The High Court Report

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.Today's case is United States v. Skrmetti. I chose this case to segue into the 2026 Supreme Court calendar. In January, the Supreme Court hears two transgender cases that in some ways offshoot from Skrmetti. Here are a few details on these cases. We'll be sure to preview these cases soon. Also, check out our July 7th Roundup episode for more details.Transgender Sports CasesLittle v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: HereBackground: Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" banning transgender women from women's sports teamsKey Player: Lindsay Hecox, transgender student at Boise State UniversityNinth Circuit Reasoning: Applied heightened scrutiny; found likely Equal Protection violationsPost-Skrmetti Impact: How the medical treatment precedent affects sports participationWest Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: HereBackground: West Virginia's H.B. 3293 categorical sports banKey Player: B.P.J., 14-year-old transgender student with amended birth certificateUnique Factors: Puberty blockers, competitive performance, individual circumstancesFourth Circuit's Approach: Case-by-case analysis vs. categorical rulesStrategic Litigation: Why B.P.J. argued for waiting on Skrmetti decisionHere's the background on United States v. Skrmetti.Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 1 (SB1) in 2023, prohibiting healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers or hormones to minors for treating gender dysphoria or helping them transition, while still allowing these treatments for other medical conditions like congenital defects or precocious puberty. Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor sued under the Equal Protection Clause, with a district court initially blocking the law after finding transgender individuals deserve heightened constitutional protection. The Sixth Circuit reversed, ruling the law only needed to meet the lowest constitutional standard (rational basis review), prompting the Supreme Court to take the case.The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the law classifies based on age and medical use rather than sex or transgender status, requiring only rational basis review which the law satisfies.Analysis (3 sentences): The Court rejected arguments that the law discriminates based on sex, finding that it applies

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.Today's episode is FEC v. Cruz. I chose this case for the interplay with a case this term, NRSC v. FEC. Listen to the arguments regarding standing, free speech, and political corruption. Here's the story of FEC v. Cruz.Senator Ted Cruz loaned $260,000 to his 2018 reelection campaign, but federal law limits candidates to recovering only $250,000 from post-election contributions, leaving Cruz unable to recover the final $10,000. Cruz and his campaign committee sued the Federal Election Commission, arguing this loan repayment restriction in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates the First Amendment by deterring candidates from self-funding their campaigns. The case centered on whether limiting post-election contributions for loan repayment serves a legitimate anti-corruption purpose or unconstitutionally burdens political speech.The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal law limiting candidates to recovering $250,000 in personal loans from post-election contributions violates the First Amendment because the government failed to prove this restriction prevents actual corruption or its appearance.The Court applied strict scrutiny to this campaign finance restriction, requiring the government to demonstrate the law prevents "quid pro quo" corruption with actual evidence rather than mere speculation—which the FEC could not provide despite most states having no such limits. The majority emphasized that restricting loan repayment creates barriers to entry for new candidates and challengers who rely on personal loans to fund competitive campaigns. The dissenters argued the majority was too demanding in requiring concrete evidence of corruption, warning that weakening campaign finance laws could increase the influence of wealthy donors and undermine electoral integrity.

Episode Throwback: The Levers of PowerCase: Trump v. United States | Case No. 23-939 | Docket Link: 23-939Context & ConnectionThis week, we revisit the 2024 landmark ruling on Presidential immunity to provide context for our current coverage of Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook. These cases collectively explore the boundaries of Article II authority: (1) when can the President fire a person without cause when Congress permitted the person's firing only for cause; and (2) when can courts second guess the President's for cause determinations. The Immunity FrameworkIn a 6-3 ruling in favor of presidential immunity, the Supreme Court established a three-tiered hierarchy for evaluating the criminal prosecution of a former President:Core Constitutional Powers: The President possesses absolute immunity for actions falling within his "conclusive and preclusive" constitutional authority (e.g., the pardon power, veto power, or recognition of foreign nations).Official Acts: The President is entitled to presumptive immunity for all other official acts within the "outer perimeter" of his responsibilities. The government must prove that prosecution would pose no danger of intrusion on the Executive Branch's function to rebut this.Unofficial Acts: The President holds no immunity for unofficial, private conduct.Analysis: The "Pall of Prosecution" vs. The Rule of LawThe Majority Opinion (Roberts): The Court prioritized the "energetic executive," arguing that the threat of future prosecution would "chill" a President's ability to make bold, split-second decisions. By citing Fitzgerald and Youngstown, the Court emphasized that the Executive must be able to manage the Justice Department without judicial "second-guessing" of motives.The Evidentiary Bar: Crucially, the Court ruled that in a prosecution for unofficial acts, the Government cannot introduce evidence of official acts (such as private conversations with advisors) to prove the President's intent or context. This creates a significant "evidentiary shield" that complicates the prosecution of private conduct.The Dissents (Sotomayor & Jackson): Justice Sotomayor issued a stark warning, arguing the decision creates a "law-free zone" around the President. She contended that the majority's focus on "chilling" presidential action ignores the greater danger of an "insulated" President who can use the tools of the state (like the military or DOJ) to commit crimes with impunity. Justice Jackson focused on the "interbranch accountability" gap, noting that the ruling shifts the power to determine criminal liability from the law to the Judiciary's ad hoc classification of "official" vs. "unofficial."First in History: This was the first time in the 235-year history of the United States that the Supreme Court addressed whether a former President is immune from federal criminal prosecution for...

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.Today's case is Biden v. Nebraska. I chose this case due to the statutory interpretation parallels with the Trump Tariff Cases. When listening, pay close attention to the justices' ways to decipher text and how the major questions doctrine plays into their thinking.Here's the story of Biden v. Nebraska:The Biden Administration tried to cancel $430 billion in student loan debt under the HEROES Act, claiming emergency powers from COVID-19 justified forgiving up to $20,000 per borrower. Six states sued, arguing the Education Secretary exceeded his legal authority to make such massive loan forgiveness without explicit congressional approval. The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts blocked the program with a nationwide injunction.The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the HEROES Act does not give the Education Secretary authority to cancel $430 billion in student loans, because the power to "waive or modify" existing law cannot be stretched to completely rewrite federal student loan programs.The Court applied the "major questions doctrine," requiring clear congressional authorization when agencies claim power over issues of vast economic and political significance—here affecting 43 million borrowers and costing nearly half a trillion dollars. The majority distinguished between modest administrative adjustments (which the HEROES Act allows) and fundamental program overhauls (which require explicit congressional approval). The dissenters argued the majority was improperly second-guessing expert agency judgment and that emergency powers should be read more broadly during genuine national crises like the pandemic.

This week, we'll air throwback episodes. Each episode will relate to the current cases.In this case, Twitter claimed that federal law shielded them from liability for terrorists who used their platform for terrorist acts. I chose this case because it relates to arguments that Cox raised in Cox v. Sony Music Entertainment. In Cox, Cox argued that this case, Twitter v. Taamneh, created heightened proof necessary to establish liability for its' users actions.Here's the story of Twitter v. Taamneh:Families of victims killed in a 2017 ISIS terrorist attack at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul sued Twitter, Facebook, and Google under federal anti-terrorism law, claiming these social media companies aided and abetted ISIS by allowing the terrorist group to use their platforms for recruitment, fundraising, and propaganda while profiting from advertisements placed on ISIS content. The plaintiffs argued that the companies' recommendation algorithms actively promoted ISIS content to users likely to engage with it, and that the companies failed to adequately remove ISIS-related accounts and content despite knowing about their presence. The Ninth Circuit allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but the social media companies appealed to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for aiding and abetting liability because the social media companies' general provision of platforms and passive failure to remove ISIS content did not constitute the "knowing and substantial assistance" required under federal law.The Court applied the Halberstam framework, which requires defendants to consciously participate in specific wrongful acts—meaning companies must actively help with particular terrorist attacks, not just allow terrorists to use their platforms like any other users. The Court distinguished between active misconduct (which creates liability) and passive failure to act (which generally does not), ruling that simply allowing ISIS to use social media platforms without special treatment amounts to passive inaction rather than culpable assistance. This decision protects communication providers from automatic liability for knowing that bad actors use their services, instead requiring evidence of intentional participation in specific terrorist acts.

