case No. 23-370 | Date Argued: 3/27/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24Oral Argument: Erlinger v. United States | Case No. 23-370 | Date Argued: 3/27/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant's prior convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another," as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).Holding: The Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant's past offenses were committed on separate occasions f...
2024-03-271h 33The High Court ReportOral Argument: Connelly v. United States | Case No. 23-146 | Date Argued: 3/27/24 | Date Decided: 6/6/24Oral Argument: Connelly v. United States | Case No. 23-146 | Date Argued: 3/27/24 | Date Decided: 6/6/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background: Closely held corporations often enter into agreements requiring the redemption of a shareholder's stock after the shareholder's death in order to preserve the closely held nature of the business. Corporations that enter such agreements often purchase life insurance on the shareholder in order to fund the transaction.Question Presented: Whether the proceeds of a life-insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of...
2024-03-2753 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine | Case No. 23-235 | Date Argued: 3/26/24 | Date Decided: 6/13/24Oral Argument: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine | Case No. 23-235 | Date Argued: 3/26/24 | Date Decided: 6/13/24 Case consolidated with Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Case No. 23-236.Link to Docket: Here.Background:In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Danco's drug Mifeprex for termination of early pregnancy based on the agency's expert judgment that clinical data showed the drug to be safe and effective. The agency later modified certain conditions of use for mifepristone in 2016 and 2021, again relying on clinical data and the agency's expert judgment...
2024-03-261h 32The High Court ReportOral Argument: Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe | Case No. 23-250 | Date Argued: 3/25/24 | Date Decided: 6/6/24Oral Argument: Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe | Case No. 23-250 | Date Argued: 3/25/24 | Date Decided: 6/6/24 Case consolidated with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe, Case No. 23-253.Link to Docket: Here.Background:The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq., permits eligible Indian tribes to contract with the federal government to assume responsibility for federal health care programs administered for the benefit of Indians. Upon entering into the contract, a tribe is entitled to the appropriated funds that the Indian Health Service (IHS) would have otherwise allocated to...
2024-03-251h 26The High Court ReportOral Argument: Harrow v. Department of Defense | Case No. 23-21 | Date Argued: 3/25/24 | Date Decided: 5/16/24Oral Argument: Harrow v. Department of Defense | Case No. 23-21 | Date Argued: 3/25/24 | Date Decided: 5/16/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:When a federal employee petitions the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board." In the decision below, the Federal Circuit relied on settled circuit precedent holding t...
2024-03-2550 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Gonzalez v. Trevino | Case No. 22-1025 | Date Argued: 3/20/24 | Date Decided: 6/20/24Oral Argument: Gonzalez v. Trevino | Case No. 22-1025 | Date Argued: 3/20/24 | Date Decided: 6/20/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:In Nieves v. Bartlett, this Court held that probable cause does not bar a retaliatory arrest claim against a "police officer" when a plaintiff shows "that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been." 139 S. Ct. 1715, 1727 (2019). The circuits admittedly disagree on whether only specific examples of non-arrests, Pet. App. 28-29 (5th Cir. 2022), or any "objective proof of retaliatory treatment" can satisfy this standard, Lund...
2024-03-201h 25The High Court ReportOral Argument: Texas v. New Mexico | Case No. 141, Orig. | Date Argued: 3/20/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24Oral Argument: Texas v. New Mexico | Case No. 141, Orig. | Date Argued: 3/20/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: EXCEPTION OF THE UNITED STATE TO THE THIRD INTERIM REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER: The United States excepts to the Special Master's recommendation that the States' joint motion to enter a consent decree be granted.Holding: Because the proposed consent decree would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without its consent, the States’ motion to enter the consent decree is denied.Result: Exception sustained.Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Jackson deli...
2024-03-201h 08The High Court ReportOral Argument: Diaz v. United States | Case No. 23-14 | Date Argued: 3/19/24 | Date Decided: 6/20/24Oral Argument: Diaz v. United States | Case No. 23-14 | Date Argued: 3/19/24 | Date Decided: 6/20/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background: Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) provides: "In a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone." Fed. R. Evid. 704(b).Question Presented: In a prosecution for drug trafficking-where an element of the offense is that the...
