SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

• July 7th Roundup: New Certs: Transgender Rights in Schools and Religious Liberties

  This episode covers four major Supreme Court cases granted certiorari in summer 2024 (July 3, 2025 Miscellaneous Order: Here), examining the Court's strategic approach to constitutional law and its rapid movement on key cultural and legal issues.Episode RoadmapOpening: The Court's Strategic AccelerationSupreme Court's unusual speed in granting certiorari after major rulingsRejection of traditional "percolation" approachWhy the Court chose direct review over GVR ordersTransgender Sports CasesLittle v. Hecox (Idaho) | Case No. 24-38 | Docket Link: HereBackground: Idaho's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act" banning transgender women from women's sports teamsKey Player: Lindsay Hecox, transgender student at Boise State UniversityNinth Circuit Reasoning: Applied heightened scrutiny; found likely Equal Protection violationsPost-Skrmetti Impact: How the medical treatment precedent affects sports participationWest Virginia v. B.P.J. | Case No. 24-43 | Docket Link: HereBackground: West Virginia's H.B. 3293 categorical sports banKey Player: B.P.J., 14-year-old transgender student with amended birth certificateUnique Factors: Puberty blockers, competitive performance, individual circumstancesFourth Circuit's Approach: Case-by-case analysis vs. categorical rulesStrategic Litigation: Why B.P.J. argued for waiting on Skrmetti decisionReligious Liberty CaseOlivier v. City of Brandon | Case No. 24-993 | Docket Link: Here 24-1021Background: Street preaching arrest and subsequent civil rights lawsuitCore Legal Issue: Heck v. Humphrey doctrine and prospective reliefCircuit Split: Fifth Circuit's restrictive approach vs. Ninth Circuit's permissive stanceKey Arguments:Prospective relief exception to HeckNo custody/no habeas access theoryBroader Impact: Civil rights enforcement for repeat constitutional violationsSovereign Immunity CaseNJT v. Colt | Case No. 24-1113 | Docket Link: Here (consolidated with Cedric Galette, Petitioner v. New Jersey Transit Corporation | Case No. 24-1021 | Docket Link: Here)Background: Manhattan pedestrian struck by NJ Transit busProcedural Drama: Three-year delay before immunity claimGeographic Split: New York vs. Pennsylvania Supreme Court...

  --------  

  24:15

  --------

  24:15
• June 30th Roundup: Last Week's Opinions, End of Term Stats, Deep Dive into Trump v. Casa and New Cert Grants

  This episode:Analyzes the Supreme Court's blockbuster end to the 2024-2025 term, covering the final nine opinions and examining patterns across all 61 cases decided this term. Explores the dramatic Friday release where cases "trickled out slowly" due to lengthy dissents read from the bench, dive into comprehensive term statistics, and conduct an in-depth analysis of Justice Barrett's methodological approach in Trump v. CASA—particularly her heavy reliance on historical sources versus textual analysis.Concludes with analysis of seven landmark cases the Court agreed to hear for next term, including a billion-dollar copyright battle over internet piracy (Cox v. Sony Music), a campaign finance showdown (National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC), and disputes over federal removal deadlines, private rights of action, and criminal fugitive tolling that could reshape fundamental areas of American law. June 30 Order List: Here.Episode HighlightsFinal Week Patterns: June 27th saw uniform 6-3 splits with conservative dominance, while June 26th showed more fractures with 5-4 and 6-3 divisionsTerm Overview: 61 total cases decided with a 70% reversal rate, demonstrating the Court's role as an error-correction mechanismVoting Consensus: 43% of cases decided unanimously (26 cases), showing remarkable agreement despite ideological divisionsBarrett's Methodology: Deep dive into her historical originalism approach in Trump v. CASA versus her typical textualist methods in other casesNew Cert Grants: Overview of the 7 new cases SCOTUS agreed to hear.Key Justice Statistics (2024-2025 Term)The Justices wrote 5 Per Curiam opinions.Justice Roberts: Authored or joined 59 opinions, authored or joined 1 concurrences and authored or joined 2 dissents.Justice Thomas: Authored or joined 47 opinions, authored or joined 21 concurrences and authored or joined 14 dissents.Justice Alito: Authored or joined 47 opinions, authored or joined 21 concurrences and authored or joined 14 dissents.Justice Sotomayor: Authored or joined 45 opinions, authored or joined 11 concurrences and authored or joined 13 dissents.Justice Kagan: Authored or joined 51 opinions, authored or joined 2 concurrences and authored or joined 9 dissents.Justice Gorsuch: Authored or joined 42 opinions, authored or joined 6 concurrences and authored or joined 12 dissents.Justice Kavanaugh: Authored or joined 57 opinions, authored or joined 9 concurrences and authored or joined 3 dissents.Justice Barrett: Authored or joined 54 opinions, authored or joined 10 concurrences and authored or joined 5 dissents.Justice Jackson: Authored or joined 41 opinions, authored or joined 12 concurrences and authored or joined 17 dissents.Referenced CasesTrump v. CASA (universal injunctions)Grupo Mexicano (historical equity test)Louisiana v. Callais (relisted case)Esteras v. United States (criminal sentencing)Medical Marijuana v. Horn (statutory interpretation)FDA v. R.J. Reynolds (administrative law)New Cert Grants:M & K Employee Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund | Case No. 23-1209 | Docket Link: Here.Cox Communications,...