OverviewThis episode delivers post-oral argument analysis and predictions for three major Supreme Court cases heard during the December 2025 argument session. We break down the key exchanges, judicial fault lines, and likely outcomes in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (campaign finance limits), Hamm v. Smith (intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases), and FS Credit v. Saba (implied private rights of action in securities law).NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance Revolution• JD Vance standing issues and Article III requirements• Chief Justice Roberts challenges coordinated expenditure "fictions"• Justice Kagan's systematic dismantling of Republican arguments• Super PAC dominance versus party strength dynamics• Justice Alito's revealing "who benefits" questionHamm v. Smith: Life-or-Death IQ Determinations• Joseph Smith's brutal 1997 murder and five IQ test scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74)• Alabama's collective scoring approach versus federal holistic evaluation• Chief Justice Roberts' "results-oriented" methodology critique• Justice Jackson's clinical expertise emphasis• Solicitor General's compromise "circle back" approachFS Credit v. Saba: Securities Law Private Enforcement• Activist investor challenges to fund management poison pills• Justice Kavanaugh as potential swing vote on "anomalous" state court outcomes• Legislative history debate between Sotomayor and textualists• Justice Gorsuch's separation of powers concerns• Practical implications for investment fund governanceEpisode HighlightsCampaign Finance Revelations:• Chief Justice Roberts: "I don't know in substance what the difference is" between coordinated expenditures and direct contributions• Justice Kagan's methodical exposure of existing circumvention loopholes• Republican counsel's admission about partisan fundraising advantagesDeath Penalty Constitutional Stakes:• Chief Justice Roberts challenging Alabama's statistical consistency• Justice Jackson emphasizing clinical complexity over mechanical score-counting• Three-way methodological split among Alabama, Smith, and federal governmentSecurities Law Enforcement:• Justice Kavanaugh's practical concerns about "very bizarre" state court relegation• Paul Clement's "nugatory statute" argument about defensive-only interpretation• Justice Gorsuch's emphasis on separation of powers in implied rights creationHost Predictions:• NRSC wins 6-3 (Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh plus Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch)• Hamm adopts Solicitor General's compromise approach• Saba wins 5-4 with Justice Barrett as deciding vote

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.Question Presented:Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (FS Credit) and Respondents (BlackRock): Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D.C. United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners: Max E. Schulman, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of JusticeFor Respondent: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, VALink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview[00:01:23] Oral Argument Begins[00:01:36] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:40] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:19:29] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[00:30:53] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement[00:32:17] United States Free for All Questions[00:42:11] United States Round Robin Questions[00:46:27] Respondent Opening Statement[00:48:55] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:16:48] Respondent Round Robin Questions[01:16:58] Petitioner Rebuttal

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.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Hamm): Robert M. Overing, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Montgomery, Alabama argued for Petitioner Hamm. United States as Amicus Curaie in Support of Petitioner: Harry Graver, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice. For Respondent (Smith): Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview[00:01:28] Oral Argument Begins[00:01:43] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:58] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:20:43] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[00:44:36] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement[00:45:47] United States Free for All Questions[00:55:27] United States Round Robin Questions[01:21:13] Respondent Opening Statement[01:24:00] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:51:28] Respondent Round Robin Questions[02:01:18] Petitioner Rebuttal

Summary:Analysis of the December 8, 2025 Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, examining how the justices signaled their likely approach to presidential removal power and independent agencies.Key Topics Covered:1. Chief Justice Roberts' Strategic QuestioningFocused on workability and implementation detailsChallenged quality of precedents supporting Slaughter's positionUnusual volume of questions suggests engagement with Trump's arguments2. Justice Sotomayor's Stare Decisis DefenseMounted strongest defense of Humphrey's Executor (1935)Emphasized 90-year precedential historyQuestioned Court's willingness to overturn longstanding constitutional precedent3. Predicted 6-3 Ruling for TrumpCourt's emergency docket orders already revealed likely outcomeThree-step analysis: presidential removal power + FTC executive authority + distinguish/overrule Humphrey's4. Competing Predictions About ImpactSlaughter's team: regulatory chaos, undermined business planningTrump's team: "sky did not fall" in previous agency restructurings5. The "Faithful Execution" ThreadJustice Gorsuch's devastating questioning about Take Care ClauseExposed contradiction in Slaughter's constitutional theory"Ruinous fines" vs. misdemeanor enforcement distinction crumbles6. The Defense Department ProblemCongress could restructure Cabinet departments as protected commissionsSlaughter's logic threatens executive unity across governmentNo limiting principle to prevent wholesale agency insulationBonus: Trump v. United States Framework"Conclusive and preclusive" authority test from immunity caseBoth sides weaponized language for removal power debateConstitutional framework that shaped entire argumentNext Episode: Analysis of post-argument developments and decision timeline

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 oral argument involves National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission, a landmark campaign finance case that could fundamentally reshape how political parties operate in federal elections, featuring the extraordinary situation where the Federal Election Commission itself now agrees with 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.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (NRSC): Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D.C., argued for Petitioners NRSC. For Respondents in Support of Petitioners (FEC): Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued in support of NRSC. Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of the Judgment Below: Roman Martinez, Washington, D.C. For Intervenor (DNC): Marc E. Elias, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview[00:02:28] Oral Argument Begins[00:02:38] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:04:39] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:18:19] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[00:48:54] United States in Support of Petitioner Opening Statement[00:50:08] United States Free for All Questions[01:05:22] United States Round Robin Questions[01:19:53] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Opening Statement[01:22:17] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions[01:38:08] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Round Robin Questions[01:44:55] DNC As Intervenors Opening Statement[01:46:17] DNC As Intervenors Free for All Questions[02:00:05] DNC As Intervenor Round Robin Questions[02:09:51] Petitioner Rebuttal

Trump v. Slaughter | Presidential Power Play : Trump's Total Takedown of Independent Agencies | Case No. 25-332 | Oral Argument Date: 12/8/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Congress can require the President to show cause before removing commissioners of independent agencies, or whether Article II grants the President absolute removal power over all executive officers.OverviewPresident Trump removed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, challenging the constitutional foundation of independent agencies. The Court confronts whether two dozen independent agencies that control $47 trillion in economic activity can maintain protection from at-will presidential removal.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Trump): D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice. For Respondent (Slaughter): Amit Agarwal, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview[00:02:03] Oral Argument Begins[00:02:11] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:04:06] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:27:29] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[01:05:33] Respondent Opening Statement[01:08:00] Respondent Free for All Questions[01:37:09] Petitioner Round Robin Questions[02:29:03] Petitioner Rebuttal

OverviewThis episode updates on four major cases granted certiorari by the Supreme Court on December 5th, 2025, following Friday's episode. The cases span constitutional citizenship rights, federal court jurisdiction, criminal procedure, and arbitration law, representing some of the most significant legal questions facing the Court this term.RoadmapOpening: December 5th Cert Grants• Four cases granted certiorari in one day• Focus on birthright citizenship case that drew most attention• Brief coverage of three additional jurisdictional casesTrump v. Barbara: The Birthright Citizenship Case• Background from Trump v. CASA oral arguments• Chief Justice Roberts' comments about expedited review• Executive Order 14,160 targeting children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary visitors• Multiple district court injunctions blocking the orderThree Additional Cases• T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (Rooker-Feldman doctrine)• Abouammo v. United States (venue and statute of limitations)• Jules v. Balazs Properties (post-arbitration federal jurisdiction)Episode Highlights• Constitutional urgency: Chief Justice Roberts' prior comments about moving "expeditiously" now seem prophetic given the Court's cert-before-judgment grant in the birthright citizenship case• Universal injunction aftermath: The CASA decision's limits on universal injunctions created complications that led directly to the Barbara case• Circuit splits galore: All four cases involve significant circuit splits requiring Supreme Court resolution• Jurisdictional themes: Three of the four cases involve fundamental questions about federal court authority and jurisdictionReferenced CasesTrump v. Barbara | Case No. 25-365 | Docket LinkQuestion Presented: Whether the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause requires that a person's parents have lawful domicile in the United States at the time of birth.Arguments: Government argues "subject to the jurisdiction" requires political allegiance through lawful domicile and that Wong Kim Ark only applied to permanently domiciled aliens. Respondents defend broad birthright citizenship based on Wong Kim Ark precedent and argue executive order violates federal statute and 130 years of settled law.T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation | Case No. 25-197 | Docket LinkQuestion Presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.Arguments: T.M. argues doctrine should only apply to final state court judgments based on Section 1257's text and Exxon Mobil precedent. Hospital argues no meaningful circuit split exists and federalism concerns support broader application of doctrine.Abouammo v. United States | Case No. 25-5146 | Docket LinkQuestion Presented: (1) Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element "contemplates" effects that could occur there. (2) Whether a criminal information unaccompanied by a waiver of indictment is an "information charging a felony" under 18 U.S.C. §...

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