2024-03-191h 24The High Court ReportOral Argument: Murthy v. Missouri | Case No. 23-411 | Date Argued: 3/18/24 | Date Decided: 6/26/24Oral Argument: Murthy v. Missouri | Case No. 23-411 | Date Argued: 3/18/24 | Date Decided: 6/26/24 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether Respondents have Article III standing; Whether the government's challenged conduct transformed private social-media companies' content-moderation decisions into state action and violated Respondents' First Amendment rights; and Whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.Holding: Respondents, two states and five individual social media users who sued executive branch officials and agencies, alleging that the government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in violation of the First Amendment, lack Article...
2024-03-191h 42The High Court ReportOral Argument: National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo | Case No. 22-842 | Date Argued: 3/18/24 | Date Decided: 5/30/24Oral Argument: National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo | Case No. 22-842 | Date Argued: 3/18/24 | Date Decided: 5/30/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Bantam Books v. Sullivan held that a state commission with no formal regulatory power violated the First Amendment when it "deliberately set out to achieve the suppression of publications" through "informal sanctions," including the "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation." 372 U.S. 58, 66-67 (1963). Respondent here, wielding enormous regulatory power as the head of New York's Department of Financial Services ("DFS"), applied similar pressure tactics-including backchannel...
2024-03-181h 14The High Court ReportOral Argument: Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski | Case No. 23-3 | Date Argued: 2/28/24 | Date Decided: 5/23/24Oral Argument: Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski | Case No. 23-3 | Date Argued: 2/28/24 | Date Decided: 5/23/24 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Where parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, should an arbitrator or a court decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation?Holding: Where parties have agreed to two contracts, one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts, a court must decide which contract governs.Result: Affirmed.
2024-02-2842 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Garland v. Cargill | Case No. 22-976 | Date Argued: 2/28/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24Oral Argument: Garland v. Cargill | Case No. 22-976 | Date Argued: 2/28/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Since 1986, Congress has prohibited the transfer or possession of any new "machinegun." 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(1). The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. 5801 et seq., defines a "machinegun" as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The statutory definition also encompasses "any part designed and intended solely and exclusively...
2024-02-281h 30The High Court ReportOral Argument: McIntosh v. United States | Case No. 22-7386 | Date Argued: 2/27/24 | Date Decided: 4/17/24Oral Argument: McIntosh v. United States | Case No. 22-7386 | Date Argued: 2/27/24 | Date Decided: 4/17/24 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether a district court may enter a criminal forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Rule 32.2, Fed.R.Crim.P.?Holding: A district court's failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B)'s requirement to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review.Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 9...
2024-02-2748 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. | Case No. 22-529 | Date Argued: 2/27/24 | Date Decided: 5/30/24Oral Argument: Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A. | Case No. 22-529 | Date Argued: 2/27/24 | Date Decided: 5/30/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background: At least thirteen states have, enacted laws requiring mortgage lenders to pay a minimum interest rate on funds held in mortgage escrow accounts. Congress has since recognized the existence of these state escrow-interest laws and has expressly required national banks to comply with them where applicable. See 15 U.S.C. § 1639d(g)(3).Question Presented: Does the National Bank Act preempt the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks?
2024-02-271h 47The High Court ReportOral Argument: Moody v. NetChoice, LLC | Case No. 22-277 | Date Argued: 2/26/24 | Case No. 7/1/24Oral Argument: Moody v. NetChoice, LLC | Case No. 22-277 | Date Argued: 2/26/24 | Case No. 7/1/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Florida has enacted a law that attempts to prevent social-media companies from abusing their enormous power to censor speech.Question Presented: Whether the First Amendment prohibits a State from requiring that social-media companies host third-party communications, and from regulating the time, place, and manner in which they do so. Whether the First Amendment prohibits a State from requiring social-media companies to notify and provide an explanation to their users when they censor...
2024-02-262h 22The High Court ReportOral Argument: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton | Case No. 22-555 | Date Argued: 2/26/24 | Date Decided: 7/1/24Oral Argument: NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton | Case No. 22-555 | Date Argued: 2/26/24 | Date Decided: 7/1/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Throughout our Nation's history, the First Amendment's freedoms of speech and press have protected private entities' rights to choose whether and how to publish and disseminate speech generated by others. E.g., Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019); Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 570, 575 (1995); Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241,258 (1974). Over two decades ago, this Court held there is "no basis for qualifying the level of...
