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!
Case v. Montana | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-624 24-624 CASE V. MONTANA DECISION BELOW: 553 P.3d 985 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: DA 23-0136
Louisiana v. Callais | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-109 Background: Louisiana was ordered by federal courts to create a second majority-Black congressional district to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The Louisiana Legislature responded by passing S.B. 8, which created the required second majority-Black district. However, a different federal court then ruled that S.B. 8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and blocked its implementation. The Core Issue: Can a state be required to create a majority-minority district under the Voting Rights Act, but then have that same district struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering? Louisiana argues this creates an impossible legal bind. Questions Before the Court: Whether the lower court erred in finding that race predominated in drawing S.B. 8, whether the map fails strict scrutiny review, whether certain legal tests were properly applied, and whether courts should even be deciding these redistricting disputes. Current Status: The case has been restored for reargument. The Court has ordered supplemental briefing on whether intentionally creating majority-minority districts violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. Significance: This case could reshape how states balance Voting Rights Act compliance with constitutional requirements, potentially affecting redistricting nationwide.
Ellingburg v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-482 24-482 ELLINGBURG V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 113 F.4th 839 JOHN F. BASH, ESQUIRE, OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-3129
Bowe v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-5438 24-5438 BOWE V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: CA 11 ORDER 6/27/2024 KASDIN M. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE, OF DALLAS, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW AS TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. CERT. GRANTED 1/17/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added). The first question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added). The second question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-11704
USPS v. Konan | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-351 24-351 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE V. KONAN DECISION BELOW: 96 F.4th 799 CERT. GRANTED 4/21/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq .), generally waives the United States' sovereign immunity for suits seeking damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of the federal government "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The FTCA, however, excepts from that waiver of immunity "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. 2680(b). The question presented is as follows: Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10179
Bost v. IL Bd. of Elections | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-568 24-568 BOST V. ILLINOIS BOARD OF ELECTIONS DECISION BELOW: 114 F.4th 634 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7; and 3 U.S.C. § 1. Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. Petitioners contend these state laws are preempted under the Elections and Electors Clauses. Petitioners sued to enjoin Illinois' law allowing ballots to be received up to fourteen days after Election Day. The sole question presented here is whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-2644
Barrett v. United States | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-5774 24-5774 BARRETT V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 102 F.4th 60 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CHARLES L. McCLOUD, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 3/3/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: I. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree. II. Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) (3)(A), a question left open after" United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney , 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1379
Chiles v. Salazar | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-539 24-539 CHILES V. SALAZAR DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 1178 CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express. Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their "sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions," while allowing conversations that provide "[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for ... identity exploration and development, including ... [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5). The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles's conduct, not speech. In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits, which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which does. The question presented is: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1445, 23-1002
Villarreal v. Texas | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-557 24-557 VILLARREAL V. TEXAS DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 138 CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: PD-0048-20
Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440 24-440 BERK V. CHOY DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482 CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court. Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint. See 18 Del. C. § 6853. An AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct. See id. § 6853(a)(l). The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no conflict" with any Federal Rules. In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that same conclusion." The question presented is: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620
OK Charter School Board v. Drummond | 04/30/25 | Docket #: 24-394
Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-304
Martin v. United States | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-362
A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools | 04/28/25 | Docket #: 24-249
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | 04/23/25 | Docket #: 24-7
Parrish v. United States | 04/21/25 | Docket #: 24-275
Kennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. | 04/21/25 | Docket #: 24-316
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic | 04/02/25 | Docket #: 23-1275
Catholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n | 03/31/25 | Docket #: 24-154
FCC v. Consumers' Research | 03/26/25 | Docket #: 24-354
EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. | 03/25/25 | Docket #: 23-1229
Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. | 03/24/25 | Docket #: 23-1270
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos | 03/04/25 | Docket #: 23-1141
BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman | 03/03/25 | Docket #: 23-1259
CCDevas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | 03/03/25 | Docket #: 23-1201
Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services | 02/26/25 | Docket #: 23-1039
Esteras v. United States | 02/25/25 | Docket #: 23-7483
Cunningham v. Cornell University | 01/22/25 | Docket #: 23-1007
McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp. | 01/21/25 | Docket #: 23-1226
FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. | 01/21/25 | Docket #: 23-1187
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | 01/15/25 | Docket #: 23-1122
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-971
Thompson v. United States | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-1095
Stanley v. City of Sanford | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-997
Hewitt v. United States | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-1002
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 01/10/25 | Docket #: 24-656
Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. | 12/11/24 | Docket #: 23-900
Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County | 12/10/24 | Docket #: 23-975
Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation | 12/09/24 | Docket #: 23-861
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
