Decisions of the Supreme Court, summarized by the court itself. Readings of the Supreme Court slip opinion syllabi, With no personal commentary, you can make up your own mind about the decisions.
Donate to Supreme Court decision syllabus (SCOTUS)
In Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. v. Hewitt, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee paid a daily rate does not qualify for an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements, unless they satisfy the conditions set out in Section 541.604(b). Michael Hewitt, a former employee of Helix, sued his employer claiming overtime pay under FLSA, as he worked 84 hours a week while on the vessel, but Helix paid him a daily-rate basis with no overtime compensation. The Court concluded that Hewitt was not paid on a salary basis as defined in Section 602(a), and thus was not an executive exempt from FLSA's overtime pay guarantee.Support the show
Cruz v. Arizona is a case heard by the US Supreme Court that questioned whether the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling was an adequate ground to preclude review of a federal question. The petitioner, John Montenegro Cruz, was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death, and argued that under Simmons v. South Carolina, he should have been allowed to inform the jury that a life sentence in Arizona would be without parole. Cruz sought to raise the Simmons issue again in a state post-conviction petition under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g). The Arizona Supreme Court denied relief after concluding that Lynch was not "a significant change in the law". The US Supreme Court held that the Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Lynch was not a significant change in the law is an exceptional case where a state-court judgment rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.Support the show
In Arellano v. McDonough, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Section 5110(b)(1) of the Veterans' Benefits Act is not subject to equitable tolling. The case involves the effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran of the United States military. Adolfo Arellano applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability compensation based on his psychiatric disorders approximately 30 years after his honorable discharge from the Navy. Arellano argued that his award's effective date should be governed by an exception in § 5110(b)(1), which makes the effective date the day following the date of the veteran's discharge or release if application is received within one year of such date. However, the Supreme Court held that equitably tolling the provision would depart from the terms that Congress "specifically provided."Support the show
Rodney Reed was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in Texas. He filed a motion under Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law, requesting DNA testing on certain evidence, which he believed would help identify the true perpetrator. The state trial court denied Reed's motion, citing an inadequate chain of custody for the evidence he sought to test. Reed then sued in federal court, arguing that Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law violated procedural due process. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Reed's claim as time-barred, but the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for a procedural due process claim begins to run when the state litigation ends, in this case when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion for rehearing. The Court ultimately reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.Support the show
Support the show
Support the show
The Dual sovereignty exception to Double jeopardy is not implicated by the sovereignty of the court personnel, but by the sovereignty of the AUTHORITY under which that court operates. Support the show
§1782 does not authorize district courts to demand discovery for international arbitration. Support the show
Not really sure.Support the show
Texas' bingo laws are regulatory in nature, therefore it may not prevent the Tribe from offering bingo on reservation lands.Support the show
Support the show
The decision below did not meet the “clear and unmistakable error”Support the show
Not allowed to discriminate based solely on religion.Support the show
Prisoner here can't use the all writs act to help him develop evidence that may not be admissible.Support the show
“Crime of violence” requires the underlying crime supporting it to require the government to prove “violence” beyond a reasonable doubt.Support the show
Court declines to extend §1983 suits to violations of prophylactic rules protecting constitutional rights.Support the show
Prisoners can still challenge the death penalty using an (as yet not state authorized) substitute method.Support the show
Here the legislature can be it's own litigational party.Support the show
“Entitled” here does not mean “to receive“Support the show
Knowingly/Intentionally applies to the “authorized” exception of this statute.Support the show
The logic of the commerce clause extends to Congress' power to raise an army and navy. Support the show
Can be prosecuted by states.Support the show
Generation shifting of powerplant types is a “major question” that the legislature did not clearly designate to the EPA.Support the show
Striking down New York's restrictions on concealed carry licensing.Support the show
Here a coach is allowed to pray at midfield after games.Support the show
Here A flag at city hall is not government speech.Support the show
Here Emotional distress damages are not allowed.Support the show
This particular subsection is toll-ableSupport the show
Roe and Casey are overruled.Support the show
In this case the AEDPA and Brect must BOTH be followed.Support the show
My limited understanding: Sovereign entities sued under FSIA (but without a separate cause of action implicating federal jurisdiction) are subject to the choice of law provision of the courts which would otherwise be the lawsuit's venue.Eg. Where you would have had to bring the underlying, non-FSIA/non-federal, Lawsuit where you found the law.Support the show
The requirement to read a sign to determine it's compliance, by reference to the sign's location, with a city ordinance banning off premises advertising, does not infringe 1a freedom of speech.Support the show
Lawsuit may proceed.Support the show
Sections 9 and 10 do not contain “look through” provisions Support the show
Free speech not implicated by deliberative body censure.Support the show
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
