))
Supreme Court Season episodes will include all arguments that occur from October 01st to April/May. You can listen to the sidebar version of each Supreme Court Case https://thesidebar.transistor.fm/
…
continue reading
A public good: every Supreme Court Oral Argument since 2010. Making the Highest Court more accessible for a modern audience. The DC Bar blog's piece about this podcast can be found here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotuspod. If you'd like to support the law student who created this project instead of studying you can do so here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotusguy. Thanks for listening! Patreon
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
In under 30 minutes. Do you want to understand specific cases? We are here to provide commentary on every Supreme Court case.
…
continue reading
A chronological podcast of oral arguments with improved files and meta data. Hosted by Free Law Project through the CourtListener.com initiative. Not an official podcast.
…
continue reading
Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada’s highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court’s website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.
…
continue reading
The latest news and analysis about key cases and critical arguments before the Supreme Court. (Updated periodically) PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
…
continue reading
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
…
continue reading
Audio from oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States (beg. Oct. 2010)
…
continue reading
In depth explanations of Supreme Court Cases New Jersey v T.L.O, Mapp v Ohio, and Miranda v Arizona.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
A podcast feed for the audio of Supreme Court oral arguments and decision announcements. Short case descriptions are reproduced from Oyez.org under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This feed is not approved, managed, or affiliated with Oyez.org. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
…
continue reading
We will dive into the astounding stories of the Supreme Court.
…
continue reading
Opinion announcements from the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Podcast by Hemant Mehta
…
continue reading
The Queens Supreme Court podcast is the hilarious spinoff of the hit online series “The Queens Supreme Court” with Ts Madison. The premise of the weekly satirical show is to discuss pop culture and all the hot social media trends, topics and gossip THEN try them as cases, render judgements and sentence the crimes accordingly to determine the ultimate fate of each celebrity!
…
continue reading
The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. Frequent guest host Jeff Barnum. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
…
continue reading
Any listeners out there...really want entertaining basketball content? Don't want to worry about the hosts - all on the show trying to force "controversial" hot takes, all in your earbuds, yelling back and forth to win an argument? Come to The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast! Check back with the SC trio; Robaire, Chris, and Henri, Wednesdays as we discuss the latest NBA headlines, news, and transactions.
…
continue reading
Throughout the years the Supreme Court has evolved much like the rest of the federal government. This would not be without landmark rulings, which will be the main focus of this podcast. Landmark rulings lay the groundwork for laws to be overturned or upheld and allow for the United States to work toward major goals. Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aaron-larson2/support
…
continue reading
This study, A Christian Response to the Supreme Court Decision, exposes the foreboding Danger that this ruling will bring upon our nation if things don’t turn around very quickly. You will also be thoroughly equipped to give a loving Biblical apologetic response to 15 different accusations made against Christians regarding this issue.
…
continue reading
Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. | 12/11/24 | Docket #: 23-900
…
continue reading
The parties were married in June 2015. They lived in Japan until 2016 when they moved to the United Arab Emirates. They separated for a period in 2017, but reconciled in 2018 and then lived together in Oman until March 2020 when they travelled to Ontario for a number of reasons, including to visit Mr. Dunmore’s parents. They had planned to return t…
…
continue reading
This episode discusses the Supreme Court oral argument in the case United States v. Skrmetti. The case centers on the constitutionality of a Tennessee law (SB1) restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors. The petitioner argues SB1 constitutes unlawful sex discrimination, requiring heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection …
…
continue reading
The Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark case on transgender rights. The justices are weighing whether a Tennessee law barring gender-affirming care for minors violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The decision will have major implications for young people who identify as transgender, their families and medical providers.…
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.
…
continue reading
Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County | 12/10/24 | Docket #: 23-975
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide 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.
…
continue reading
Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation | 12/09/24 | Docket #: 23-861
…
continue reading
Kousisis v. United States | 12/09/24 | Docket #: 23-909
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will consider the scope of property interests and fraud in government contracting, particularly when deception occurs without clear economic harm.
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide 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.
