The High Court Report

Opinion Summary: Hewitt v. United States | Date Decided: 6/26/25 | Case No. 23-1002 This case was consolidated with: Duffey V. United States, Case No. 23-1007.Link to Docket: Here.Background:The First Step Act (FSA) significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for several federal drug and firearm offenses. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115- 391, §§ 401, 403, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220-5222. Sections 401 and 403 apply to offenses committed after the FSA's enactment on December 21, 2018, and to "any offense that was committed before the date of enactment * * * if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment." FSA§§ 401(c), 403(b). There is an acknowledged split between the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, on the one hand; and the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, on the other hand, on the question whether sections 401(c) and 403(b) apply when a pre-enactment sentence is vacated and the court must impose a new post-enactment sentence. Question Presented: Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the FSA's enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the FSA's enactment.Holding: Under § 403(b) of the First Step Act, a sentence "has . . . been imposed" for purposes of that provision if, and only if, the sentence is extant—i.e., has not been vacated. Thus, the Act's more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous § 924(c) sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act's enactment.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and V, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioners: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D.C. For respondent in support of petitioners: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

In today's episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:Last week's 11 opinions and emerging patternsTerm statistics and remaining docket overviewMajor religious liberty case granted certiorari via June 23rd Order ListKey Topics CoveredTerm Statistics (As of June 23, 2025)Total cases heard: 62 unique cases this termCases decided: 52 (approximately 84%)Cases pending: 11 (approximately 16%)Methodology: Consolidated cases counted onceLast Week's Opinion AnalysisUnanimous consensus: 7 of 11 cases showed stable coalition of seven justicesOpinion distribution: Justice Thomas, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Barrett each authored exactly 4 opinionsChief Justice Roberts: Finally joined dissent after 41 consecutive majority opinionsMethodological splits: Justices divided on simple textual approaches vs. complex multi-factor testsFeatured Case Deep Dive: Esteras v. United StatesIssue: Whether judges can consider retribution in supervised release decisionsMajority (Barrett): Applied "expressio unius" canon - Congress deliberately excluded retributionDissent (Alito/Gorsuch): Criticized majority's "mind-bending exercises" for trial judgesVote: 7-2 with additional splintering on implementation detailsStanding Doctrine Analysis: FDA v. Reynolds & Diamond Energy v. EPACommon thread: When can businesses challenge regulations affecting market participants?Identical 7-2 splits with completely different reasoning approachesBarrett's approach: Traditional statutory interpretation and precedent analysisKavanaugh's approach: Practical economic reasoning and regulatory dynamics Certiorari Grant: Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections | Case No. 23-1197 | Docket Link: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) permits individual-capacity damages suits against state prison officials who violate prisoners' religious exercise rights.The Shocking FactsPetitioner: Damon Landor, devout Rastafarian with 20-year religious dreadlocksIncident: Prison officials threw away Fifth Circuit decision protecting his rights, then forcibly shaved his headTimeline: Occurred with just 3 weeks left in his sentenceLegal precedent: Clear violation of Ware v. Louisiana Department of CorrectionsLegal FrameworkRFRA (1993): Applies to federal government; Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) permits individual damagesRLUIPA (2000): Applies to state/local governments receiving federal fundsSister statutes: Nearly identical language and purposesCircuit split: All courts of appeals currently reject RLUIPA individual damagesPetitioner’s (Landor) Key Arguments:Tanzin controls: Identical "appropriate relief" language must have same meaningSister statute harmony: Supreme Court routinely interprets RFRA/RLUIPAtogether Constitutional authority: Spending Clause permits individual liability under Dole testPractical necessity: Damages often only meaningful remedy for released prisoners Respondent’s (Louisiana) Key Arguments:No circuit split: Unanimous rejection across all circuitsSpending Clause limits: Only grant recipients (states) can be liable, not individual officialsSossamon precedent: "Appropriate relief" is "ambiguous" under RLUIPAPractical concerns: Would worsen prison staffing crisis and destabilize Title IX law United States Key Arguments:Supports petitioner - significant federal government backingArgues Sossamon only addressed sovereign immunity, not individual officialsEmphasizes Congress's clear Spending Clause authorityRemaining Docket HighlightsConstitutional Powder KegsTrump v. Casa trilogy: Immigration enforcement and nationwide injunctionsFree Speech Coalition v. Paxton: Online adult content restrictions vs. child protectionVoting Rights CrucibleLouisiana v. Callais: Racial gerrymandering vs. Voting Rights Act complianceReligious Liberty BattlegroundMahmoud v. Taylor: Religious exercise vs. LGBTQ+ curricula in schoolsSupport the Podcast: If you found this analysis helpful, please subscribe, rate, and share this podcast. Your support helps us continue providing in-depth Supreme Court coverage.

Opinion Summaries: June 20, 2025 Opinions The Supreme Court released six significant opinions on June 20, 2025, spanning tobacco regulation, terrorism jurisdiction, environmental standing, telecommunications law, disability rights, and federal sentencing. This episode provides comprehensive analysis of each decision, including voting breakdowns, key holdings, and detailed examination of concurring and dissenting opinions.Host Note: Today I'm personally narrating this episode, so the pacing may be slightly different from our usual format.Here are details about the six cases:1. FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. | Case No. 23-1187Holding: Retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the FDA's denial order may seek judicial review of that order under § 387l(a)(1).Result: Affirmed and remanded. Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.Link to Opinion: Here.2. Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) | Case No. 24-20 (consolidated with United States v. PLO, Case No. 24-151)Holding: The PSJVTA's personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.Result: Reversed and remanded. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.Link to Opinion: Here.3. Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | Case No. 24-7Holding: The fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California regulations.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson filed dissenting opinions.Link to Opinion: Here.4. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. | Case No. 23-1226Holding: The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.5. Stanley v. City of Sanford | Case No. 23-997Holding: To prevail under §12112(a), a plaintiff must plead and prove that she held or desired a job, and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, at the time of an employer's alleged act of disability-based discrimination.Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts III and IV, except for n. 12.Link to Opinion: Here.6. Esteras v. United States | Case No. 23-7483Holding: A district court considering whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may not consider § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant's underlying criminal offense.Result: Vacated and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas Kagan and Kavanaugh joined and in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined as to all but Part II–B. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.Link to Opinion: Here.

