Claim OwnershipU.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Subscribed: 7,312Played: 178,094
Subscribe
Description
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
685 Episodes
Reverse
A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court’s final judgment must be vacated if it is later determined that the case lacked complete diversity at the time of removal from state court, and whether a plaintiff can defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to assert a viable claim against a nondiverse defendant.
A case in which the Court will decide whether federal contractors enjoy immunity from state-law tort suits because they are integrated into combat operations, even when they violate military orders and contractual duties.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state prisoner habeas petitions also applies to repeat claims in federal prisoner motions to vacate their sentences; and (2) whether it has jurisdiction to review lower court decisions allowing or denying federal prisoners permission to file repeat challenges to their sentences.
A case in which the Court will decide whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
A case in which the Court will decide whether federal candidates have Article III standing to challenge state election laws that extend the deadline for receiving and counting mail-in ballots beyond Election Day when they allege vote dilution and increased campaign costs from monitoring extended ballot counting.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a claim that Postal Service employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to a designated address arises out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal-matter exception.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit must be applied in federal court.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a trial court violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by banning discussion of the defendant’s ongoing testimony with counsel during an overnight recess.
3A case in which the Court held that federal district courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide (1) whether a privately owned and operated school’s educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
A case in which the Court will held that (1) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., and (2) the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) of the FTCA overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout § 2680.
A case in which the Court held that the statute that provides combat-related special compensation (CRSC) to disabled veterans establishes its own settlement process for claims, which supersedes the Barring Act’s default six-year statute of limitations for most claims against the federal government.
A case in which the Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 do not require children with disabilities to satisfy a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
A case in which the Court held that public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
Footnote Kavanaugh
clement
What happened to this podcast? Why are there no new episodes?
53:03 has been written in history, Justice Thomas asks a question for the first time since 2016!
I wish the descriptions were a bit more detailed. It gets hard to keep up.
10 NEON 20.18. GOD