…
continue reading
Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Kousisis v. United States由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
QUESTION PRESENTED: - Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, 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,” violates the equal protection …
…
continue reading
In 2015, the appellant was charged with the second degree murder of his spouse. Before his trial, a Quebec Superior Court judge allowed his motion for the trial to take place before a judge alone, in accordance with s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, despite the absence of consent from the respondent prosecutor. The judge was of …
…
continue reading
Section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) provides foreign nationals who hold a permanent resident visa with the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) against a decision to make a removal order against them made under s. 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing. In March 2018, the appellant, Dorinela…
…
continue reading
United States v. Skrmetti | 12/04/24 | Docket #: 23-477
…
continue reading
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rat…
…
continue reading
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★由Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, No. 23-1038 [Arg: 12.2.2024]
1:20:05
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★由Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
In a case of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The central dispute revolves around the interpretation of the FSIA's expropriation exception, specifically whether commingling of expropriated assets with a nation's general funds eliminates jurisdiction. The justices debate the meaning of "exchanged for" within the statute, exploring whethe…
…
continue reading
In a case of United States v. Miller, concerning a bankruptcy trustee's attempt to recover fraudulent transfers. The core dispute centers on the interpretation of Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which waives sovereign immunity for certain code provisions, and how that waiver interacts with Section 544(b), allowing trustees to use state law t…
…
continue reading
1
Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, No. 23-1038 [Arg: 12.2.2024]
16:41
In a case of FDA's denial of applications for flavored e-cigarettes. The core issue is whether the FDA provided fair notice to the applicants regarding the required evidence for approval, specifically concerning the need to demonstrate sufficient benefits for adult smokers to outweigh the risks to youth. The petitioner, representing the FDA, argues…
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, 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,” violates the E…
…
continue reading
United States v. Skrmetti由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Hungary v. Simon | 12/03/24 | Docket #: 23-867
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether and how the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies in cases involving seized property, specifically regarding the requirements for establishing a commercial nexus with the United States and the burden of proof at different stages of litigation.…
…
continue reading
Hungary v. Simon由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
United States v. Miller | 12/02/24 | Docket #: 23-824
…
continue reading
FDA v. Wages and White Lion | 12/02/24 | Docket #: 23-1038
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.
…
continue reading
United States v. Miller由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
FDA v. Wages and White Lion由Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
The case NVIDIA v. Öhman, concerning the sufficiency of pleadings under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The core dispute centers on the level of detail required in complaints alleging corporate fraud, specifically regarding the use of expert reports and the necessity of disclosing the contents of internal documents. The justic…
…
continue reading
The case Salvatore Delligatti v. United States. The case centers on the interpretation of the "Elements Clause" within the Armed Career Criminal Act, specifically whether the clause applies to crimes of omission (failing to act) as well as acts of commission. The petitioner argues that the clause only covers affirmative actions involving violent ph…
…
continue reading
The Supreme Court case Velazquez v. Garland. The central issue is the interpretation of a 60-day deadline for voluntary departure in immigration law, specifically whether this deadline should be extended if it falls on a weekend or holiday. The petitioner argues for an extension based on established legal principles and regulations, while the respo…
…
continue reading
The case Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank. The case centers on whether risk disclosures in financial statements are misleading by omission if they don't mention past occurrences of the described risk. The petitioners argue that such omissions are only misleading if they create an implied representation about the past, while the respondents contend that…
…
continue reading
The case E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. The central issue concerns the appropriate standard of proof—preponderance of the evidence versus clear and convincing evidence—for determining whether employees fall under an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements. The Petitioners argue for the def…
…
continue reading
The case Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra. The case concerns the interpretation of the phrase "entitled to benefits" within the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustment formula, specifically regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The petitioners argue that "entitled to benefits" should refer to program eligibility, …
…
continue reading
This Supreme Court oral argument concerns the application of the False Claims Act (FCA) to the E-rate program, which funds telecommunications services for schools and libraries. The petitioner argues the FCA doesn't apply because the government doesn't directly provide the funds, instead using a private administrator and requiring private carriers …
…
continue reading
The case of San Francisco v. EPA. The case centers on the EPA's use of "generic prohibitions" in discharge permits, which San Francisco argues are vague and fail to provide adequate notice of discharge limitations. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, focusing on whether it allows limitations beyo…
…
continue reading
The case Bufkin v. McDonough. The central issue concerns the standard of review for the Veterans Court's assessment of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of the "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule. Petitioners argue for a less deferential review, emphasizing the statute's intent to ensure meaningful scrutiny of the agency's decisions. The resp…
…
continue reading
The case Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. The central issue is whether the revocation of an immigration petition, following a determination of sham marriage, is subject to judicial review. The petitioner argues that the revocation is mandatory and thus reviewable, citing statutory language and the government’s consistent practice. The respondent, the governmen…
…
continue reading
The case of Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn. The central question is whether economic losses stemming from personal injuries are recoverable under RICO. The petitioner argues that RICO excludes such claims, emphasizing the distinction between "injury" (invasion of a legal right) and "damages" (monetary losses resulting from injury). The respondent …
…
continue reading
The case of Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, focusing on whether the state court's denial of the petitioner's request to waive procedural bars to his habeas corpus claim constitutes an adequate and independent state ground for review. The central issue revolves around alleged Brady and Napue violations, specifically the prosecution's suppression of ev…
…
continue reading
The case of Lackey v. Stinnie, heard on October 8, 2024. The central question concerns whether a preliminary injunction constitutes a "prevailing party" status under Section 1988, allowing for attorney's fee awards. The petitioner argues that a preliminary injunction, being a temporary measure not deciding the case's merits, does not qualify. The r…
…
continue reading
