SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

Oral 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.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Episode Preview[00:00:50] Argument Begins[00:01:02] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:12] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:27:25] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:39:50] Respondent Opening Statement[00:41:41] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:55:44] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:00:52] United States as Amicus Curaie Opening Statement[01:02:01]  United States as Amicus Curaie Free for All Questions[01:09:15] United States as Amicus Curaie Sequential Questions[01:10:40] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral 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 a small window of time to adopt its own remedial plan, or else the State would have to go to trial, which would almost certainly end in the Middle District imposing its own preferred map. Rather than acquiesce in the Middle District's preferences, the Legislature reclaimed its sovereign redistricting pen and passed S.B. 8, which created a second majority-Black district as the courts demanded, protected the Legislature's sovereign prerogatives, and achieved its political goals. In this case, a majority of a three-judge court sitting in the Western District of Louisiana enjoined S.B. 8 as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.Question Presented: Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8? Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny? Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions? Is this action non-justiciable?Oral Advocates:For Petitioner Press Robinson: Janai Nelson, New YorkFor Petitioner Louisiana: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, LouisianaFor Appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Missouri For United States, as Amicus Curiae, in Support of Appellees: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of JusticeLink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Preview[00:01:00] Argument Begins[00:01:09] Appellant Press Robinson Opening Statement[00:03:32] Appellant Press Robinson Free for All Questions[00:26:15] Appellant Press Robinson Sequential Questions[00:47:32] Appellant Louisiana Opening Statement[00:49:02] Appellant Louisiana Free for All Questions[00:57:59]  Appellant Louisiana Sequential Questions[01:20:21] Callais Appellees Opening Statement[01:21:47] Callais Appellees Free for All Questions[01:31:11] Callais Appellees Sequential Questions[01:40:35] United States as Amicus Curaie Opening Statement[01:41:42]  United States as Amicus Curaie Free for All Questions[01:51:08] United States as Amicus Curaie Sequential Questions[02:25:32] Appellant Press Robinson Rebuttal

Oral 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, Texas.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Preview[00:00:58] Argument Begins[00:01:06] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:14] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:14:04] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:18:36] Respondent in Support of Vacatur Opening Statement[00:19:45]  Respondent in Support of Vacatur Free for All Questions[00:33:22]  Respondent in Support of Vacatur Sequential Questions[00:34:41] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below Opening Statement[00:37:03] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below Free for All Questions[01:01:03] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below Sequential Questions[01:02:09] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral 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 appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added).Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. For Respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below as to Question 1: Kasdin M. Mitchell, Dallas, Tex. Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Preview[00:00:47] Argument Begins[00:00:55] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:46] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:23:01] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:36:49] Respondent Opening Statement[00:39:09] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:03:04] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:14:14] Court-Appointed Amicus Opening Statement[01:16:15]  Court-Appointed Amicus Free for All Questions[01:27:23]  Court-Appointed Amicus Sequential Questions[01:28:11] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral 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 of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The FTCA, however, excepts from that waiver of immunity "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. 2680(b).Question Presented: Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b).Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Easha Anand, Menlo Park, Ca.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps:

Oral 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 be received up to fourteen days after Election Day.Question Presented: Whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.; United States, as Amicus Curiae: Michael Talent, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Jane E. Notz, Solicitor General, Chicago, Ill.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps:

Oral 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 Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Case Preview[00:00:50] Argument Begins[00:00:57] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:46] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:17:59] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:27:48] United States Opening Statement[00:35:27] United States Sequential Questions[00:45:41] Respondent Opening Statement[01:09:00] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:22:28] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral 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 Petitioner: Matthew B. Larsen, Assistant Federal Defender, New York, N. Y. For Respondent in Support of Petitioner: Aimee Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: Charles L. McCloud, Washington, D.C. Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Case Preview[00:01:00] Argument Begins[00:01:07] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:51] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:14:24] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:30:00] United States Opening Statement[00:31:10] United States Free for All Questions[00:41:24] United States Sequential Questions[00:45:49] Court-Appointed Amicus Opening Statement[00:47:41] Court-Appointed Amicus Free for All Questions[01:00:45] Court-Appointed Amicus Sequential Questions[01:00:57] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral 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: [00:00:00] Argument Intro[00:00:33] Argument Begins[00:00:39] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:57] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:25:46] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:31:36] Respondent Opening Statement[00:33:52] Respondent Free For All Questions[00:59:19] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:00:05] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral 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.)TimestampsTable of Contents[00:00:00] Episode Intro[00:00:41] Argument Begins[00:00:48] Petitioner Opening Statement [00:25:46] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:40:29] Respondent Opening Statement[01:02:00] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:02:38] United States Opening Statement[01:13:14] United States Sequential Questions[01:16:15] Petitioner Rebuttal

Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.Other Referenced Episodes:• August 19th – Road Work Ahead: How Four 2024 Cases May Be Reshaping First Amendment Scrutiny | HereOverviewThis episode examines Louisiana v. Callais, a potentially transformative voting rights case that could reshape Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and minority representation nationwide. After ordering reargument and supplemental briefing, the Supreme Court confronts whether race-conscious redistricting to create majority-minority districts violates the very constitutional amendments the VRA was designed to enforce, creating a fundamental paradox at the intersection of civil rights law and equal protection doctrine.Episode RoadmapOpening: A Constitutional Paradox• Supreme Court's unusual reargument order and supplemental question• From routine redistricting challenge to existential VRA question• Constitutional paradox: using civil rights laws to potentially strike down civil rights protectionsConstitutional Framework: The Reconstruction Amendments• Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement clauses• Congressional power versus Equal Protection constraints• Strict scrutiny as constitutional roadblock for race-conscious government actionBackground: From Robinson to Callais• 2022 Robinson v. Ardoin litigation establishing Section 2 violation• Complex procedural ping-pong through federal courts• Louisiana's creation of SB8-6 with second majority-Black district• March 2025 oral argument leading to reargument orderSection 2 Framework: The Gingles Test• Effects test versus intent requirement• Three-part analysis for Section 2 violations• Majority-minority districts as remedial toolLegal Arguments: Competing Constitutional VisionsAppellants' Defense (Louisiana & Robinson Intervenors):• Congressional authority under Reconstruction Amendments• Section 2 compliance as compelling governmental interest• Narrow tailoring through built-in Gingles limitationsAppellees' Challenge (Callais):• Section 2 fails congruence and proportionality review• Students for Fair Admissions requires specific discrimination evidence• "Good reasons" test provides insufficient constitutional protectionOral Argument Preview: Key Questions for Reargument• Temporal scope of congressional enforcement power• SFFA's impact on voting rights doctrine• Practical consequences for existing majority-minority districts• Federalism tensions in electoral oversightEpisode HighlightsConstitutional Tension: The same Reconstruction Amendments used to justify the VRA in 1965 now being invoked to potentially strike it down in 2025Procedural Drama: Court's unusual reargument order signals fundamental doctrinal questions about VRA's constitutional foundationsPractical Stakes: Could eliminate dozens of majority-minority congressional districts and significantly reduce minority representationHistorical Evolution: From 1982 Section 2 effects test designed to combat discrimination to 2025 argument that it perpetuates discriminationSFFA Integration: How 2023 affirmative action ruling's anti-classification principle

Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: 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.Other Referenced Episodes:August 5th Roundup: Presidential Power Crushes Agency Independence, Court Places Voting Rights Act in Crosshairs and Maryland v. Shatzer, a Case That Evolved Beyond Its Origins | HereOverviewThis episode examines Case v. Montana, a Fourth Amendment case that has drawn unprecedented attention with 35 states weighing in, challenging the established emergency-aid exception by asking the Supreme Court to require probable cause rather than the current "objectively reasonable belief" standard for warrantless home entries during emergencies. The case could fundamentally reshape how police respond to suicide calls, medical emergencies, and welfare checks nationwide.Episode RoadmapOpening: Unprecedented Stakes and AttentionOctober 15th, 2025 oral argument date35 states weighing in, with 34 opposing the petitioner's positionPotential nationwide impact on emergency response proceduresNovel aspect: Petitioner seeking to restrict, not expand, police authorityConstitutional Framework: The Fourth Amendment Text"The right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures"Two-clause structure: Reasonableness Clause vs. Warrant ClauseNo textual emergency-aid exception - entirely judge-made doctrineCourt's recent skepticism toward expansive judge-made constitutional doctrinesBackground: The Tragic Facts in Anaconda, MontanaSeptember 2021: William Trevor Case's suicide threat to ex-girlfriend J.H.Escalating call: drinking, gun cocking sounds, "pop" followed by dead airJ.H.'s 9-1-1 call reporting believed suicide attemptOfficers' prior knowledge of Case's history with suicide attempts and violenceThe Police Response and Corroborating Evidence18-minute preparation period with protective equipmentWindow observations: keys on table, empty beer cans, empty gun holster, apparent suicide noteEntry through unlocked door during protective sweepCase emerges from closet pointing handgun at Sergeant PashaOfficer shoots Case in abdomen; medical aid renderedProcedural History: The Court JourneyTrial court denies suppression motion, finds "exigent circumstance"Case convicted of assaulting peace officer, sentenced to 60 yearsMontana Supreme Court affirms 4-3 with vigorous dissentSupreme Court grants certiorari to resolve deep circuit splitThe Circuit Split Crisis"Reasonable Belief" Courts:First, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits plus Montana and three other statesStandard: "Objective, specific and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect citizen needs help""Probable Cause" Courts:D.C., Second, and Eleventh Circuits plus Nebraska and ColoradoStandard: "Probable cause to believe person is seriously injured or threatened with such injury"Case's Three Main Arguments (Seeking Higher

Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestions 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.Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.OverviewThis episode examines Bowe v. United States, where the government concedes error but argues the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to correct it. The case explores whether the "do-over bar" in AEDPA applies to federal prisoners and whether an acknowledged legal error will go unremedied due to jurisdictional barriers.Episode RoadmapOpening: An Acknowledged Error Without a RemedyGovernment's unusual position: conceding error but claiming the Court can't fix itMichael Bowe's years-long struggle to challenge his convictionConstitutional context: Ex Post Facto Clause and retroactive application of Davis and TaylorThe Two Questions PresentedQuestion One: Does the do-over bar (§ 2244(b)(1)) apply to federal prisoners even though it references only state prisoner applications under § 2254?Question Two: Does § 2244(b)(3)(E) bar Supreme Court certiorari review of authorization decisions for federal prisoners?Background: Michael Bowe's Journey2008: Pled guilty including Section 924(c) conviction (using firearm during crime of violence)2019: Davis strikes down residual clause; Bowe seeks authorization but Eleventh Circuit denies based on circuit precedent2022: Taylor abrogates that precedent; Bowe seeks authorization again2022: Eleventh Circuit dismisses under do-over bar in In re Baptiste2024: Third authorization request denied; all alternatives rejected2025: Supreme Court grants certiorari; government switches positionLegal FrameworkSection 2255: Federal prisoner post-conviction relief vehicleSection 2244: Originally for state prisoners; contains:(b)(1): Do-over bar—bars claims "presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254"(b)(3): Authorization procedures, including (b)(3)(E)'s certiorari barSection 2255(h): "Second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244"—key question is what this incorporatesCircuit Split: Six circuits apply do-over bar to federal prisoners; three reject itPetitioner's Main ArgumentsArgument One: Plain Text Excludes Federal PrisonersDo-over bar explicitly references "section 2254" (state prisoners only)Federal prisoners use § 2255 motions, not § 2254 applicationsSection 2255(h) incorporates certification procedures only, not substantive barsEven Eleventh Circuit admits § 2255(h) doesn't incorporate § 2244(b)(2)—can't incorporate (b)(1) either since both use identical "section 2254" languageArgument Two: Federalism Explains Differential TreatmentAEDPA repeatedly subjects state prisoners to stricter requirementsState prisoner habeas implicates federalism and comity concernsFederal prisoners challenging federal convictions raise no federalism...

Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.OverviewThis episode examines Ellingburg v. United States, one of the most procedurally unusual Supreme Court cases in recent memory. After the Court granted certiorari, the government switched positions following a change in presidential Administration, now agreeing with the criminal defendant that the Eighth Circuit erred. The Court appointed an outside attorney as amicus curiae to defend the lower court's judgment, creating a rare scenario where both named parties argue for the same outcome. At its core, the case asks whether mandatory criminal restitution constitutes punishment subject to the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause—a question with profound implications for thousands of federal defendants and the government's authority to retroactively enforce criminal restitution obligations.Episode RoadmapOpening: A Procedural RarityGovernment switches sides after Administration changeCourt appoints amicus curiae to defend Eighth Circuit's judgmentUnusual three-way legal battle over fundamental constitutional questionImplications for thousands convicted of federal crimes before 1996Background: Ellingburg's Story1995: Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. robs bank in St. Louis, Missouri1996: Sentenced to 322 months imprisonment, ordered to pay $7,567 restitution under pre-MVRA law (VWPA)Under original law, restitution obligation expired November 2016 (20-year limit)2022: Released from prison, rebuilding life on minimum wage2023: Government demands $13,476 using MVRA's extended collection period and mandatory interestPro se motion challenges retroactive application as Ex Post Facto violationThe Central Legal QuestionIs MVRA restitution criminal punishment or civil remedy?If criminal: Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits retroactive applicationIf civil: Government can apply new collection rules to old offensesStatutory construction as threshold issue: What did Congress intend?Procedural Journey Through the CourtsDistrict Court: Denied motion, held MVRA application merely "procedural"Eighth Circuit: Affirmed on different ground—restitution is civil remedy, not criminal punishmentCircuit relied on Carruth precedent despite Pasquantino and Paroline developmentsTwo concurring judges questioned binding precedent's continued validitySupreme Court grants certiorari to resolve circuit splitConstitutional Framework: The Ex Post Facto ClauseArticle I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No ex post facto Law shall be passed"Prohibits retroactively increasing punishment for criminal actsOnly applies to criminal laws, not civil remediesConstitutional protection against arbitrary government powerThe Statutory Text BattleSection 3663A: Restitution ordered "when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense""In addition to, or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law"Codification in Title 18 criminal code, Chapter 227 "Sentences"Criminal procedures govern: presentence reports, probation officers, appellate reviewEnforcement through threat of imprisonment for nonpaymentPetitioner's Three Main ArgumentsArgument 1: Text and Structure Prove Criminal IntentStatutory language integrates restitution into criminal sentencingGrouped with fines and...

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, with implications for whether candidates should receive special treatment to challenge election rules or must meet the same concrete injury standards as all other plaintiffs.Episode RoadmapOpening: A Fundamental Question About Federal Courts• October 8, 2025 oral argument date• Standing doctrine meets election law in crucial constitutional test• Circuit split on candidate challenges to election rules• Implications for flood of pre-election litigation vs. orderly dispute resolutionBackground: Illinois's Ballot-Receipt Extension• 2005 Illinois law change allowing 14-day post-Election Day counting window• Historical roots in Civil War soldier voting accommodations• About half of states now allow similar extended receipt deadlines• Congressman Michael Bost and two Republican presidential elector nominees challenge lawConstitutional Framework: Article III's Case-or-Controversy Requirement• "Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity"• Standing doctrine requires concrete, particularized, traceable injury• Tension between candidate investment in election rules and generalized grievances• Elections Clause and Electors Clause federal frameworkProcedural Journey Through the Courts• May 2022: Pre-enforcement challenge filed• July 2023: District court dismisses for lack of standing• Seventh Circuit affirmed in split decision with Judge Scudder's influential partial dissent• Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve candidate standing questionThe Three-Way Legal Battle• Petitioners' blanket candidate standing rule vs. concrete injury requirements• Electoral harm theory: competitive disadvantage vs. speculative injury• Pocketbook injury claims: campaign extension costs vs. manufactured standingClapper Doctrine and Mitigation Expenditures• When spending money to avoid harm creates standing vs. speculative preparation• Illinois's challenge to factual basis of extended campaign operations• "Near certainty" of ballot counting vs. substantial risk standardOral Argument Preview: Key Tensions to Watch• Justices' reaction to special candidate standing exception• Factual record problems and thin allegations• Floodgates concerns vs. orderly pre-election resolution• Purcell principle timing considerationsBroader Constitutional Stakes• Article III's role in limiting federal court jurisdiction• Election law's unique challenges for traditional standing doctrine• Federalism questions about state election rule authority• Volume and intensity of modern election litigation trendsReferenced CasesClapper v. Amnesty International | 568 U.S. 398 (2013)Question Presented: Whether respondents have Article III standing to challenge FISA Amendments Act surveillance...