  --------  

  42:52

  --------

  42:52
• June 27 Opinion Summaries: Five Major Decisions That Will Shape America

  This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of five major Supreme Court decisions released on June 27, 2025, that collectively reshape key areas of constitutional law including judicial authority, parental rights, agency power, executive appointments, and online speech regulation. We also discuss the notable absence of a decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a complex redistricting case that many Court watchers expected to be resolved.Cases Covered:Trump v. CASA, Inc.Holding: Federal district courts lack authority to issue universal injunctions that prohibit government enforcement of policies against anyone beyond the named plaintiffsVote: 6-3 (Barrett majority; Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh concurrences; Sotomayor and Jackson dissents)Mahmoud v. TaylorHolding: Parents challenging a school board's LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks and refusal to allow opt-outs are entitled to preliminary injunction under the Free Exercise ClauseVote: 6-3 (Alito majority; Thomas concurrence; Sotomayor dissent)FCC v. Consumers' ResearchHolding: The FCC's universal service contribution scheme does not violate the Constitution's nondelegation doctrineVote: 6-3 (Kagan majority; Kavanaugh and Jackson concurrences; Gorsuch dissent)Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc.Holding: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force members are inferior officers who can be constitutionally appointed by the HHS Secretary rather than requiring presidential nomination and Senate confirmationVote: 6-3 (Kavanaugh majority; Thomas dissent)Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. PaxtonHolding: Texas's age verification law for pornographic websites is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutinyVote: 6-3 (Thomas majority; Kagan dissent)Pending Cases: Louisiana v. Callais. On June 27, 2025, the Court stated that it will rehear this case.

  --------  

  21:01

  --------

  21:01
• Opinion Summary: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton | Date Decided: 6/27/25 | Case No. 23-1122

  Opinion Summary: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton | Date Decided: 6/27/25 | Case No. 23-1122 Link to Docket: Here.Background:This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review-rather than strict scrutiny-to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors. Question Presented:Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done.Holding: H. B. 1181 triggers, and survives, review under intermediate scrutiny because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults. H. B. 1181 survives intermediate scrutiny because it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.Result: Affirmed. Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioners: Derek L. Shaffer, Washington, D.C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.For Respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

  --------  

  23:02

  --------

  23:02
• Opinion Summary: Mahmoud v. Taylor | Date Decided: 6/27/25 | Case No. 24-297

  Opinion Summary: Mahmoud v. Taylor | Date Decided: 6/27/25 | Case No. 24-297 Link 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.Holding: Parents challenging the Board's introduction of the "LGBTQ+-inclusive" storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction.Result: Reversed and remanded. Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.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.Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

  --------  

  28:19

  --------

  28:19

Więcej Edukacja podcastów

Trendy w podcaście Edukacja

O SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions