DiscoverU.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Claim Ownership

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Author: Oyez

Subscribed: 7,255Played: 176,140
Share

Description

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
673 Episodes
Reverse
Trump v. CASA Inc.

Trump v. CASA Inc.

2025-05-1502:15:413

A case in which the Court held that federal district courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide (1) whether a privately owned and operated school’s educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
A case in which the Court will held that (1) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., and (2) the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) of the FTCA overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout § 2680.
Soto v. United States

Soto v. United States

2025-04-2801:02:50

A case in which the Court held that the statute that provides combat-related special compensation (CRSC) to disabled veterans establishes its own settlement process for claims, which supersedes the Barring Act’s default six-year statute of limitations for most claims against the federal government.
A case in which the Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 do not require children with disabilities to satisfy a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
Mahmoud v. Taylor

Mahmoud v. Taylor

2025-04-2202:29:201

A case in which the Court held that public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
A case in which the Court held that a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
A case in which the Court held that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
A case in which the Court held that a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal need not file a second notice after the reopening is granted.
A case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision does not unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider and therefore cannot be enforced via § 1983.
A case in which the Court held that the personal jurisdiction provision of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Rivers v. Guerrero

Rivers v. Guerrero

2025-03-3151:45

A case in which the Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)—which strictly limits the circumstances in which an inmate can file a second petition for federal post-conviction relief—applies to all second habeas petitions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
A case in which the Court held that Congress did not violate the nondelegation doctrine in the way it gave power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, nor did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions.
A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not necessarily have exclusive jurisdiction to review an Environmental Protection Agency action that affects only one state or region, simply because the EPA published that action alongside actions affecting other states in a single Federal Register notice.
A case in which the Court held that challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program should be heard exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”
Louisiana v. Callais

Louisiana v. Callais

2025-03-2401:19:03

A case in which the Court will decide whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Riley v. Bondi

Riley v. Bondi

2025-03-2456:42

A case in which the Court held that the 30-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief in a withholding-only proceeding is not a “final order of removal” for purposes of triggering this deadline.
loading
Comments (8)

Saba Shehzadi

💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org

Feb 5th
Reply

MaPepa

Footnote Kavanaugh

Dec 12th
Reply

Joe Belize

clement

Mar 12th
Reply

Lyle Broadhead

What happened to this podcast? Why are there no new episodes?

Oct 7th
Reply

David Moran

53:03 has been written in history, Justice Thomas asks a question for the first time since 2016!

Mar 28th
Reply (1)

Marco Rodriguez

I wish the descriptions were a bit more detailed. It gets hard to keep up.

Mar 22nd
Reply

Lisa Lawson

10 NEON 20.18. GOD

Jan 18th
Reply