Opinion Summary: United States v. Skrmetti | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23-477 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Holding: SB1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. SB1 satisfies rational basis review. Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett joined, and in which Justice Alito joined as to Parts I and II–B. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined in full, and in which Justice Kagan joined as to Parts I–IV. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents L.W., et al. supporting petitioner: Chase B. Strangio, New York, N. Y. For respondents Jonathan Skrmetti, et al.: J. Matthew Rice, Solicitor General, Nashville, Tenn.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:

Opinion Summary: Perttu v. Richards | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23–1324 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?Holding: Parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Jackson joined. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Ann M. Sherman, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich. For respondent: Lori Alvino McGill, Charlottesville, Va.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Oklahoma v. EPA | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23–1067 This case was consolidated with: Pacificorp V. EPA, Case No. 23-1067.Link to Docket: Here.Background:Under the Clean Air Act, each state must adopt an implementation plan to meet national standards, which EPA then reviews for compliance with the Act. In 2023, EPA published disapprovals of 21 states' plans implementing national ozone standards. It did so in a single Federal Register notice. The Act specifies that "[a] petition for review of the [EPA's] action in approving or promulgating any implementation plan ... or any other final action of the [EPA] under this Act ... which is locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in" the appropriate regional circuit, while "nationally applicable regulations ... may be filed only in" the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Parties from a dozen states sought judicial review of their respective state plan disapprovals in their appropriate regional circuits. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits held that the implementation plan disapprovals of states within those circuits are appropriately challenged in their respective regional courts of appeals. In the decision below, the Tenth Circuit held that challenges to the disapprovals of Oklahoma's and Utah's plans can only be brought in the D.C. Circuit, explicitly disagreeing with the decisions of its sister circuits. Questions Presented:Whether a final action by EPA taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit because EPA published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Whether the Environmental Protection Agency's disapproval of a State Implementation Plan may only be challenged in the D.C. Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (b)(1) if EPA packages that disapproval with disapprovals of other States' SIPs and purports to use a consistent method in evaluating the state-specific determinations in those SIPs.Holding: EPA's disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional Circuit.Result: Reversed. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Chief Justice Roberts joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners in 23-1067: Mithun Mansinghani, Oklahoma City, Okla. For Petitioners in 23-1068: Misha Tseytlin, Chicago, Ill. For Respondents: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23–1229 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Holding: EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.Result: Vacated and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association in support of petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondents Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.: Michael R. Huston, Phoenix, Ariz.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:

Opinion Summary: NRC v. Texas | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23–1300 This case was consolidated with: Interim Storage Partners, LLC V. Texas, Case No. 23-1312.Link to Docket: Here.Questions Presented:Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq., which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority.Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.(For Interim Storage Partners, LLC) Whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's exercise of authority to issue a license to a private party to temporarily possess spent nuclear fuel at a location away from an operating nuclear power reactor was lawful under the applicable statutes (as the D.C. and Tenth Circuits have held) or not (as the Fifth Circuit, deliberately splitting from those other circuits, held in this case). Whether, notwithstanding an allegation of "ultra vires" agency action, a person must take steps to become a "party" to an agency proceeding under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2344, in order to then subsequently challenge the agency action resulting from that proceeding in court (as the Second, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held), or whether an allegation of "ultra vires" agency action can override statutory limitations on jurisdiction (as the Fifth Circuit, deliberately splitting from those other circuits, held in this case).Holding: Because Texas and Fasken were not parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding, they are not entitled to obtain judicial review of the Commission's licensing decision.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioners in 23-1300: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioner in 23-1312: Brad Fagg, Washington, D. C. For respondents Texas, et al.: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.For respondent Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.: David C. Frederick, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

In this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:Six near unanimous decisions released on June 12th, 2025Two major cases granted certiorari via June 16th, 2025 OrderIn this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:Term statistics and remaining docket overviewSix decisions released on June 12th, 2025Two major cases granted certiorari via June 16th, 2025 Order2024 Term StatisticsTotal cases heard: 62 unique cases this termCases decided: 41 (approximately 66%)Cases pending: 21 (approximately 33%)Methodology: Consolidated cases counted once (e.g., Trump v. CASA/Washington/New Jersey)Timing significance: June typically brings most consequential decisionsKey Observations from June 12th, 2025 DecisionsObservation #1: Unanimity Reigned Supreme. June 12th consensus: 4 unanimous (9-0) decisions, 2 near-unanimous (8-1) decisions. Two-week pattern: 9 unanimous decisions and 3 8-1 splits out of 12 total case. Historical context: Must go back 15 opinions to find more than 2 dissents (May 22nd Oklahoma Charter School case). Full-term data: 29 of 41 decided cases unanimous or near-unanimous (71% consensus)Observation #2: Opinion Assignments Tell a Story. Recent distribution: 8 of 9 justices wrote majority opinions in past two weeks; Justice Kavanaugh who wrote sole opinion the week before)Observation #3: Speed Suggests Strategic Docket Management. Rapid turnaround: 6-10 weeks from oral argument to decision. Contrast with pending cases: U.S. v. Skrmetti (transgender medical care): 6+ months since December 4th argument; Hewitt v. United States (First Step Act): pending since January 13th; and Stanley v. City of Sanford (ADA): pending since January 13th.Observation #4: Uncle Sam Had a Bad Day. Government losses: 5 of 6 cases involved citizens vs. government agencies. Case types: FBI raid victims, disabled student vs. school district, veterans vs. benefits administration, prisoner vs. federal procedures, taxpayer vs. IRS. Pattern: Court prioritizing individual redress against institutional power. Only government win: Rivers v. Guerrero, which involved stricter habeas petition standards.Observation #5: The Court as Error Corrector. Reversal rate: 10 of 12 cases vacated or reversed (83%). Term comparison: Higher than overall 66% reversal rate. "Kick it back" approach: Court often vacates with instructions rather than final resolutionObservation #6: Roberts' Perfect Record. Chief Justice pattern: 41 cases, 41 majority opinions joined. Zero concurrences, zero dissents. Contrast with other justices:Justice Thomas: 5 dissents, Justice Gorsuch: 4 dissents (including both June 12th dissents) and Justice Jackson: 3 dissents authored, 1 joined.June 16th, 2025 Certiorari Grants1. First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Matthew Platkin | Case No. 24-781 | Docket Link: Here. Question Presented: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?Key Facts:New Jersey Attorney General issued civil investigatory subpoena to faith-based pregnancy centerSubpoena sought donor identities, medical claims, operational practicesFirst Choice filed federal § 1983 lawsuit two days before compliance deadlineComplex parallel litigation in federal and state courtsPetitioner's Arguments:Circuit split: Fifth Circuit bars pre-enforcement challenges vs. Ninth Circuit allows when showing objective chillConcrete injury through chilling of First Amendment association/speech rights§ 1983 guarantees federal forum; state court requirement creates "preclusion trap"Respondent's Arguments:No circuit split—Third Circuit decision was fact-specificCase presents unique procedural complications unsuitable for broad resolutionClaims too speculative under Article III ripeness doctrineStakes: Federal court access for constitutional challenges to state investigations2. Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana | Case No. 24-813 | Docket Link: Here.Questions Presented:Whether a causal-nexus or contractual direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statuteWhether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contractKey Facts:Louisiana parishes sued oil companies for environmental harm from WWII-era crude oil productionCompanies sought federal officer removal based on WWII contracts to supply high-octane aviation gasolineFifth Circuit found companies satisfied "acting under" requirement but failed "relating to" requirementMajority required explicit contractual directive about challenged conductPetitioner's Arguments:Fifth Circuit improperly required "explicit directive" in federal contractsCircuit split on federal officer removal standardsVertically integrated operations inheren

Opinion Summary: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Date Decided: 6/12/25 | Case No. 24–249 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) require public entities and organizations that receive federal funding to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. In the decision below, the Eighth Circuit held that, for discrimination claims "based on educational services" brought by children with disabilities, these statutes are violated only if school officials acted with ''bad faith or gross misjudgment."That test squarely implicates an entrenched and acknowledged 5-2 circuit split over the standard governing such claims. It is also plainly mistaken on the merits: As the Eighth Circuit itself acknowledged, the test lacks "any anchor in statutory text," App.5a n.2, and it arbitrarily departs from the more lenient standards that all courts-including the Eighth Circuit-apply to ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims brought by plaintiffs outside the school setting. Question Presented: Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Holding: Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.Result: Vacated and remanded. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Roman Martinez For the United States, as Amicus Curiae: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor GeneralFor Respondents: Lisa S. BlattWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Soto v. United States | Date Decided: 6/12/25 | Case No. 24-320 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Holding: Result: Voting Breakdown: Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner:For Respondent:Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Martin v. United States | Date Decided: 6/12/25 | Case No. 24–362 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Petitioners are the innocent victims of a wrong-house raid conducted by an FBI SWAT team in Atlanta, Georgia. Seeking a remedy for torts committed against them, Petitioners brought a cause of action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In its opinion below, the Eleventh Circuit held that all of Petitioners' FTCA claims are barred by sovereign immunity supplied either through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause or the FTCA's discretionary-function exception. In one or more ways, the opinion below conflicts with decisions from every other circuit. Questions Presented: Whether the Constitution's Supremacy Clause bars claims under the FTCA-a federal statute enacted by Congress-when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law. Whether the FTCA's discretionary-function exception bars claims for torts arising from wrong-house raids and similar negligent or wrongful acts by federal employees.Holdings:The law enforcement proviso in Section 2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout Section 2680.The Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits.On remand, the Eleventh Circuit should consider whether subsection (a)'s discretionary-function exception bars either the plaintiffs' negligent- or intentional-tort claims—undertaking that assessment without reference to the mistaken view that the law enforcement proviso applies to subsection (a). Result: Vacated and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners: Patrick M. JaicomoFor Respondents: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor GeneralFor Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below on Question 1: Christopher E. MillsWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:

Opinion Summary: Rivers v. Guerrero | Date Decided: 6/12/25 | Case No. 23-1345 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Under the federal habeas statute, a prisoner "always gets one chance to bring a federal habeas challenge to his conviction," Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 509 (2020). After that, the stringent gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) bar nearly all attempts to file a "second or successive habeas corpus application." Here, petitioner sought to amend his initial habeas application while it was pending on appeal. The Fifth Circuit applied § 2244(b)(2) and rejected the amended filing. The circuits are intractably split on whether § 2244(b)(2) applies to such filings. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits hold that § 2244(b)(2) categorically applies to all second-in-time habeas filings made after the district court enters final judgment. The Second Circuit disagrees, applying § 2244(b)(2) only after a petitioner exhausts appellate review of his initial petition. And the Third and Tenth Circuits exempt some second-in-time filings from § 2244(b)(2), depending on whether a prisoner prevails on his initial appeal (Third Circuit) or satisfies a seven-factor test (Tenth Circuit). Question Presented: Whether § 2244(b)(2) applies (i) only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, (ii) to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or (iii) to some second-in-time filings, depending on a prisoner's success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Holding: Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a first-filed habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a "second or successive application" properly subject to the requirements of Section 2244(b).Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. There were no concurring opinions.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Peter A. Bruland, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.; and Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Parrish v. United States | Date Decided: 6/12/25 | Case No. 24–275 Link to Docket: Here.Background:Ordinarily, litigants must file a notice of appeal within 30 or 60 days of an adverse judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), however, district courts can reopen an expired appeal period when a party did not receive timely notice of the judgment. The Courts of Appeals have divided about whether a notice of appeal filed after the expiration of the ordinary appeal period but before the appeal period is reopened becomes effective once reopening is granted. Holding: A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 8-1. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Amanda Rice, Detroit, Mich. 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: Michael R. Huston, Phoenix, Ariz.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch | Date Decided: 6/12/25 | Case No. 24–416 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether 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.Holding: The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 6330 to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the IRS when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 8-1. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For respondent: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Supreme Court Roundup: Decisions, Emergency Actions, and New GrantsIn this episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:Six unanimous decisions released on June 5th, 2025Two significant emergency docket interventions involving DOGEThree major cases granted certiorari via June 6th, 2025 OrderJune 5, 2025 Unanimous DecisionsRemarkable consensus: 5 unanimous decisions, 1 8-1 dismissalStrategic clearing of non-controversial cases with 30 contentious cases pendingJustice Thomas's concurrences in 5 of 6 cases challenging judge-made doctrinesHeavy focus on procedural rules as proxies for deeper policy debatesEmergency Docket Actions1. U.S. DOGE Service v. CREW: Court limits discovery of internal executive communicationsCourt orders narrowing of discovery rather than outright prohibitionDecision based on separation of powers principlesJustices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented2. Social Security Administration v. AFSCME: Court allows DOGE access to sensitive SSA recordsJustice Jackson's forceful dissent highlighting privacy concernsLower courts' compromise solution rejected by majorityConcerns about disclosure of personal data without legal determinationCertiorari Grants1. Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Case No. 24-808Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether a motion to vacate a void judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) must be filed within a "reasonable time"Key Facts: Coney Island claims improper service six years after default judgmentPetitioner's Argument: Void judgments are legal nullities from the start; no time limit should applyRespondent's Argument: Rule 60(c)(1) explicitly requires "reasonable time" with no exceptionsStakes: Balance between jurisdictional principles and need for legal finality2. Rutherford v. United States | Case No. 24-820 (Consolidated with Carter v. United States | Case No. 24-860)Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority in allowing courts to consider non-retroactive changes in law as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reductionKey Fact: Carter received 70-year sentence under pre-First Step Act "stacking" provisions that would result in much shorter sentence todayPetitioner's Argument: Commission has broad authority to define "extraordinary and compelling reasons"; gross disparities qualifyGovernment's Argument: Commission can't circumvent Congress's decision not to make First Step Act retroactiveStakes: Potential relief for hundreds of federal prisoners serving lengthy "stacked" sentences3. Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: How courts should apply the clinical definition of intellectual disability when all IQ scores are above 70Key Fact: Smith has five IQ scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74) all above 70 but significant adaptive deficitsPetitioner's Argument: Multiple IQ scores above 70 should preclude intellectual disability finding; states should be able to require proof of IQ ≤70Respondent's Argument: Supreme Court precedent requires considering standard error of measurement and adaptive functioning when scores are in 70-75 rangeStakes: Implementation of Atkins prohibition on executing intellectually disabled individuals; states' authority to define intellectual disability criteriaSupport the PodcastIf you found this analysis helpful, please subscribe, rate, and share this podcast. Your support helps us continue providing in-depth Supreme Court coverage.

