The High Court Report

OverviewThis 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 signals the Court's growing skepticism toward racial gerrymandering claims. Analyze this week's oral arguments covering Cox Communications' copyright liability dilemma, the complex standing issues in First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Platkin, and Justice Jackson's pointed questioning in Olivier versus City of Brandon. Explore the implications of the Abbott decision for Louisiana versus Callais and broader voting rights protections. Preview next week's constitutional showdowns including Trump's challenge to independent agency protections and two death penalty cases that could reshape capital punishment standards.TIMESTAMPS[00:00] Intro[01:17] Two Supreme Court Per Curiam Opinions[04:57] Supreme Court Texas Redistricting Emergency Docket Decision[06:57] Oral Arguments Week in Review[15:30]  Next Week's Blockbuster Cases

Olivier 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.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Olivier): Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, TXUnited States, as Amicus Curiae Supporting Vacatur: Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Respondent (City of Brandon): G. Todd Butler, Flowood, MSLink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview[00:01:37] Oral Argument Begins[00:01:47] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:42] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:22:08] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[00:38:31] United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Vacatur Opening Statement[00:39:46] United States Free for All Questions[00:49:39] United States Free for All Questions[00:55:53] Respondent Opening Statement[00:58:02] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:20:04] Respondent Round Robin Questions[01:21:23] Petitioner Rebuttal

First 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 court, or whether they must first exhaust state court proceedings - potentially losing their federal forum rights forever due to res judicata.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (First Choice Women's Resource): Erin M. Hawley, Washington, D.C.For United States as Amicus Curiae: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Respondent (New Jersey): Sundeep Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General, Trenton, N.J.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview[00:01:32] Oral Argument Begins[00:01:50] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:55] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:19:27] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[00:24:43] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement[00:25:25] Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions[00:35:30] Amicus Curiae Round Robin Questions[00:38:09] Respondent Opening Statement[00:40:30] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:08:31] Respondent Round Robin Questions[01:20:41] Petitioner Rebuttal

Cox 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.S.C. § 504(c)?OverviewThis case involves a billion-dollar battle between industry titans Sony ($175 billion market cap) and Cox Communications (part of $21 billion Cox Enterprises) that could fundamentally reshape internet service provider liability for customer copyright infringement. The Supreme Court must balance protecting artists' intellectual property rights against maintaining universal internet access in the digital age.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Cox Communications): Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N.Y.For United States as Amicus Curiae: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Respondent (Sony): Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00] Oral Argument Introduction[01:28] Oral Argument Begins[01:36] Petitioner Opening Statement[03:37] Petitioner Free for All Questions[19:25] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[41:21] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement[42:25] Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions[51:39] Amicus Curaie Round Robin Questions[01:01:23] Respondent Opening Statement[01:03:44] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:31:48] Respondent Round Robin Questions[01:39:19] Petitioner Rebuttal

Urias-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 of thousands of asylum cases and could reshape the relationship between agency expertise and judicial review in immigration law.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Urias-Orellana): For petitioners: Nicholas Rosellini, San Francisco, CAFor Respondent (United States): For respondent: Joshua Dos Santos, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00] Oral Argument Preview[01:10] Oral Argument Begins[01:20] Petitioner Opening Statement[03:25] Petitioner Free for All Questions[26:30] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[35:09] Respondent Opening Statement[38:39] Respondent Free for All Questions[54:30] Respondent Round Robin Questions[54:41] Petitioner Rebuttal