Postal 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 sue the federal government when postal workers intentionally withhold your mail?The answer hinges on the Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exceptionCore tension between remedy for wrongs vs. government immunityLegal Framework: The Federal Tort Claims Act28 U.S.C. § 2680(b): Exception for claims arising from "loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission" of mailKey interpretive battle: Does "negligent" modify only "transmission" or all three terms?Government argues broad immunity; plaintiff argues narrow exceptionThe Facts: Alleged Racial Harassment CampaignLebene Konan: Black realtor and landlady in Euless, TexasTwo-year campaign by USPS employees Raymond Rojas and Jason DrakeAllegations: Changed postal records, changed mailbox locks, refused mail deliveryOver 50 administrative complaints filed; Inspector General investigation ordered deliveryProcedural JourneyDistrict court: Dismissed under postal exceptionFifth Circuit: Reversed, held "loss" and "miscarriage" imply unintentional actsSupreme Court granted certiorari to resolve circuit splitGovernment's Arguments"Miscarriage" = broad failure to arrive (Webster's 1940s definition)"Loss" = deprivation, regardless of intentStructural argument: FTCA uses "loss" to cover intentional acts elsewherePolicy concern: Flood of litigation if intent mattersKonan's Counter-Arguments"Miscarriage" = mail mistakenly delivered to wrong place"Loss" = destruction or misplacement, both inherently accidentalStatutory structure shows Congress concerned only with negligence"Negligent transmission" proves Congress knew how to limit scope when intendedBattle of the DictionariesGovernment relies on neutral 1940s definitions from Webster's SecondKonan cites specific legal definitions and Oxford English DictionaryCompeting interpretations of what "loss" and "miscarriage" historically meantLooking Ahead to Oral ArgumentsHow will Justices react to competing dictionary definitions?Will practical consequences (floodgates) persuade the Court?Strange incentive structure if government immune for intentional but not negligent actsReferenced CasesDolan v. USPS | 546 U.S. 481 (2006) | Docket LinkQuestion Presented: Interpretation of FTCA postal exception termsOverview: Supreme Court precedent that both parties cite for their competing interpretations of "miscarriage" in the postal exception context.Key Legal Concepts ExplainedFederal Tort Claims Act...

Barrett v. United States | Case No. 24-5774 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits punishment under both 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j) for one act that violates each statuteOther Referenced Episodes:September 10th: A Constitutional Clash: Trump's Tariffs and the Separation of PowersOverviewThis episode explores Barrett v. United States, a fascinating Double Jeopardy case where the federal government unusually sides with a criminal defendant against its own prosecution. The Supreme Court must determine whether convicting someone under both federal gun statutes—one for using a firearm during a violent crime and another for causing a death with that firearm—violates the Fifth Amendment's protection against being punished twice for the same offense. With no one defending the lower court's judgment, the Court appointed an outside attorney to argue that sentence stacking should be permitted, creating a rare three-way legal battle over fundamental constitutional protections and congressional intent in criminal sentencing.Episode RoadmapOpening: A Constitutional TwistOctober 6th Supreme Court term preview continuationFourth case in opening week after Berm v. Choy, Villarreal v. Texas, and Chiles v. SalazarUnusual scenario: Government sides with criminal defendantNovember 5th Trump Tariffs Case announcementThe Core QuestionCan government punish someone twice for single criminal act--using a firearm while trafficking drugs?Federal gun statutes create potential double jeopardy violationSection 924(c): Using gun during violent crime (5-year minimum, up to life)Section 924(j): Killing someone with that gun (death penalty or life for murder)The Barrett Facts2011 New York robbery crew caseDwayne Barrett as getaway driver during minivan robberyCo-conspirator shot and killed Gamar Dafalla during robberyGovernment charged Barrett under both gun statutes for single actLegal Journey Through the CourtsInitial district court: Merged sentences, avoided double punishmentSecond Circuit flip: Required stacking both sentences after Supreme Court's Lora decisionCircuit split on handling these overlapping prosecutionsGovernment "confessed error" - switched sides under Trump administrationConstitutional Framework: Double Jeopardy ProtectionFifth Amendment: "No person shall... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy"Blockburger test: Same-elements analysis for determining "same offense"Presumption against double punishment unless Congress clearly authorizes itCourt-appointed amicus ensures adversarial presentation when government switches sidesBarrett and Government ArgumentsSection 924(c) is lesser-included offense of Section 924(j)Cannot violate fatal results statute without first violating gun use statuteCongress knew how to authorize stacking: Section 924(c)(5) armor-piercing provisionOmission of stacking language in Section 924(j) proves contrary intentCourt-Appointed Amicus ArgumentsConsecutive-sentence mandate in Section 924(c): "any other term of imprisonment"Two statutes punish different evils: danger of gun vs. harm of deathAbsurd results hypothetical: Machinegun manslaughter (15-year max) vs. machinegun...

Chiles 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 the intersection of free speech, parental rights, LGBTQ issues, and professional regulation.RoadmapOpening: A Constitutional Perfect StormOctober 7th, 2025 oral argument dateOver 50 amicus briefs filed (compared to 7 for most cases)Intersection of hot-button topics: parental rights, LGBTQ issues, religious freedom, professional regulationBackground: The Players and the LawKaley Chiles: Licensed counselor in Colorado Springs at Deeper Stories CounselingChristian counselor using "client-directed" approach with speech-only methodsColorado's 2019 law banning "conversion therapy" for minorsPenalties: fines up to $5,000, license suspension or revocationConstitutional Framework: The First Amendment Text"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"Extension to state governments through Fourteenth AmendmentThe simplicity of "no law" languageProcedural History: The Court Journey2022: Chiles filed pre-enforcement challengeDistrict court denied preliminary injunction using rational basis reviewTenth Circuit affirmed in divided panel decisionJudge Hartz's "scathing dissent" calling majority approach "remarkable" and "contrary" to precedentThe Central Constitutional QuestionSpeech versus conduct: When does professional speech become conduct that can be regulated?Level of scrutiny determines case outcomeThree-tiered analysis: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutinyUnderstanding Scrutiny Levels: The Road AnalogyRational basis: Highway with minimal obstaclesIntermediate scrutiny: Busy road with stop signs and traffic lightsStrict scrutiny: Road closure - "fatal in fact" for governmentCompeting Legal FrameworksChiles's Arguments (Strict Scrutiny)Content-based discrimination: "You can help with binge eating, but not sexual orientation behaviors"Viewpoint-based discrimination: "Support gender transition but forbid comfort with biological body"Speech-only counseling deserves full First Amendment protectionColorado's Arguments (Rational Basis)Professional healthcare treatment regulation, not speech restrictionTraditional state authority over professional standards"Professional healthcare treatment that happens to involve words"Key Supreme Court Precedents BattleNational Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA) (2018)Chiles...