Opinion Summary: Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis | Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 24–304 In this episode, I breakdown the dismissal, Justice Kavanaugh's dissent and theories for the dismissal. Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether a federal court may certify a class action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.Result: Dismissed as improvidently granted. Voting Breakdown: 8-1. Per Curiam decision.  Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Noel J. FranciscoFor United States, as Amicus Curiae: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General For Respondents: Deepak GuptaWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos | Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 23–1141 Link to Docket: Here.Background:The Mexican Government sued leading members of the American firearms industry, seeking to hold them liable for harms inflicted by Mexican drug cartels. According to Mexico, America's firearms companies have engaged in a series of business practices for decades-from selling semi-automatic rifles, to making magazines that hold over ten rounds, to failing to impose various sales restrictions-that have created a supply of firearms later smuggled across the border and ultimately used by the cartels to commit crimes. Mexico asks for billions of dollars in damages, plus extensive injunctive relief imposing new gun-control measures in the United States. The district court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars suits against firearms companies based on criminals misusing their products. But the First Circuit reversed. It held that PLCAA does not bar this suit because Mexico stated a claim that defendants' business practices have aided and abetted firearms trafficking to the cartels, proximately harming the Mexican government. Questions Presented:Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the "proximate cause" of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.Holding: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson each filed concurring opinions.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioners: Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Catherine E. Stetson, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:

Opinion Summary: Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Comm’n. | Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 24–154 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of § 108.02(15)(h)(2) to petitioners violates the First Amendment.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.  Justices Thomas and Jackson each filed concurring opinions.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner:For Respondent:Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:

Opinion Summary: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. | Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 23–1201 This case was consolidated with: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., Case No. 24-17.Link to Docket: Here.Questions Presented:Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.The question presented in Antrix Corp. Ltd. is: Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, "[p]ersonal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).Host Note: Consolidated with: Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., Case No. 24-17Holding: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner in 24-17: Aaron Streett, Houston, Tex. For petitioners in 23-1201: Matthew D. McGill, Washington, D.C. For United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C. Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:

Opinion Summary: BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman| Date Decided: 6/5/25 | Case No. 23–1259 Link to Docket: Here.Background:For more than 70 years, this Court has "required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6)" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to show 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). This Court has also stressed that a movant must be "faultless" to obtain relief. Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). "This very strict interpretation of Rule 60(b) is essential if the finality of judgments is to be preserved." Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535 (cleaned up). In this case, Respondents declined multiple invitations and opportunities to amend their complaint. The District Court then dismissed their complaint with prejudice, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Only then did Respondents move to vacate the judgment so they could file an amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(6)'s well-settled standard. But the Second Circuit reversed, based on an unprecedented "balanc[ing]" test that requires district courts to consider Rule 15(a)'s "liberal pleading principles" when addressing a Rule 60 (b)(6) motion to reopen a judgment for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. Question Presented: Whether Rule 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.Holding: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Robers and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined and in which Justice Jackson joined in all parts but Part III. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D. C.For respondents: Michael J. Radine, Hackensack, N.J.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services | Case No. 23-1039 | Date Decided: 6/5/25 In this episode, we'll Ames versus Ohio Department of Youth Services, Case Number 23–1039. I'll walk through the opinion, give my thoughts on case implications and also compare how the oral arguments compared and contrasted to the ultimate opinions. Spoiler alert: oral arguments heavily forecasted the results.Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Holding: The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which re¬quires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.Result: Vacated and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Xiao Wang, Charlottesville, Va.; and Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, Columbus, Ohio.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:

Guns, Warrantless Home Searches, and Ballot Boxes: Inside the Supreme Court's June 2nd Order List In this episode of Supreme Court Oral Arguments and Opinions, I break down the Court's June 2, 2025 Order List, focusing on several cases that touch on fundamental constitutional questions affecting Americans' daily lives. The episode examines four cases where the Court granted certiorari and two denied cases that sparked passionate written dissents.Cases Granted Review: 1. Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections | Case No. 24-568 | Docket Link: Here.Question: Do federal candidates have standing to challenge state laws allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day?Background: Stems from a lawsuit by Congressman Michael Bost and two Republican Presidential Elector Nominees involving a challenge to Illinois' law that allows mail-in ballots to be received and counted up to fourteen days after Election Day.Implications: Could affect how mail-in ballots are processed in federal elections across more than half the states2. Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Docket Link: Here. Question: Do police need probable cause or only reasonable suspicion to enter homes without a warrant during emergencies?Background: Stems from a welfare check that resulted in William Trevor Case being shot by police and later convicted of assaulting a peace officerImplications: Will clarify Fourth Amendment standards for warrantless home entries during potential emergencies3. GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal | Case No. 24-758 | Docket Link: Here.Question: Can government contractors immediately appeal denials of derivative sovereign immunity claims?Background: Involves allegations that a private detention center operator forced detainees to clean common areas and paid only $1.00 per day for voluntary workImplications: Will affect litigation risks for companies contracting with the government in sensitive areas4. Hencely v. Fluor Corp. | Case No. 24-924 | Docket Link: Here.Question: Does federal law preempt state tort claims against military contractors in war zones?Background: Arises from a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan that severely injured a U.S. Army specialistImplications: Billions in potential liability for military contractors and access to remedies for injured service membersNotable Cert Denials:1. Nicholson v. W.L. York | Case No. 23–7490Issue: When does the statute of limitations restart for repeated acts of racial discrimination?Dissent: Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, argued that each discriminatory act should start a new limitations clockSignificance: Affects when victims of ongoing discrimination can bring legal claims2. Snope v. Brown | Case No. 24–203Issue: Does Maryland's ban on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles violate the Second Amendment?Statement: Justice Kavanaugh noted AR-15s' common use but supported further percolationDissent: Justice Thomas forcefully dissented, arguing the ban is unconstitutionalImplications: Maintains state-by-state variations in assault weapons regulations while suggesting the Court may address the issue in coming termsTimestamps:00:00:00 Introduction00:01:26 Cert Granted: Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections00:03:39 Cert Granted: Case v. Montana00:06:59 Cert Granted: GEO Group v. Menocal00:08:48 Cert Grant: Hencely v. Fluor Corp.00:10:35 Cert Denied: Nicholson v. W.L. York00:12:04 Cert Denied: Snope v. Brown00:16:30 Conclusion