OverviewThis comprehensive mega episode covers all seven blockbuster Supreme Court cases scheduled for December 2025 oral arguments. From presidential power over independent agencies to billion-dollar copyright battles, these cases could reshape American governance, individual rights, and economic regulation for generations. The episode provides high-level analysis of each case's constitutional stakes and practical implications.Episode RoadmapOpening: Constitutional Collision Course PreviewSeven cases in ten days that could rewrite American lawUnprecedented concentration of constitutional challengesStakes spanning executive power, free speech, civil rights, and economic regulationDecember Cases Analysis:Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment | The Billion-Dollar Broadband Battle: When ISPs Face Copyright Catastrophe | Argument Date: 12/1/25Billion-Dollar Broadband Battle: Cox v. Sony involves a $1 billion verdict asking whether ISPs face copyright catastrophe when users infringe, potentially transforming how internet service providers police their networks and affecting every American's internet access.First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin | The Jurisdictional Jam: When State Subpoenas Silence Speech | Argument Date: 12/2/25First Choice v. Platkin tests when state subpoenas silence speech - whether nonprofits can bypass state courts for immediate federal protection of First Amendment rights, affecting advocacy groups nationwide.Olivier v. City of Brandon | Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25Olivier v. City of Brandon tackles the prospective relief puzzle - whether past convictions create permanent immunity shields for potentially unconstitutional laws challenging future enforcement.Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter | Presidential Power Play: Trump's Total Takedown of Independent Agencies | Argument Date: 12/8/25Trump v. Slaughter examines Trump's total takedown of independent agencies - whether the President can remove commissioners without cause, potentially eliminating the structure protecting $47 trillion in economic activity.NRSC v. FEC | Money, Messaging, and Muzzling: The First Amendment Fight Over Party Coordination | Argument Date: 12/9/15NRSC v. FEC features the First Amendment fight over party coordination, with the extraordinary situation where the Federal Election Commission sides with challengers against its own regulations.Hamm v. Smith | Hamm v. Smith | IQ Score Showdown: When Multiple Tests Determine Life or Death | Argument Date: 12/10/25IQ Score Showdown and Fund Feud: Hamm v. Smith determines when multiple tests determine life or death in capital cases, while FS Credit v. Saba examines forcing fiduciary fairness through federal lawsuits in investment disputes.FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal Lawsuits | Argument Date: 12/10/25FS Credit v. Saba examines forcing fiduciary fairness through federal lawsuits, asking whether shareholders have implied private rights to sue under the Investment Company Act when the SEC doesn't act.TIMESTAMPS[00:00:00] Mailbag[00:23:59] December Case Previews[00:24:55]  Cox Communications versus Sony Music Entertainment[00:26:17]  First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Platkin[00:27:38]  Olivier versus City of Brandon[00:29:04]  Trump versus Slaughter[00:30:31]  National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission[00:32:04]  Hamm versus Smith[00:33:12]  FS Credit versus Saba[00:33:52] Final Thoughts and Conclusion

OverviewIn this special Thanksgiving episode, The High Court Report pulls back the curtain to share the personal story behind The High Court Report. The episode traces the podcast's origins from a 2021 hearing preparation that led to discovering gaps in existing Supreme Court content, to building a comprehensive resource for practitioners and the public. Your host reflects on the journey from anonymous podcast hosting to creating detailed case previews and opinion summaries that make complex legal decisions accessible. The episode concludes with heartfelt gratitude for family, friends, and listeners who have supported the podcast's mission to democratize Supreme Court coverage.Follow The High Court Report:Follow, rate, subscribe, share, and review. Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Just search "The High Court Report." Or, email us at: scotus.cases.pod@gmail.com.Timestamps[00:00:00] Introduction and Thanksgiving Special[00:00:09] The Story Behind the Podcast[00:00:51] Preparing for a Court Hearing[00:02:20] Discovering Supreme Court Advocacy[00:05:59] Launching the Podcast[00:08:05] Expanding the Podcast's Scope[00:12:17] Gratitude and Acknowledgements[00:16:28] Looking Ahead

Overview This episode captures the most electrifying moments from the Supreme Court's November 2025 oral arguments in the consolidated Trump Tariff Cases—constitutional blockbusters that pit presidential emergency powers against Congress's exclusive authority to tax. These cases represent the most significant separation of powers challenge since the New Deal, with over $4 trillion in tariffs hanging in the balance.Follow The High Court Report:YouTube: @TheHighCourtReportLinkedIn: The High Court ReportEmail: scotus.cases.pod@gmail.comSubscribe and Share to help others access crucial Supreme Court analysis and exceptional advocacy examples.TIMESTAMPS[00:00:00] Episode Intro[00:01:16] Introduction to the Major Question Doctrine[00:01:16] Trump Tariff Cases Highlights[00:01:28] Common-Sense Interpretation and Historical Context[00:02:54] Debating Presidential Powers and Tariffs[00:03:54] Historical Precedents and Legal Interpretations[00:05:59] The Nixon Example and Its Significance[00:09:30] Legislative History and Statutory Interpretation[00:19:26] Nondelegation Principle and Constitutional Concerns[00:24:17] Congressional Delegation and Political Oversight[00:26:52] Historical Context of Presidential Tariff Authority[00:28:10] Legal Interpretations of 'Regulate Importation'[00:29:23] Debating the Scope of Presidential Powers[00:32:07] Judicial Review and Congressional Intent[00:33:15] Revenue-Raising vs. Embargoes[00:35:08] Nondelegation Doctrine and Emergency Powers[00:39:18] Clarifying the Nixon and Algonquin Precedents[00:41:42] Final Arguments and Hypotheticals[00:53:02] Episode Conclusion

OverviewThis episode presents curated highlights from the Supreme Court's November 2025 oral arguments.Follow The High Court Report:Follow, rate, subscribe, share, and review. Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Just search "The High Court Report." Or, email us at: scotus.cases.pod@gmail.com.Timestamps[00:00:00] Episode Intro[00:00:59] November Argument Highlights[00:00:59] Coney Island v. Burton Highlights[00:15:03] Hain v. Palmquist Highlights[00:29:37] Landor v. LA Dep't of Corrections Highlights[00:51:19] Fernandez v. United States Highlights[01:04:29] Rutherford and Carter v. United States Highlights[01:17:21] Hencely v. Fluor Highlights[01:39:00] GEO Group v. Menocal Highlights[01:52:30] Episode Conclusion

Overview• This episode presents curated highlights from the Supreme Court's October 2025 oral arguments, featuring exceptional moments of advocacy and judicial questioning from the term's most significant cases. The October sitting delivered constitutional blockbusters across First Amendment rights, criminal procedure, administrative law, and presidential power. This compilation showcases the highest caliber of Supreme Court advocacy and captures pivotal exchanges that signal how the Court may rule on these transformational cases.Follow The High Court Report:Follow, rate, subscribe, share, and review. Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Just search "The High Court Report." Or, email us at: scotus.cases.pod@gmail.com.TIMESTAMPS[00:00:00] Episode Intro[00:04:28] Berk v. Choy Highlights[00:21:21] Bost v. Illinois Board of Illinois Highlights[00:36:54] Bowe v. United States Highlights[00:40:28] Case v. Montana Highlights[00:56:57] Chiles v. Salazar Highlights[01:03:19] Ellingsburg Oral Argument Highlights[01:22:35] Louisiana v. Callais Highlights[01:43:29] Villareal v. Texas Highlights[01:53:38] Episode Conclusion

NRSC 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 episode examines 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 the challengers that coordinated party expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. The case centers on limits that cap how much money party committees can spend in coordination with their candidates, creating a constitutional clash over political speech rights and anti-corruption measures. With the government switching sides post-election, the Court appointed an outside lawyer to defend the law while Democratic Party committees intervened to provide the opposition the case desperately needed.Episode RoadmapOpening: Constitutional Chaos in Campaign Finance• Extraordinary procedural posture: FEC agrees with challengers after Trump administration• Court-appointed amicus defending law that government attacks• Democratic Party committees intervene to create adversityBackground: The Law Under Attack• Section 30116(d) limits coordinated expenditures by national party committees• Distinction between coordinated spending (capped) versus independent expenditures (unlimited)• Republican committees challenge limits as First Amendment violationsConstitutional Framework: Political Speech Rights• First Amendment's protection of political speech as "core" protected expression• Tension between anti-corruption interests and political participation rights• Role of Colorado II precedent from 2001 in current doctrineProcedural History: From Ohio to the Supreme Court• 2022 filing by NRSC, NRCC, Vance, and Chabot• Sixth Circuit en banc ruling 10-1 upholding limits under Colorado II• Multiple judges expressing doubt about precedent's continued validityThe Cert Grant and Unusual Alignment• June 2025 certiorari grant with intervention allowed• Government position reversal creates constitutional anomaly• Roman Martinez appointed as court-appointed amicus curiaeEpisode HighlightsPetitioners' Arguments (NRSC, NRCC, Vance, Chabot):• Core Speech Violation: Coordinated expenditure limits severely burden political speech at the heart of First Amendment protection, creating "stifling effect on the ability of the party to do what it exists to do"• Colorado II Must Fall: 2001 precedent became "outlier in First Amendment jurisprudence" after Citizens United, McCutcheon, and Cruz strengthened political speech protection• No Anti-Corruption Basis: Limits serve no legitimate corruption prevention purpose since parties cannot "bribe" their own candidates whose platform they shareRespondent-Intervenors' Arguments (DNC, DSCC, DCCC):• Precedent Preservation: Colorado II remains "rock solid" because coordinated expenditures function as contributions, which receive lesser constitutional protection under established doctrine• Circumvention Prevention: Modern joint fundraising committees allow mega-donors to route "six- or seven-figure checks" through parties to specific candidates, creating corruption potential• Systemic Stability: Overruling Colorado II would destabilize entire campaign finance framework and potentially eliminate...

Case Preview: FS 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% ownership, prompting Saba Capital to seek rescission under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act. The case creates a fundamental clash over private enforcement of securities laws versus exclusive SEC regulatory authority, with implications for millions of Americans who invest in mutual funds and closed-end funds.Episode RoadmapOpening: Investment Fund Warfare• Circuit split: Second Circuit allows private suits vs. Third/Ninth Circuits reject them• Core constitutional tension over implied private rights of action• Stakes for investor activism and fund governance nationwideBackground: The Players and the Poison Pill• Four underperforming closed-end funds trading 26% below asset value• Saba Capital as activist hedge fund targeting mismanaged funds• Funds adopt MCSAA to neutralize activist shareholders above 10% threshold• District court orders rescission following Second Circuit precedentThe Central Legal Question• Section 47(b)(2): Does "rescission at the instance of any party" create individual rights?• Section 18(i): Equal voting rights requirement allegedly violated• Modern Supreme Court hostility to implied private enforcement under SandovalLegal Arguments Analysis• Petitioners argue constitutional separation of powers violations• Respondents emphasize individual-rights statutory language• United States supports limiting private enforcement to SEC authorityEpisode HighlightsFS Credit's Arguments (Petitioners):• Constitutional Separation of Powers: Courts usurp legislative authority when creating private rights Congress never explicitly authorized; Sandoval demands clear congressional intent in statutory text and structure• Statutory Structure Argument: Congress knew how to create private rights when intended them (Sections 30(h) and 36(b)); comprehensive scheme delegates remaining enforcement exclusively to SEC• Policy Disruption Concerns: Implied private rights would undermine SEC's regulatory authority and enable short-term activists to hijack funds designed for long-term investor stabilitySaba's Arguments (Respondents):• Individual Rights Language: Section 47(b)(2)'s "rescission at the instance of any party" constitutes "indisputably rights-creating" individual-centric language distinguishable from generic regulatory provisions rejected in Sandoval• TAMA Precedent Support: Transamerica Mortgage Advisors v. Lewis (1979) directly endorses implied rescission rights; limited rescission remedies fundamentally differ from broad damage claims without raising equivalent policy concerns• Beneficial Activism Defense: Saba serves beneficial shareholder protection function by identifying mismanaged funds; funds' poor performance and excessive fees demonstrate urgent need for activist accountability

