Claim OwnershipU.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Subscribed: 7,379Played: 181,905
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.
706 Episodes
Reverse
Oral Argument - January 21, 2026
A case in which the Court will decide whether pension plans calculating an employer's withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” must use the financial assumptions that existed at year-end, or whether they can use different assumptions adopted after year-end as long as those assumptions are based on information available at the time.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives "express authorization" violates the Second Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students’ biological sex as determined at birth.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from categorically requiring sports participants to compete based on their biological sex, rather than gender identity.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an oil company that produced crude oil during World War II to fulfill federal contracts for refining that oil into fuel can have its case heard in federal court, even though the specific contracts did not explicitly direct how the oil should be produced.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action.
A case in which the Court will decide whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
A case in which the Court will decide whether limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications.”
A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.
A case in which the Court will decide whether its decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law, and whether such a bar applies even when the plaintiff never had access to federal habeas review.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a First Amendment challenge to a state investigatory subpoena when the subject of the subpoena has demonstrated an objectively reasonable chilling effect on its constitutional rights, or whether such claims must instead first be adjudicated in state court.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
A case in which the Court will decide whether an internet service provider can be held liable for copyright infringement simply for knowing about ongoing infringement by users and not terminating their accounts, and whether such knowledge alone is enough to find willful infringement under the Copyright Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether district courts may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act’s nonretroactive reduction of mandatory minimum penalties—which can result in defendants serving sentences decades longer than those imposed for identical conduct today—when determining whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
A case in which the Court will decide whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
A case in which the Court will decide whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, which permits interlocutory appeals of certain non-final orders that conclusively determine important issues separate from the merits.
1A case in which the Court will decide whether the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), permits the president to impose tariffs.
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