2024-02-261h 20The High Court ReportOral Argument: Ohio v. EPA | Case No. 23A349 | Date Argued: 2/21/24 | Date Decided: 6/27/2024Oral Argument: Ohio v. EPA | Case No. 23A349 | Date Argued: 2/21/24 | Date Decided: 6/27/2024 Case consolidated with Kinder Morgan, Inc. v. EPA, Case No. 23A350, American Forest & Paper Assn. v. EPA, Case No. 23A351 and U.S. Steel Corp. v. EPA, Case No. 23A384.Link to Docket: Here.Holding: The enforcement of the Environmental Protection Agency's federal implementation plan against the applicant states, whose own state implementation plans were determined by EPA to be inadequate because they failed to adequately address certain obligations under the Good Neighbor Provision, shall be stayed pending disposition of the...
2024-02-211h 29The High Court ReportOral Argument: Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy | Case No. 22-1078 | Date Argued: 2/21/2024 | Date Decided: 5/9/24Oral Argument: Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy | Case No. 22-1078 | Date Argued: 2/21/2024 | Date Decided: 5/9/24 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether, under the discovery accrual rule applied by the Circuit Courts and the Copyright Act's statute of limitations for civil actions, 17 U.S.C. §507(b), a copyright plaintiff can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit.Holding: The Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred.Result: A...
2024-02-2153 minThe High Court ReportOral Argument: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, FRS | Case No. 22-1008 | Date Argued: 2/20/2024 | Date Decided: 7/1/2024Oral Argument: Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, FRS | Case No. 22-1008 | Date Argued: 2/20/2024 | Date Decided: 7/1/2024 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Petitioner Corner Post, Inc. is a convenience store and truck stop in North Dakota that first opened for business in 2018. In 2021, Corner Post sued the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging a Board rule adopted in 2011 that governs certain fees for debit-card transactions. The Eighth Circuit held that Corner Post's APA claims were barred by 28 U.S.C. §2401 (a)'s six-year statute of l...
2024-02-201h 10The High Court ReportOral Argument: Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC | Case No. 23-51 | Date Argued: 2/20/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24Oral Argument: Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC | Case No. 23-51 | Date Argued: 2/20/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:The Federal Arbitration Act exempts the "contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." 9 U.S.C. § 1. The First and Seventh Circuits have held that this exemption applies to any member of a class of workers that is engaged in foreign or interstate commerce in the same way as seamen and railroad employees-that is, any worker "actively engaged" in the interstate t...
2024-02-201h 00The High Court ReportOral Argument: Trump v. Anderson | Case No. 23-719 | Date Argued: 2/8/24 | Date Decided: 3/4/24Oral Argument: Trump v. Anderson | Case No. 23-719 | Date Argued: 2/8/24 | Date Decided: 3/4/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:The Supreme Court of Colorado held that President Donald J. Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President because he "engaged in insurrection" against the Constitution of the United States-and that he did so after taking an oath "as an officer of the United States" to "support" the Constitution. The state supreme court ruled that the Colorado Secretary of State should not list President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot or count any write-in...
2024-02-082h 09The High Court ReportOral Argument: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce | Case No. 22-1219 | Date Argued: 1/17/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24Oral Argument: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce | Case No. 22-1219 | Date Argued: 1/17/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:The Magnuson-Stevens Act ("MSA'') governs fishery management in federal waters. It states that, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") may require fishing vessels to carry federal observers who enforce the agency's regulations. Congress appropriates funds for these observers. In three circumstances absent here, but not elsewhere, the MSA allows federal observers to be paid in some manner by the regulated party. Deeming annual Congressional appropriations...
2024-01-172h 11The High Court ReportOral Argument: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo | Case No. 22-451 | Date Argued: 1/17/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24Oral Argument: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo | Case No. 22-451 | Date Argued: 1/17/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24 Case consolidated with Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, Case No. 22-1219.Link to Docket: Here.Background: The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) governs fishery management in federal waters and provides that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) may require vessels to "carry" federal observers onboard to enforce the agency's myriad regulations. Given that space onboard a fishing vessel is limited and valuable, that alone is an extraordinary imposition. But in three narrow circumstances not applicable here, the MSA...
2024-01-171h 16The High Court ReportOral Argument: Devillier v. Texas | Case No. 22-913 | Date Argued: 1/16/24 | Date Decided: 4/16/24Oral Argument: Devillier v. Texas | Case No. 22-913 | Date Argued: 1/16/24 | Date Decided: 4/16/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, this Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was "self-executing" and that "[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary" for claims for just compensation because they "are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]" 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). Since First English, several state courts of last resort have held that the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause requires them to entertain claims directly under the Clause without the need...
2024-01-161h 11The High Court ReportOral Argument: Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. | Case No. 22-1165 | Date Argued: 1/16/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24Oral Argument: Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. | Case No. 22-1165 | Date Argued: 1/16/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background: Section l0(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. To that end, SEC Rule l0b-5 declares it unlawful to make an untrue statement or omit a material fact "necessary" to make an affirmative statement "not misleading." 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b). A violation of this requirement can give rise to a private claim-a judicially implied private right of action t...
2024-01-161h 05The High Court ReportOral Argument: Smith v. Arizona | Case No. 22-899 | Date Argued: 1/10/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24Oral Argument: Smith v. Arizona | Case No. 22-899 | Date Argued: 1/10/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst's statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert's opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.Holding: When an expert...
2024-01-101h 28The High Court ReportOral Argument: United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC | Case No. 22-1238 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24Oral Argument: United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC | Case No. 22-1238 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Section 1004(a) of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, Pub. L. No.115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1232 (28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6)(B) (2018)), amended the schedule of quarterly fees payable to the United States Trustee in certain pending bankruptcy cases. In Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), this Court held that that provision contravened Congress's constitutional authority to "establish * * * uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies," U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4, because it w...
2024-01-091h 02The High Court ReportOral Argument: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado | Case No. 22-1074 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24Oral Argument: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado | Case No. 22-1074 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:George Sheetz applied, to the County of El Dorado, California, for a permit to build a modest manufactured house on his property. Pursuant to legislation enacted by the County, and as the condition of obtaining the permit, Mr. Sheetz was required to pay a monetary exaction of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements. The County demanded payment in spite of the fact that it made no individualized determination that the exaction-a substantial sum...
2024-01-091h 28The High Court ReportOral Argument: Campos-Chaves v. Garland | Case No. 22-674 | Date Argued: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24Oral Argument: Campos-Chaves v. Garland | Case No. 22-674 | Date Argued: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24 Host Note: This case was consolidated with Garland v. Singh, Case No. 22-884.Link to Docket: Here.Background: The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that a noncitizen who does not appear at a removal hearing shall be ordered removed in absentia, but only if she was provided "written notice required under paragraph (l) or (2) of section 1229(a).'' 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b)(5)(A). The Act authorizes rescission of an in absentia order if the noncitizen "did not receive n...
2024-01-081h 40The High Court ReportOral Argument: FBI v. Fikre | Case No. 22-1178 | Date Decided: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 3/19/24Oral Argument: FBI v. Fikre | Case No. 22-1178 | Date Decided: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 3/19/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Individuals are sometimes removed from the No Fly List during ongoing litigation about their placement on that list. The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that an individual's removal from the No Fly List moots a case when the government represents that the individual will not be placed back on the list based on currently available information. In conflict with those decisions, the Ninth Circuit held in this case that Respondent's claims were not moot even...
2024-01-081h 21The High Court ReportOral Argument: Muldrow v. St. Louis | Case No. 22-193 | Date Argued: 12/6/23 | Date Decided: 4/17/24Oral Argument: Muldrow v. St. Louis | Case No. 22-193 | Date Argued: 12/6/23 | Date Decided: 4/17/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual" with respect to "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). The Eighth Circuit below followed binding circuit precedent to hold that discriminatory job transfers (and denials o...
2023-12-061h 36The High Court ReportOral Argument: Moore v. United States | Case No. 22-800 | Date Argued: 12/5/23 | Date Decided: 6/20/24Oral Argument: Moore v. United States | Case No. 22-800 | Date Argued: 12/5/23 | Date Decided: 6/20/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Beginning with Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), this Court's decisions have uniformly held "income," for Sixteenth Amendment purposes, to require realization by the taxpayer. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit approved taxation of a married couple on earnings that they undisputedly did not realize but were instead retained and reinvested by a corporation in which they are minority shareholders. It held that "realization of income is not a constitutional requirement" for Congress to...
2023-12-052h 04