Villarreal v. Texas | Case No. 24-557 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 | Docket Link: 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.OverviewThis episode examines Villareal v. Texas, a case that addresses a fundamental question affecting every criminal trial where a defendant takes the stand: what happens when testimony gets interrupted by an overnight recess? The case explores the intersection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and trial courts' authority to prevent witness coaching during extended breaks in testimony.Episode RoadmapOpening: The Constitutional DilemmaDavid Villareal's murder trial and self-defense claimThe overnight recess that created a constitutional questionThe judge's "qualified conferral order" - a middle-ground approachWhy this affects every criminal trial with testifying defendantsThe Trial Court's Balancing ActJudge's concern about overnight "coaching" of defendant's testimonyThe court's solution: prohibit testimony discussions, allow everything elseDefense counsel's understanding and preserved Sixth Amendment objectionConviction and 60-year sentence outcomeConstitutional Territory: Competing PrecedentsSixth Amendment's broad language: "assistance of counsel for his defence"Geders v. United States (1976): overnight recesses require full consultationPerry v. Leeke (1989): 15-minute recesses allow complete prohibitionThe gap: what about partial restrictions during long recesses?Split in Lower CourtsFederal circuits generally reject qualified orders during overnight recessesState supreme courts (including Texas) embrace the middle-ground approachTexas Court of Criminal Appeals: "type of communication" controls, not recess lengthThe constitutional question that prompted Supreme Court reviewVillareal's Three-Pronged AttackPerry already resolved this: "unrestricted access" during overnight recessesThe rule is unworkable: testimony and strategy discussions are "inextricably intertwined"Practical impossibilities: plea negotiations, perjury prevention, attorney-client privilegeTexas's Constitutional DefensePerry endorsed qualified orders even during short recessesSubstance matters more than timing: testimony discussions aren't constitutionally protectedThe rule works in practice: defense counsel understood and compliedFairness and truth-seeking justify the restrictionThe Current Court's JurisprudenceEmphasis on workability and bright-line rulesSkepticism of broad constitutional rules that are difficult to administerText and original meaning analysis of "assistance of counsel"Historical wrinkle: defendants couldn't testify when Sixth Amendment was ratifiedStakes and ImplicationsImpact on trial court management of testimony scheduling nationwideEffect on criminal defendants' consultation rights during testimony breaksBroader tension: advocacy system vs. truth-seeking functionPotential for significant practical impact regardless of outcomeRelevant Precedential CasesGeders v. United States | 425 U.S. 80 (1976) Holding: Trial courts...

Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Delaware's expert affidavit requirement for medical malpractice claims conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when applied in federal diversity casesEpisode OverviewThis episode examines Berk v. Choy, a case that started with a simple fall but could reshape how federal courts handle state law requirements across the country. The Supreme Court must decide whether Delaware's expert affidavit requirement for medical malpractice claims conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when applied in federal diversity cases, presenting a fundamental clash between federal procedural uniformity and state regulatory authority.RoadmapOpening: A Fall That Could Reshape Federal Court PracticeHarold Berk's fall from bed leads to medical malpractice case with nationwide implicationsDelaware's expert affidavit requirement vs. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure29 states with similar medical malpractice requirements creating potential patchworkThe Legal Framework: Erie Meets the Federal RulesErie Doctrine (1938): Federal courts must apply state substantive law for state claimsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938): Uniform procedures for all federal courtsShady Grove Test: When Federal Rule and state law "answer the same question," Federal Rule winsTension between federal procedural uniformity and state regulatory authorityThe Shady Grove FoundationShady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance (2010) background$500 individual claim vs. multimillion-dollar class action potentialNew York's prohibition on statutory penalty class actions vs. Federal Rule 23Fractured Decision: Scalia plurality vs. Stevens concurrence vs. four dissentsThe Procedural Journey: From Delaware District Court to the Supreme CourtBerk's five-month struggle to obtain required expert affidavitDr. Raikin's refusal despite initially supporting Berk's caseMultiple physicians declining to provide affidavits against other doctorsThird Circuit's dismissal: affidavit "not a pleading" with "different purpose"Petitioner's Three-Pronged AttackDirect conflict with Federal Rules 8 and 9 under Shady Grove testUniformity concerns: Undermines federal procedural consistency established in 1938Anti-circumvention: State requirements shouldn't allow end-run around federal pleading standardsRespondents' Three-Part DefenseSeparate spheres: Delaware law operates as evidentiary requirement distinct from pleading rulesErie compliance: Represents substantive state law that federal courts must respectLimited Shady Grove: Fractured decision provides narrow precedential valueCASE SIGNIFICANCEThe outcome will likely determine whether federal courts remain faithful to both federal procedural uniformity and state substantive authority, or whether one value must give way to the other in the modern era of complex state regulatory schemes.Key Legal Concepts ExplainedDiversity Jurisdiction: Federal court authority over cases between citizens of different states involving state law claimsErie Doctrine: Principle requiring federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity cases while using federal procedureFederal...