Hamm 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.Episode RoadmapOpening: Life-or-Death Numbers Game• Decision by June 2025 with immediate nationwide implementation• Smith's five IQ scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74) create constitutional conflict• Alabama courts denied protection; federal courts granted it based on single low scoreBackground: Murder and Testing Battle• 1997: Smith murdered Van Dam for suspected cash, received death sentence• Federal habeas relief sought based on intellectual disability claim• Five IQ tests created evidentiary puzzle for courtsConstitutional Question• Collective evaluation vs. holistic assessment approaches• State discretion in implementing federal constitutional mandates• Burden of proof when test results create uncertaintyEpisode HighlightsAlabama's Arguments (Supporting Execution):State Discretion• Atkins left states "task of developing appropriate ways to enforce" constitutional prohibition• Supreme Court provided no specific implementation guidelines• Alabama's preponderance standard considering all scores fits constitutional frameworkRejecting "One-Low-Score" Rule• Eleventh Circuit misread precedents, improperly shifted burden to state• Four out of five scores above 70 should control determination• Multiple scores provide more accurate assessment than isolated measurementsNo Constitutional Expansion• Atkins protected only those "known to have IQ under 70"• Extending protection to borderline cases exceeds national consensusSmith's Arguments (Opposing Execution):Holistic Assessment Required• Courts must evaluate scores "holistically" with expert interpretation, not mechanical counting• Hall v. Florida mandates "additional evidence" beyond raw scores• Alabama law requires considering "all relevant evidence"Proper Application• District court correctly held evidentiary hearing and credited Smith's experts• Expert testimony showed measurement error creates genuine uncertainty• Prevents mechanical application of arbitrary cutoffsScientific Reality• IQ tests contain measurement error, particularly for borderline functioning• Constitutional protections require considering scientific testing limitationsUnited States' Arguments (Supporting Alabama):Preserve State Discretion• Atkins preserves "traditional legislative role in setting criminal sanctions"• Maintains federalism principles and constitutional structureMultiple Scores More Reliable• "Multiple IQ scores often say more collectively than any one does alone"• Statistical reliability improves with comprehensive testingPrecedent Limitation• Hall and Moore corrected specific state misuse of IQ tests• Did not mandate "one-low-score rule" as circuits interpretedStakes and ImplicationsImmediate...

Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25OVERVIEWGabriel 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.EPISODE ROADMAPPreview: Constitutional tension between religious expression and procedural barsQuestions & Text: Two cert questions and relevant constitutional frameworkFacts & History: Olivier's story from sidewalk preaching to federal litigationCert Grant: Supreme Court takes the case, oral arguments December 3rdLegal Arguments: Three-way battle between Olivier, Brandon, and United StatesOral Argument Preview: Key questions and judicial reactions to watchPractical Implications: What this means for practitioners and constitutional enforcementTakeaways: Action items and timeline for practitionersEXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTSPETITIONER OLIVIER'S POSITION• Heck Doesn't Apply: Prior conviction bars don't extend to purely prospective relief claims seeking future protection• Constitutional Dead Zone: Fifth Circuit's rule creates permanent immunity for questionable laws after any enforcement• Wrong Analogy: Prospective relief differs from malicious prosecution because it doesn't challenge past proceedings• Stakes: Preserves federal court access for constitutional challenges despite prior convictionsRESPONDENT BRANDON'S POSITION• Direct Impact: Olivier's probation sentence means prospective relief would shorten actual punishment duration• Common Law History: Criminal convictions traditionally barred tort claims since 17th century England• Demonstrable Violation: Olivier's conduct clearly violated ordinance through amplification, signs, and group activity• Stakes: Maintains criminal justice finality and prevents collateral attacks on convictionsUNITED STATES AMICUS POSITION• No Malicious Prosecution: Prospective relief claims don't challenge prosecution propriety requiring favorable termination• No Habeas Conflict: Case poses no conflict between Section 1983 and federal habeas because plaintiff seeks no release• Custody Irrelevant: Heck requirements flow from claim elements, not whether plaintiff accessed habeas relief• Stakes: Supports constitutional enforcement while maintaining appropriate procedural barriersBROADER STAKESFor Practitioners: Determines whether clients with prior convictions can challenge laws prospectively in federal courtFor Constitutional Law: Shapes balance between criminal justice finality and civil rights enforcement nationwideFor Religious Liberty: Affects ability to challenge speech restrictions through federal litigation after any enforcementFor Government Entities: Impacts litigation strategy for defending constitutional challenges from previously prosecuted plaintiffsORAL ARGUMENT PREVIEW - DECEMBER 3RDKEY QUESTIONS TO WATCH• Framing Battle: Do justices view...