Emergency Docket Order Summary: Noem v. Doe | Order Date: 5/30/25 | Case No. 24A1079 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the April 15, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and any further proceedings in this Court.The central issue in this case is whether the Secretary of Homeland Security lawfully terminated the CHNV parole program and the existing parole status of approximately half a million individuals through a single Federal Register Notice, or if this en masse termination exceeded the Secretary's authority and violated statutory requirements for case-by-case assessment and proper legal reasoning. Decision: Stay granted. The Supreme Court granted the application and stayed the district court order. This means that DHS can terminate the lawful status of all CHNV parolees and proceed to remove them pursuant to law. Link to Opinion: Here.

Reading the Eagle County Tea Leaves: How the Justices' Oral Argument Questions Foreshadowed Their Opinions This episode of SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions delves into the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition versus Eagle County, decided on May 29, 2025. The episode compares and contrasts the oral arguments and written opinions of Justices Kavanaugh and Sotomayor. Justice Kavanaugh's majority opinion emphasized broad judicial deference to federal agencies and the economic impact of extensive environmental reviews. In contrast, Justice Sotomayor's concurrence focused on the narrow legal authority under federal transportation law. The episode highlights how Justices Barrett and Jackson influenced the written opinions despite not penning their own separate analyses. Overall, it explores how this oral arguments predicted judicial outcomes.Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:00:00 Introduction to the Case01:39 Justice Kavanaugh's Majority Opinion05:58 Justice Sotomayor's Concurrence08:32 Influence of Other Justices11:47 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Opinion Summary: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County | Date Decided: 5/29/25 | Case No. 23–975 Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.Holding: The D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 8-0. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito and Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va. For federal respondents supporting petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.For respondents Eagle County, et al.: William M. Jay, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:[00:00:00] Introduction[00:02:10] Question Presented[00:03:04] Voting Breakdown[00:03:32] Justice Kavanaugh's Majority Opinion[00:09:56] Justice Sotomayor's Concurring Opinion[00:21:22] Case Implications

L. M. v. Middleborough, Petitioner v. United States, et al. | Decision Date: 5/27/25 | Case No. 24-410Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.Result: Denial of certiorari.Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the denial of certiorari.Link to Decision: Here.

Apache Stronghold, Petitioner v. United States, et al. | Order Date: 5/23/25 | Case No. 24-291Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.Result: Denial of certiorari.Voting Breakdown: 6-2. Justice Gorsuch with whom Justice Thomas joined, dissented from the denial of certiorari.Link to Decision: Here.

Order Summary: Trump v. Wilcox | Order Date: 5/22/25 | Case No. 24A966 This case comes from the Emergency Docket.Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the judgments issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and any further proceedings in this Court. The underlying case involves the questions of whether the President may remove without cause members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, or whether statutory for-cause removal protections for these agency heads violate the President's constitutional authority under Article II to supervise and control officers who exercise executive power on his behalf.Holding: The Court granted the stay application. The lower court decisions are on hold until the case fully resolves.Result: The Justices did not sign the order. Justice Kagan filed a dissent from the grant of the stay application and was joined by along with Justices Sotomayor and Justice Jackson.Link to Opinion: Here.

I created this episode to highlight and contrast the Justices' questions and comments at oral argument to the written opinion in Kousisis.While all Justices agreed on rejecting the economic-loss requirement, their different concerns and questioning approaches during oral argument directly predicted the fragmented reasoning that would characterize their written opinions. The oral argument served as a laboratory for testing legal theories that would ultimately prove difficult to reconcile in a single coherent framework, explaining why this unanimous result required four separate opinions to express the Court's reasoning. Specifically:Justice Barrett used oral argument to test the coherence of competing legal standards, ultimately crafting a majority opinion that rejected petitioners' approach while leaving significant questions unresolved.Justice Thomas used his questioning to explore the specific regulatory context, leading to a concurrence focused on materiality as a limiting principle in DBE cases specifically.Justice Gorsuch consistently probed the boundaries between criminal and non-criminal conduct, resulting in a concurrence defending traditional common-law limitations on fraud liability.Justice Sotomayor maintained focus on the specific case facts and narrow legal question, producing a concurrence that warns against broader doctrinal pronouncements.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Opinion Summary: Kousisis v. United States | Case No. 23-909 | Date Decided: 5/22/25 Link to Docket: Here.Questions Presented: Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme. Whether a sovereign's statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services. Whether all contract rights are "property."Holding: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.Result: Affirmed. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion con¬curring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For Respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:00:00 Introduction 00:57 Justice Barrett’s Majority Opinion09:01 Justice Thomas’ Concurring Opinion15:22 Justice Gorsuch opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment24:27 Justice Sotomayor opinion concurring in the judgment00:29:52 Case Implications

Opinion Summary: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Decided: 5/22/25 Link to Docket: Here.Background: The Oklahoma Constitution requires Oklahoma to “establish[ ] and maint[ain] . . . a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control.” The Oklahoma Constitution also requires that [n]o public money . . . shall ever be appropriated . . . or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion . . . or sectarian institution.” Consistent with these constitutional mandates, the Oklahoma Legislature established a type of public school[] established by contract called a charter school. The Oklahoma Charter School Board established a public charter school that fully incorporates Catholic teachings into every aspect of the school, including its curriculum and co-curricular activities.Following the Board’s predecessor’s establishment of the aforementioned public charter school, the Oklahoma Attorney filed an original action with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to prevent the charter school from operating.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. Questions Presented: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. 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.Holding: The entire opinion reads: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 4-4. Per Curiam Opinion.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners in 24-394: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va. For Petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D.C. For United States, as Amicus Curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Respondent: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D.C. Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:15 Question Presented00:53 Result01:05 Opinion01:10 Case Implications

