U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
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.
Episodes
Mullin v. Doe
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Trump administration lawfully ended the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
A case in which the Court held that a generic drug manufacturer does not actively induce patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) when its communications consist only of legally required labeling, standard industry language, omissions, and vague statements that lack any affirmative purpose of encouraging the patented use.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
Monsanto Company v. Durnell
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.
Chatrie v. United States
A case in which the Court will decide whether execution of a geofence warrant in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.
Blanche v. Lau
A case in which the Court will decide whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident’s last reentry into the United States.
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
A case in which the Court held that the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial does not require the FCC to involve a jury when issuing forfeiture orders.
T. M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation
A case in which the Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing and nullifying state-court judgments, applies even when the state-court judgment under attack remains subject to an ongoing appeal in state court.
Sripetch v. SEC
A case in which the Court held that the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.
Trump v. Barbara
A case in which the Court will decide whether Executive Order No. 14,160 issued by President Donald, which denies U.S. birthright citizenship to children born in the United States solely because their parents are in the country unlawfully or on temporary visas, is consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a).
Pitchford v. Cain
A case in which the Court held that when a trial court prevents a defendant from completing the three-step Batson process for challenging racially discriminatory jury strikes, a state appellate court's subsequent finding that the defendant waived that challenge constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
Abouammo v. United States
A case in which the Court held that venue is proper only in the district where the alleged offense took place, not in the district where the targeted investigation was located.
Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock
A case in which the Court held that a worker who handles goods on a purely intrastate (within one state) leg of a broader interstate journey qualifies for the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) §1 exemption, even if the worker never personally crosses state lines or loads and unloads vehicles that do.
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Incorporated
A case in which the Court held that judicial estoppel does not automatically bar a debtor's undisclosed civil claim based solely on a potential motive to conceal it. Instead, courts must look to the totality of the circumstances to distinguish between an inadvertent mistake and intentional bad faith.
Noem v. Al Otro Lado
A case in which the Court will decide whether a noncitizen who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that a noncitizen who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
Watson v. Republican National Committee
A case in which the Court will decide whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
A case in which the Court held that 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) does not preempt state negligent-hiring lawsuits against transportation brokers, because those claims fall within the law's built-in safety exception preserving state authority to regulate motor vehicle safety.
Hunter v. United States
A case in which the Court held that when a criminal defendant signs an appeal waiver as part of a plea agreement, that waiver becomes unenforceable if enforcing it would produce a miscarriage of justice.
United States v. Hemani
A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to the respondent.
Pung v. Isabella County
A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value, and (2) whether the government’s forfeiture of real property whos
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel
A case in which the Court held that the thirty-day deadline for moving a lawsuit from state court to federal court is a mandatory rule that judges cannot extend for fairness reasons.
Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
A case in which the Court held that under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, a company that once held any property interest in physical property that Cuba confiscated can sue anyone who later "traffics" in — that is, knowingly uses or commercially benefits from — that physical property, even if the company's original interest in it would have expired before the trafficki
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (Cuba)
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Helms-Burton Act grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities sued for “trafficking” in confiscated property, even if the lawsuit does not satisfy one of the exceptions to immunity provided by the earlier, general Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)?
Trump v. Cook
A case in which the Court will decide whether to stay a district court injunction preventing the President from removing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “for cause” based on pre-appointment conduct without prior notice or a hearing.
Wolford v. Lopez
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives "express authorization" violates the Second Amendment.
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund
A case in which the Court held that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), pension plans may calculate an employer's withdrawal liability using actuarial assumptions selected after the statutory measurement date (the last day of the plan year before the employer's withdrawal).
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp.
A case in which the Court held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.
Little v. Hecox
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from categorically requiring sports participants to compete based on their biological sex, rather than gender identity.
West Virginia v. B.P.J.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students’ biological sex as determined at birth.
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana
A case in which the Court held that the federal officer removal statute allows a defendant to move a state-court suit to federal court if the challenged conduct has a plausible and close relationship to the performance of federal duties.
Hamm v. Smith
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.
A case in which the Court held that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA) does not give private individuals the power to sue for rescission when they allege a contract violates the Act; that enforcement power belongs to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission
A case in which the Court will decide whether limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications.”
Trump v. Slaughter
A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi
A case in which the Court held that its decision in Heck v. Humphrey does not bar claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law.
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin
A case in which the Court held that a government subpoena demanding a private organization's donor records inflicts an immediate injury to First Amendment freedom of association rights, allowing the organization to challenge the demand in federal court before it is enforced.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
A case in which the Court held that an internet service provider does not commit "contributory copyright infringement" — meaning legal responsibility for copyright violations committed by someone else — simply by continuing to provide internet service to subscribers it knows have been flagged for piracy.
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi
A case in which the Court held that a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
Fernandez v. United States
A case in which the Court held that a prisoner who wants to challenge the validity of his conviction after sentencing must use the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. §2255—not the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. §3582
Rutherford v. United States
A case in which the Court held that when Congress makes a sentencing reduction non-retroactive, the gap between an old sentence and what a defendant would receive under the new law cannot qualify as an "extraordinary and compelling reason" to grant compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections
A case in which the Court held that an individual may not sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal
A case in which the Court will decide whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, which permits interlocutory appeals of certain non-final orders that conclusively determine important issues separate from the merits.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump
A case in which the Court held that the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), does not permit the president to impose tariffs.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist
A case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot create jurisdiction over a lawsuit through its own erroneous ruling. When an appellate court reverses a district court's mistaken dismissal of a party who destroyed complete diversity, the jurisdictional defect never disappears and any trial verdict must be thrown out.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton
A case in which the Court held that a motion to set aside a judgment as void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) must be filed within a "reasonable time" as required by Rule 60(c)(1).
Rico v. United States
A case in which the Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not permit a defendant's term of supervised release to automatically extend when the defendant absconds.
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation
A case in which the Court held that federal law does not block state-law lawsuits against military contractors for actions that the government neither ordered nor authorized.
Louisiana v. Callais
A case in which the Court held that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Case v. Montana
A case in which the Court held that law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or faces imminent serious injury.
Ellingburg v. United States
A case in which the Court held that criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Bowe v. United States
A case in which the Court held that the statutory bar in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) that prohibits certiorari review of court of appeals decisions on second or successive habeas applications does not apply to federal prisoners, and § 2244(b)(1)’s bar on claims previously presented does not apply to federal prisoners’ motions under § 2255(h).
United States Postal Service v. Konan
The Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception — which bars lawsuits against the government for claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter" — shields the United States from liability even when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver mail.
Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections
A case in which the Court held that a candidate for elected office has standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge election rules that govern the counting of votes in his election, regardless of whether those rules harm his electoral prospects or increase the cost of his campaign.
Barrett v. United States
A case in which the Court held that a defendant who commits a single act that violates both 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i)—using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—and §924(j)—which applies when such a violation causes death—may be convicted under only one of those provisions, not both.
Chiles v. Salazar
A case in which the Court held that a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Berk v. Choy
A case in which the Court held that a Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit conflicts with a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and thus does not apply in a federal court sitting in diversity.
Villarreal v. Texas
A case in which the Court held that a trial court does not violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by narrowly banning discussion of the defendant’s ongoing testimony with counsel during an overnight recess.
Trump v. CASA Inc.
A case in which the Court held that federal district courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court.
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond
A case in which the Court was asked to decide (1) whether a privately owned and operated school’s educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its cha
Martin v. United States
A case in which the Court will held that (1) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., and (2) the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) of the FTCA overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout § 2680.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.
Soto v. United States
A case in which the Court held that the statute that provides combat-related special compensation (CRSC) to disabled veterans establishes its own settlement process for claims, which supersedes the Barring Act’s default six-year statute of limitations for most claims against the federal government.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279
A case in which the Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 do not require children with disabilities to satisfy a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency
A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch
A case in which the Court held that a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
A case in which the Court held that public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
Parrish v. United States
A case in which the Court held that a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal need not file a second notice after the reopening is granted.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.
A case in which the Court held that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
A case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision does not unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider and therefore cannot be enforced via § 1983.
Recommended
Snoop Dogg - Flash Biográfico
Deadline: White House
Thrilling Threads - Conspiracy Theories, Strange Phenomena, True Crime, Unsolved Mysteries, etc!
The Daily Conspiracy Podcast
2819 Church
Markus Schulz presents Global DJ Broadcast
Bad Friends
The Bill Simmons Podcast
The Joe Rogan Experience
Dubs Talk: A Golden State Warriors Podcast
Fashion Business Mindset
The Money Magnette