Trump v. Slaughter | 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.OverviewThis episode examines a case that could trigger the most dramatic restructuring of federal power since the New Deal. President Trump removes 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.Episode RoadmapOpening: Constitutional Crisis Brewing• December 8th oral argument creates immediate urgency• Potential elimination of independent agency protections• Stakes include Federal Reserve, FTC, SEC, and two dozen other agenciesHousekeeping Matters• Black Friday mailbag episode announcement• December calendar overview with mega cases• Thanksgiving week content roadmapConstitutional Framework: Article II Powers• "Executive Power shall be vested in a President" - Article II, Section 1• Take Care Clause mandates faithful execution of laws• Appointments Clause divides officers into principal and inferior classes• Constitution grants no explicit removal authorityBackground: The Slaughter Removal• 1914: Congress creates FTC with removal protection for cause only• 2018: Trump nominates Slaughter; Senate confirms unanimously• 2024: Biden renominates; Senate again confirms unanimously• March 2025: Trump fires Slaughter via email without causeProcedural History: Courts Block Trump• DC federal court grants summary judgment for Slaughter• Courts issue injunctions preventing interference with duties• Appeals courts affirm lower court rulings• Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve government structure crisisLegal ArgumentsPresident Trump's Constitutional Case• Article II grants conclusive removal power over all executive officers• "Decision of 1789" from First Congress supports absolute presidential authority• Modern FTC exercises "quintessentially executive powers" unlike 1935 version• Humphrey's Executor has become "doctrinal dinosaur" requiring overruleCommissioner Slaughter's Defense• Two centuries of congressional practice creating independent agencies• Multimember structure prevents arbitrary decision-making and protects liberty• Constitution requires no absolute removal power under Take Care Clause• Historical tradition supports agency independence with cause requirementsKey Precedents Battle• Humphrey's Executor (1935): Upheld FTC removal protections as quasi-legislative• Recent cases confine Humphrey's without overruling: Free Enterprise Fund, Seila Law, Collins• Historical precedents from founding era support both positionsConstitutional Stakes and ImplicationsIf President Wins• Every independent agency becomes at-will political appointment• Regulatory whiplash could destabilize economic sectors• Federal Reserve exception creates constitutional inconsistency• Two dozen agencies face immediate restructuringIf Slaughter Wins• Independent agencies maintain...

First 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 court, or whether they must first exhaust state court proceedings - potentially losing their federal forum rights forever due to res judicata.Roadmap• Opening: A Federal Forum Fight• Case generated 42 amicus briefs showing massive constitutional stakes• Court granted United States' request to participate in oral arguments • Core tension: Section 1983's guarantee of federal forums versus traditional subpoena enforcement requirementsBackground: The Subpoena Standoff• New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issues sweeping subpoena to faith-based pregnancy centers• Demands names, phone numbers, and addresses of 5,000 donors• First Choice refuses, citing nationwide pattern of violence against pregnancy centers• Attorney General threatens contempt sanctions for noncomplianceConstitutional Framework: The Legal Clash• First Amendment protections for speech and association, including donor privacy rights• Section 1983's guarantee of federal forum for constitutional violations by state officials • Article III standing and ripeness requirements for federal jurisdictionProcedural Odyssey: The Court Journey• December 2023: First Choice files federal lawsuit two days before subpoena deadline• January 2024: District court dismisses as "unripe," requiring state court enforcement first• State Attorney General files enforcement action in New Jersey Superior Court• District court dismisses again, demanding actual contempt threat before federal review• Third Circuit affirms in divided decision; Judge Bibas dissentsFirst Choice's Arguments (Federal Forum Rights):• First Amendment Chill: Attorney General's subpoena creates immediate injury by objectively chilling donor support due to nationwide violence against pregnancy centers• Section 1983 Federal Forum: Knick v. Township of Scott prohibits state-litigation requirements; federal forum guarantee "rings hollow" if challengers must litigate in hostile state courts first • Credible Enforcement Threat: Explicit contempt warnings plus actual state court enforcement action satisfy Article III standing requirements under Susan B. Anthony List v. DriehausAttorney General Platkin's Arguments (State Court First):• Contingent Future Harm: Non-self-executing subpoena creates only speculative injury dependent on future state court order requiring compliance• No Objective Chill: Clarified scope seeks only donors from specific websites; no reasonable basis for ordinary donor to be deterred by narrow investigation• Century of Precedent: Reisman v. Caplin line establishes recipients of non-self-executing subpoenas cannot bring pre-enforcement challenges; would flood federal courts with routine subpoena litigationUnited States' Arguments (Supporting Petitioner):• Established Article III Doctrine: Credible threat of government enforcement proceedings creates concrete injuries sufficient for federal jurisdiction under longstanding...

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi | Case No. 24-777 | Oral Argument Date: 12/1/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewThe Supreme Court will 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 of thousands of asylum cases and could reshape the relationship between agency expertise and judicial review in immigration law.RoadmapOpening: Constitutional tension over agency deference in the post-Loper Bright eraQuestion Presented & Key Text: Statutory framework and the undefined term "persecution"Background Facts: The Urias-Orellana family's flight from cartel violence in El SalvadorProcedural History: Journey from Immigration Judge through First CircuitLegal Arguments: Petitioners' call for de novo review vs. Government's defense of substantial evidence standardOral Argument Preview: Key tensions and questions to watchStakes: Impact on asylum law and agency deference broadlySummary of ArgumentsPetitioner's Arguments (Urias-Orellana Family)Argument 1: Constitutional Role of CourtsInterpreting "persecution" is fundamentally a judicial function under Marbury v. MadisonImmigration and Nationality Act doesn't authorize deference on persecution determinationsCongress created specific deference provisions but excluded persecution questionsArgument 2: Loper Bright Prohibits Disguised Chevron DeferenceSubstantial evidence review resurrects prohibited Chevron deference "under an alias"Courts must ask "What does persecution mean?" not "Did the BIA reasonably conclude?"No express congressional authorization for deference on legal interpretationsArgument 3: Mixed Question Analysis Favors De Novo ReviewPersecution determinations are primarily legal, requiring courts to develop legal principlesCourts routinely establish categorical rules (e.g., economic hardship ≠ persecution)BIA itself treats these as legal questions when reviewing Immigration Judge decisionsRespondent's Arguments (Attorney General Bondi)Argument 1: Persecution Determinations Are Predominantly FactualMing Dai v. Garland recognized persecution questions as "predominantly questions of fact"Statute's substantial evidence standard applies to these administrative findingsSupreme Court precedent supports factual deference in asylum casesArgument 2: Mixed Questions Require Primarily Factual WorkDeterminations involve "marshaling and weighing evidence" and "making credibility judgments"200,000+ annual asylum decisions demonstrate need for agency expertise over legal developmentMost cases apply settled standards to varied facts rather than creating new lawArgument 3: Loper Bright Doesn't Apply to Fact-Bound ApplicationsLoper Bright addressed pure legal interpretations, not fact-intensive applicationsCourt has consistently applied deferential review where statutory terms are "factbound"This involves...

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | Case No. 24-171 | 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.S.C. § 504(c)?OverviewThis episode examines a billion-dollar battle between industry titans Sony ($175 billion market cap) and Cox Communications (part of $21 billion Cox Enterprises) that could fundamentally reshape internet service provider liability for customer copyright infringement. The Supreme Court must balance protecting artists' intellectual property rights against maintaining universal internet access in the digital age.Episode RoadmapOpening: Corporate Titans Clash at the High Court• Not often that industry giants of this scale face off at SCOTUS• Sony represents global entertainment industry's fight for IP protection• Cox represents infrastructure keeping America connected online• Whopping 31 amicus briefs from Google, X Corp, ACLU, Motion Picture Association, and moreBackground: The Billion-Dollar Verdict• Fourth Circuit held Cox liable for $1 billion - over 1,400 times actual damages• Cox received 5.8 million infringement notices in two-year period• "Thirteen-strike" policy deliberately undermined by Cox employees• Internal emails showing contempt: "F the dmca!!!"The Central Legal Questions• When does providing internet service become "material contribution" to infringement?• Does knowledge of customer infringement alone establish "willfulness"?• Sony/Grokster framework: general-purpose technology vs. active inducementConstitutional Stakes and Circuit Tensions• Universal internet access vs. copyright protection• Hammer analogy: ISPs as hardware stores vs. ongoing service providers• Fourth Circuit outlier decision creates uncertainty for ISP industryEpisode HighlightsCox's Three Main Arguments (Seeking Reversal):• Affirmative Conduct Requirement: Contributory liability requires "purposeful, culpable conduct" with intent to promote infringement - not passive provision of general internet service• Sony/Grokster Protection: Internet service is "paradigmatic multi-use technology" with substantial non-infringing uses that cannot trigger liability absent active inducement• Practical Consequences: Fourth Circuit's rule would make ISPs liable for "literally everything bad on the internet" - from harassment to gun sales - based on mere accusationsSony's Three Main Arguments (Defending Verdict):• Classic Material Contribution: Long-established doctrine holds defendants liable when they "continue to supply their product to one whom they know is engaging in infringement"• Cox's Theory Would Collapse Secondary Liability: Limiting contributory infringement only to inducement cases would immunize knowing facilitators and undermine copyright protection• DMCA Framework Supports Liability: Congress created safe harbor protections precisely because ISPs face liability for failing to terminate repeat infringers - proving such...

Carter 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 Carter argue this massive disparity creates "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reductions. Can federal judges consider Congress's own recognition that old sentences were too harsh?Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Rutherford): David Frederick, Washington, D.C. For Petitioner (Carter): David O'Neil, Washington, D.C.For Respondent (United States): Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Preview[00:01:05] Argument Begins[00:01:13] Petitioner (Rutherford) Opening Statement[00:02:54] Petitioner (Rutherford) Free for All Questions[00:14:00] Petitioner (Rutherford) Round Robin Questions[00:30:04] Petitioner (Carter) Opening Statement[00:33:35] Petitioner (Carter) Free for All Questions[00:40:36] Petitioner (Carter) Round Robin Questions[00:47:52] Respondent Opening Statement[00:50:12] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:19:10] Respondent Round Robin Questions[01:19:24] Petitioner (Rutherford) Rebuttal

Fernandez 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?Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Fernandez): Benjamin Gruenstein, New York, N.Y. For Respondent (United States): Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:48] Argument Begins[00:00:57] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:10] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:28:08] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[00:40:01] Respondent Opening Statement[00:42:17] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:10:17] Respondent Round Robin Questions[01:19:07] Petitioner Rebuttal