Case Info: A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Case No. 24A1007 | Date Decided: 5/16/25Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether Venezuelan nationals detained as alleged members of a terrorist organization are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to challenge their removal before being deported under the Alien Enemies Act, and if so, what minimum notice requirements must the government provide to satisfy due process.Plain Language Breakdown: In this case, the Supreme Court decided that Venezuelan nationals detained by the government as alleged members of a terrorist organization must receive adequate notice before being removed from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court found that the District Court's inaction for over 14 hours constituted a constructive denial of the detainees' request for emergency relief, and that due process requires notice that allows detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal through habeas proceedings. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal and granted an injunction preventing the government from removing class members until the Fifth Circuit could determine what level of notice is constitutionally required.Justice Kavanaugh concurred, agreeing with the temporary injunction but expressing a preference for the Supreme Court to resolve the critical legal issues promptly rather than remanding to lower courts. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the District Court's actions were reasonable given the circumstances and insufficient evidence was presented to prove imminent harm to the detainees; he also questioned whether class relief could be obtained in habeas proceedings and whether the requirements for class certification could be met in this case.Voting Details: The Supreme Court delivered a Per Curiam opinion. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, with whom Justice Thomas joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction and Plain Language Breakdown02:10 Summary of Per Curiam Opinion12:47 Summary of Justice Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion14:33 Summary of Justice Kavanaugh Dissenting Opinion

Here are some highlights from the Trump v. CASA, Inc. case heard on May 15, 2025.Justice Kagan and Justice Barrett went viral for their questions. Those portions begin around 09:17.Please see the oral argument episode for additional case details.As always, I welcome any feedback on the episode or podcast. Email: [email protected].

Case Info: Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc. | Case No. 24A884 | Date Argued: 5/15/25Consolidation Note: The following cases were consolidated: (1) Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc., Case No. 24A884; (2) Trump, President of U.S. v. Washington, Case No. 24A885; and (3) Trump, President of U.S. v. New Jersey, Case No. 24A886.Parties: Applicants: United States and Federal OfficialsRespondents: (1) States and cities such as New Jersey, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, and the City and County of San Francisco; (2) Immigrant rights organizations such as CASA, Inc. and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, Inc; and (3) private individuals.Links to Docket: Here (Case No. 24A884); Here (Case No. 24A885); and Here (Case No. 24A886).Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s 1/20/25 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.Background:On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order regarding birthright citizenship. Section 1 of the Order recognizes that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., confer citizenship upon all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. That provision, known as the Citizenship Clause, repudiated Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), which infamously misinterpreted the Constitution to deny U.S. citizenship to people of African descent based solely on their race. Congress has reaffirmed the Citizenship Clause in the INA, which provides that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is a citizen of the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1401(a). Section 1 of the Order identifies two circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not subject to its jurisdiction: “(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that 6 person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.” Citizenship Order § 1. Section 2 of the Order directs the Executive Branch (1) not to issue documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to the persons identified in Section 1 and (2) not to accept documents issued by state, local, or other governments purporting to recognize the U.S. citizenship of such persons. See Citizenship Order § 2(a). Section 2 specifies that those directives “apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order,” i.e., after February 19. Id. § 2(b). Three district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued overlapping nationwide injunctions at the behest of 22 States, two organizations, and seven individuals. Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to “hundreds of thousands” of unspecified individuals who are “not before the court nor identified by the court.” Three Circuit Courts of Appeals refused to limit the nationwide injunctions. Applicant's Position:The Solicitor General argues that universal injunctions have reached crisis levels, particularly since the start of the current Administration in 2025. The Solicitor General notes that district courts issued more universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders in February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration. The Solicitor General contends this trend prevents the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before courts can fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to overwhelm the Supreme Court's emergency docket.The Solicitor General asserts that the universal injunctions in this case are particularly problematic because they extend to all 50 states and millions of aliens nationwide, even though tailored relief for the actual plaintiffs would fully address their alleged harms. The Solicitor General argues the injunctions were improperly granted to States that lack standing to raise Citizenship Clause claims, defying the principle that States may only assert their own rights, not those of third parties. Furthermore, the Solicitor General contends the injunctions im

Case Info: Barnes v. Felix | Case No. 23-1239 | Date Argued: 1/22/25 | Date Decided: 5/15/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from using "unreasonable" force. U.S. Const. amend. IV. In Graham v. Connor, this Court held that reasonableness depends on "the totality of the circumstances." 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (quotation marks omitted). But four circuits-the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth-cabin Graham. Those circuits evaluate whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred under the "moment of the threat doctrine," which evaluates the reasonableness of an officer's actions only in the narrow window when the officer's safety was threatened, and not based on events that precede the moment of the threat. In contrast, eight circuits-the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits-reject the moment of the threat doctrine and follow the totality of the circumstances approach, including evaluating the officer's actions leading up to the use of force. In the decision below, Judge Higginbotham concurred in his own majority opinion, explaining that the minority approach "lessens the Fourth Amendment's protection of the American public" and calling on this Court "to resolve the circuit divide over the application of a doctrine deployed daily across this country." Pet. App. 10a-16a (Higginbotham, J., concurring). Question Presented: Whether courts should apply the moment of the threat doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.Holding: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which re­quires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from the per­spective of a reasonable officer at the scene. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force re­quires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. That analysis demands careful attention to the facts and circum­stances relating to the incident. Most notable here, the totality of the circumstances inquiry has no time limit.Result: Vacated and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky, Washington, D. C.; and Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For Respondents: Charles L. McCloud, Washington, D. C.; and Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Austin, Tex. (for Texas, et al., as amici curiae.)Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here. Timestamps:[00:00] Introduction[00:38] Justice Kagan Unanimous Opinion[04:35] Justice Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion[10:12] Case Implications

In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey of Justice David SouterEpisode OverviewIn this special memorial episode, we discuss the remarkable life and judicial career of Justice David H. Souter, a Supreme Court Justice who defied political expectations and remained committed to principled jurisprudence.Key HighlightsBorn: September 17, 1939 in Melrose, MassachusettsAppointed to Supreme Court: 1990 by President George H.W. BushRetired: 2009 (succeeded by Justice Sotomayor)Passed Away: May 8, 2025Notable Career MilestonesRhodes Scholar at Oxford UniversityNew Hampshire Attorney GeneralAssociate Justice of New Hampshire Supreme CourtJudge on the First Circuit Court of AppealsSupreme Court Justice (1990-2009)Landmark Cases Discussed1. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) (Opinion Here)Co-authored opinion affirming Roe v. WadeCrafted influential section on judicial precedent2. Bush v. Gore (2000) (Opinion Here)Demonstrated judicial independenceCritiqued recount process while questioning judicial overreachJudicial Philosophy HighlightsBelieved law should adapt to empirical realitiesAdvocated for judicial restraintSupported separation of church and stateConsistently prioritized legal principles over political expectationsThe Supreme Court issued two press releases: Here and Here.

Episode Description:This episode features a May 7, 2025 conversation between Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo. They discuss why judicial independence matters in our democracy and how it helps balance power between different parts of government. Both judges share stories about their personal backgrounds, law school experiences, and key moments in their careers. They also talk about what makes legal writing effective and why court decisions should be written clearly so everyone can understand them. The conversation gives listeners a unique look into the thoughts of two important judges as they reflect on their shared history and how the legal world has changed over time.Background:On May 7, 2025, Chief Justice John Roberts headlined the Western District of New York 125th Anniversary Dinner Event in Buffalo, NY. As part of this event, U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo interviewed Chief Justice Roberts. From the Event's press release: “Chief Justice Roberts was born in Buffalo and spent his early childhood here, so we claim him as one of our own,” said Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford. “His willingness to join us for our 125th Anniversary makes the celebration all the more special. It’s a testament to Western New York’s rich legal history and the Chief Justice’s commitment to our profession.”Event Press Release: Here.H/T to WGRZ-TV for the recording.Timestamps:00:00 Welcoming Remarks and Reflections 00:57 Reflecting on the Past: A Journey Back to Buffalo 09:26 The Art of Writing Clearly14:07 Judicial Independence and Its Implications 25:42 The Role of the Chief Justice in Public Life 32:04 Reflections on Two Decades on the Court 38:43 The Evolution of Legal Perspectives 43:20 The Influence of Judicial Mentorship 48:35 Reflections on Clerking and the Law

Case Info: United States v. Shilling | Order Decided: 5/6/25 | Case No. 24A1030Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the nationwide injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.Plain English Translation: This order means that the district court’s nationwide injunction is on hold until final adjudication of the case on the merits.  The district court’s nationwide injunction prohibited the Department of Defense from implementing a policy that generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for gender dysphoria.Voting Breakdown: The Order is unsigned.  Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:16 Question Presented00:28 Emergency Order Text01:23 Voting Breakdown01:31 Plain English Order Summary02:07 Procedural History - Policy Adoption02:39 Procedural History - Respondent Identities02:52 Procedural History - District Court Orders04:39 Procedural History - Government Appeals Denial of Stay of Nationwide Injunction to 9th Circuit; 9th Circuit Denies Appeal05:15 Procedural History - Government Appeals Applies to Supreme Court for a Stay05:20 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Satisfies Rational Basis Review06:42 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Comports with the First Amendment07:49 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Complies with the Due Process Clause and Principles of Equity07:59 Summary of Government Application - The District Court Erred in Issuing a Nationwide Injunction10:04 Summary of Government Application - The Remaining Factors Support the Issuance of a Stay

Case Info: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25 | Date Decided: 5/22/25Link to Docket: Here.Background: The Oklahoma Constitution requires Oklahoma to “establish[ ] and maint[ain] . . . a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control.” The Oklahoma Constitution also requires that [n]o public money . . . shall ever be appropriated . . . or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion . . . or sectarian institution.” Consistent with these constitutional mandates, the Oklahoma Legislature established a type of public school[] established by contract called a charter school. The Oklahoma Charter School Board established a public charter school that fully incorporates Catholic teachings into every aspect of the school, including its curriculum and co-curricular activities.Following the Board’s predecessor’s establishment of the aforementioned public charter school, the Oklahoma Attorney filed an original action with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to prevent the charter school from operating.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. Questions Presented: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. 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.Holding: The entire opinion reads: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 4-4. Per Curiam Opinion.Link to Opinion: Here.Host Notes: Justice Barrett did not participate in this case. Also, this case was consolidated with St. Isidore of Seville Sch. v. Drummond, Case No. 24-396.Oral Advocates: For Petitioners in 24-394: James A. CampbellFor Petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinleyFor United States, as Amicus Curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of JusticeFor Respondent: Gregory G. GarreWebsite Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:08 Petitioner (in 24-394) Opening Statement Begins2:00 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begins11:10 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin37:16 Petitioner Questions End, Petitioner (in 24-396) Opening Statement Begins38:28 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin44:57 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin58:15, Petitioner Questions End, Government (as Amicus Curiae) Opening Statement Begins59:13 Government Free for All Questions Begin1:08:32 Government Sequential Questions Begin1:17:33 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins1:20:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin1:48:30 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin2:08:50 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

Case Info: Feliciano v. Department of Transportation | Date Decided: 4/30/25 | Case No. 23-861Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.Holding: A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” as described in §101(a)(13)(B) is entitled to differential pay if the reservist’s service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency without any showing that the service bears a substantive connection to a particular emergency.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito, Kagan and Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt For Respondent: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of JusticeWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:15 Question Presented00:23 Voting Breakdown00:40 Justice Gorsuch Majority Opinion08:10 Result08:11 Justice Thomas Dissenting Opinion14:41 Case Implications

Case Info: Martin v. United States | Case No. 24-362 | Date Argued: 4/29/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Petitioners are the innocent victims of a wrong-house raid conducted by an FBI SWAT team in Atlanta, Georgia. Seeking a remedy for torts committed against them, Petitioners brought a cause of action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In its opinion below, the Eleventh Circuit held that all of Petitioners' FTCA claims are barred by sovereign immunity supplied either through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause or the FTCA's discretionary-function exception. In one or more ways, the opinion below conflicts with decisions from every other circuit. Questions Presented: Whether the Constitution's Supremacy Clause bars claims under the FTCA-a federal statute enacted by Congress-when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law. Whether the FTCA's discretionary-function exception bars claims for torts arising from wrong-house raids and similar negligent or wrongful acts by federal employees.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners: Patrick M. JaicomoFor Respondents: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor GeneralFor Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below on Question 1: Christopher E. MillsWebsite Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins02:11 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin21:58 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin22:06 Petitioner Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins23:53 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin37:10 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin39:31 Respondent Questions End, Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Opening Statement Begins40:33 Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions Begin46:45 Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Sequential Questions Begin46:51 Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

Case Info: Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy | Date Decided: 4/29/25 | Case No. 23-715Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Does the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, mean the same thing for Medicare part A and supplementary security income (SSI), such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.Holding: In calculating the Medicare fraction, an individual is “entitled to[SSI] benefits” for purposes of the Medicare fraction when she is eligi­ble to receive an SSI cash payment during the month of her hospitali­zation. Result: Affirmed.Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined.  Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.Link to Opinion: Here. Advocates: For Petitioners: Melissa Arbus SherryFor Respondent: Ephraim McDowell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Case Info: Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | Case No. 24-304 | Date Argued: 4/29/25Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether a federal court may certify a class action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Noel J. FranciscoFor United States, as Amicus Curiae: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General For Respondents: Deepak GuptaWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:06 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins02:16 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin21:22 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin1:09:22 Petitioner Questions End, Government Opening Statement Begins1:10:41 Government Free for All Questions Begin1:20:15 Government Sequential Questions Begin1:36:29 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins1:38:22 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin2:06:52 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin2:12:05 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

