Claim OwnershipThe Supreme Court: Oral Arguments
Subscribed: 75Played: 1,008
Subscribe
© Unprotected Under 17 U.S. Code § 105
Description
A public good: every Supreme Court Oral Argument since 2010. Making the Highest Court more accessible for a modern audience. The DC Bar blog's piece about this podcast can be found here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotuspod. If you'd like to support the law student who created this project instead of studying you can do so here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotusguy. Thanks for listening! Patreon
1001 Episodes
Reverse
Case v. Montana | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-624
24-624 CASE V. MONTANA
DECISION BELOW: 553 P.3d 985
CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025
QUESTION 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.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: DA 23-0136
Louisiana v. Callais | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-109
Background: Louisiana was ordered by federal courts to create a second majority-Black congressional district to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The Louisiana Legislature responded by passing S.B. 8, which created the required second majority-Black district. However, a different federal court then ruled that S.B. 8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and blocked its implementation.
The Core Issue: Can a state be required to create a majority-minority district under the Voting Rights Act, but then have that same district struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering? Louisiana argues this creates an impossible legal bind.
Questions Before the Court: Whether the lower court erred in finding that race predominated in drawing S.B. 8, whether the map fails strict scrutiny review, whether certain legal tests were properly applied, and whether courts should even be deciding these redistricting disputes.
Current Status: The case has been restored for reargument. The Court has ordered supplemental briefing on whether intentionally creating majority-minority districts violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.
Significance: This case could reshape how states balance Voting Rights Act compliance with constitutional requirements, potentially affecting redistricting nationwide.
Ellingburg v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-482
24-482 ELLINGBURG V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 113 F.4th 839
JOHN F. BASH, ESQUIRE, OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND
ARGUE THIS CASE, AS
AMICUS CURIAE
, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT
BELOW.
CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is
penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-3129
Bowe v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-5438
24-5438 BOWE V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: CA 11 ORDER 6/27/2024
KASDIN M. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE, OF DALLAS, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE
THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW AS TO
QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
CERT. GRANTED 1/17/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
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).
The first question presented is:
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).
The second question presented is:
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.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-11704
USPS v. Konan | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-351
24-351 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE V. KONAN
DECISION BELOW: 96 F.4th 799
CERT. GRANTED 4/21/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
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). The question presented is as
follows:
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).
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10179
Bost v. IL Bd. of Elections | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-568
24-568 BOST V. ILLINOIS BOARD OF ELECTIONS
DECISION BELOW: 114 F.4th 634
CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
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.
The sole question presented here is 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.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-2644
Barrett v. United States | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-5774
24-5774 BARRETT V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 102 F.4th 60
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION
1
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CHARLES L. McCLOUD, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND
ARGUE THIS CASE, AS
AMICUS CURIAE
, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW.
CERT. GRANTED 3/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
I.
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.
II.
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).
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1379
Chiles v. Salazar | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-539
24-539 CHILES V. SALAZAR
DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 1178
CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A
practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with
God's design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel
precisely
because
they believe that their faith and their relationship with God
establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But
Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express.
Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling
conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their "sexual orientation
or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions," while
allowing conversations that provide "[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for ...
identity exploration and development, including ... [a]ssistance to a person undergoing
gender transition." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5).
The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles's conduct, not speech.
In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits,
which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which
does.
The question presented is:
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
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1445, 23-1002
Villarreal v. Texas | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-557
24-557 VILLARREAL V. TEXAS
DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 138
CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025
QUESTION 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.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: PD-0048-20
Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440
24-440 BERK V. CHOY
DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482
CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important
question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court.
Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must
also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint.
See
18 Del. C. § 6853. An
AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct.
See id.
§ 6853(a)(l).
The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM
provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they
answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no
conflict" with any Federal Rules.
In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the
fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge
Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote
to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that
same conclusion."
The question presented is:
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.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620
Trump v. CASA, Inc. | 05/15/25 | Docket #: 24A884
OK Charter School Board v. Drummond | 04/30/25 | Docket #: 24-394
24-394 OK CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD V. DRUMMOND
DECISION BELOW: 558 P.3d 1
CONSOLIDATED WITH
24-396
FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.
JUSTICE
BARRETT TOOK NO PART.
EXPEDITED BRIEFING.
CERT. GRANTED 1/24/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This Court has "repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause
when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits."
Carson
as next friend of O. C. v. Makin
, 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). Three times, the Court has
applied that principle to strike down "state efforts to withhold otherwise available public
benefits from religious organizations."
Id
. at 778-79 (citing
Trinity Lutheran Church of
Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
, 582 U.S. 449 (2017);
Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue
,
591 U.S. 464 (2020)).
Contrary to those precedents, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can
exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school
program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter
schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for
constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded
education. These rulings implicate an entrenched circuit split and present two questions
for review:
1. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run
school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free
educational option for interested students.
2. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run
religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are
religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment
interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 121,694
Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-304
Martin v. United States | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-362
Soto v. United States | 04/28/25 | Docket #: 24-320
A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools | 04/28/25 | Docket #: 24-249
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | 04/23/25 | Docket #: 24-7
CIR v. Zuch | 04/22/25 | Docket #: 24-416
Mahmoud v. Taylor | 04/22/25 | Docket #: 24-297
Parrish v. United States | 04/21/25 | Docket #: 24-275
Comments
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States