Case Info: Soto v. United States | Case No. 24-320 | Date Argued: 4/28/25Link to Docket: Here.Background: This case determines whether thousands of medically retired combat veterans should receive all the combat related special compensation (CRSC) that Congress specifically authorized for combat veterans. The government has elected to calculate the period of retroactive compensation due using the procedure in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702) instead of the one in the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)-a maneuver that allows the government to apply the Barring Act's six- year limitations period in order to pay the veterans less. But the Barring Act is a default provision and does not apply where "another law" provides a procedure for calculating the amount due-that is, for "settling" a demand for payment. Although this Court's precedent defines "settlement" of demands for payment from the federal government as "the administrative determination of the amount due," it has not decided the test for whether a statute provides a settlement procedure that should apply in place of the Barring Act. And agency practice more broadly-which aligns with the test the District Court articulated and is consistent with this Court's definition of "settlement"-is irreconcilable with the novel test that the Federal Circuit applied, although both tests claim reliance on this Court's definition of "settlement." Question Presented: When a person makes a demand for money from the federal government pursuant to federal statute, what test should courts and agencies use to determine whether that statute includes a settlement procedure that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702)?Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Tracy F. Flint, Chicago, Ill. For Respondent: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor GeneralWebsite Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins2:07 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin25:24 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin30:00 Petitioner Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins32:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin57:40 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin57:46 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

Case Info: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Case No. 24-249 | Date Argued: 4/28/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) require public entities and organizations that receive federal funding to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. In the decision below, the Eighth Circuit held that, for discrimination claims "based on educational services" brought by children with disabilities, these statutes are violated only if school officials acted with ''bad faith or gross misjudgment."That test squarely implicates an entrenched and acknowledged 5-2 circuit split over the standard governing such claims. It is also plainly mistaken on the merits: As the Eighth Circuit itself acknowledged, the test lacks "any anchor in statutory text," App.5a n.2, and it arbitrarily departs from the more lenient standards that all courts-including the Eighth Circuit-apply to ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims brought by plaintiffs outside the school setting. Question Presented: Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Holding: Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.Result: Vacated and remanded. Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Roman Martinez For the United States, as Amicus Curiae: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor GeneralFor Respondents: Lisa S. BlattHost Note: This is probably the sauciest oral argument I've heard this term. Respondent's counsel accuses Petitioner of lying and of asking the Court to consider "uniquely stupid standards." Respondent's counsel also accused the Supreme Court of routinely remanding cases without setting the law. All of these statements clearly made the justices uncomfortable. I included timestamps for these exchanges. Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:07 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins2:04 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin18:06 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin23:04 Petitioner Questions End, Government Opening Statement Begins24:29 Government Free for All Questions Begin33:42 Government Sequential Questions Begin45:17 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins47:16 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin50:26 Respondent alleges that Petitioner lied and made inaccurate statements about Respondent’s position50:55 Justice Gorsuch tells Respondent to be more careful with her words with respect to alleging that Petitioner lied 52:03 Respondent states that Petitioner asks the court to adopt “uniquely stupid standards.”1:03:17 Justice Jackson and Respondent debate whether 504 and Title II require reasonable accommodations1:04:31 Respondent admonishes the Supreme Court for sometimes “just remand[ing] and saying we just remand” and for not “set[ting] the law.”1:05:01 Justice Gorsuch tells Respondent that he’s troubled by Respondent’s “suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied[]” and asks Respondent “to reconsider that phrase.” Respondent backtracks and says that Petitioner is incorrect.1:07:24 Justice Gorsuch asks Respondent to withdraw her accusation that Petitioner lied. Respondent obliges.1:16:23 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin1:22:38 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Reply Begins

Case Info: Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | Case No. 24-7 | Date Argued: 04/23/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act generally preempts States from adopting emission standards for new motor vehicles. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(a). But under Section 209(b) of that Act, EPA may grant California and only California-a waiver from federal preemption to set its own vehicle-emission standards. Before granting a preemption waiver, EPA must find that California "need[s]" its own emission standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." Id. § 7543(b)(1)(B). In 2022, EPA granted California a waiver to set its own standards for greenhouse-gas emissions and to adopt a zero-emission-vehicle mandate, both expressly intended to address global climate change by reducing California vehicles' consumption of liquid fuel. Fuel producers challenged EPA's waiver as contrary to the text of Section 209(b). The D.C. Circuit rejected the challenge without reaching the merits, concluding that fuel producers' injuries were not redressable because they had not established that vacating EPA's waiver would have any effect on automakers.Questions Presented: Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Whether EPA's preemption waiver for California's greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero-emission- vehicle mandate is unlawful.Holding: The fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California regulations.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson filed dissenting opinions.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners: Jeffrey B. WallFor Federal Respondents: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor GeneralFor State Respondents: Joshua A. Klein, Deputy Solicitor General, Oakland, Cal.

Case Info: Velazquez v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. | Date Decided: 4/22/25 | Case No. 23-929Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: When a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart?Holding: Under §1229c(b)(2), a voluntary-departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the following justices joined: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Alito, and joined by Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett as to Parts I and II.  Justice Alito and Justice Barrett filed dissenting opinions, both joined by Justice Kavanaugh.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Gerard J. CedroneFor Respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor GeneralWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.Host Note: Please note that the opinion date is April 22, 2025.

Case Info: CIR v. Zuch | Case No. 24-416 | Date Argued: 4/22/25Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether 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.Oral Advocates:For petitioner: Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For respondent: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D.C.Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Case Info: Mahmoud v. Taylor | Case No. 24-297 | Date Argued: 4/22/25Link to Docket: Here. Background:Respondent Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read their students storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance. The storybooks were chosen to disrupt "cisnormativity" and "either/or thinking" among students. The Board's own principals objected that the curriculum was "not appropriate for the intended age group," presented gender ideology as "fact," "sham[ed]" students with contrary opinions, and was "dismissive of religious beliefs." The Board initially allowed parents to opt their kids out- but then reversed course, saying that no opt-outs would be permitted and that parents would not even be notified when the storybooks were read. Petitioners filed suit, not challenging the curriculum, but arguing that compelling their elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parents' religious convictions violated the Free Exercise Clause. Construing Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Fourth Circuit found no free-exercise burden because no one was forced "to change their religious beliefs or conduct." Question Presented:Whether 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 with-out notice or opportunity to opt out.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners: Eric S. Baxter, Washington, D.C.; and Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)For Respondents: Alan E. Schoenfeld, New York, N.Y.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement02:06 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin18:38 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin53:39 Petitioner Questions End, Government Opening Statement54:43 Government Free for All Questions Begin 1:04:21 Government Sequential Questions Begin01:22:12 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement01:24:02 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin01:52:42 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin2:25:55 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins