What SCOTUS Wrote Us: Recent Episodes
Pippah Getchell
A podcast entirely dedicated to reading what SCOTUS wrote us: Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Enjoy the convenience of listening to audio versions of past and current opinions of the Court. A rare resource for students, teachers, and the civic-minded.
I hope you will follow me to my Youtube channel where I will continue to offer free access to all 350+ past episodes and audio of future high-profile Supreme Court opinions.
www.whatSCOTUSwroteus.com
Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC., decided April 12, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre, decided March 19, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
The unanimous opinion of the Court in DeVillier v. Texas, decided April 16, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
I have something a little different for you today: since I often read documents from the Trump cases on the show, I thought my super nerds might be interested in hearing the audio from a guest lecture I gave last week summarizing the four Trump criminal cases at a Palomar College event held every semester called the Political Economy Days Lecture Series.
If you would like to watch a video version, click here.
The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in MacQuarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al., decided April 12, 2024.
The Court is asked whether the Second Circuit erred in holding-in conflict with the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits- that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 can support a private claim under Section l0(b), even in the absence of an otherwise- misleading statement.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Part 2 of 2 of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Pulsifer v. United States, decided March 15, 2024.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_p86a.pdf
A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U. S. C. §3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Part 1 of 2 of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Pulsifer v. United States, decided March 15, 2024.
A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U. S. C. §3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity. The brief is 49 pages long, so I will be recording it in several segments.
If you are interested in listening to the oral arguments in this case, they are scheduled to take place later this month on April 25th at 10 am eastern time. You can listen to the oral arguments as they happen on the Supreme Court website supremecourt.gov.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity.
If you are interested in listening to the oral arguments in this case, they are scheduled to take place later this month on April 25th at 10 am eastern time. You can listen to the oral arguments as they happen on the Supreme Court website supremecourt.gov.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity. The brief is 49 pages long, so I will be recording it in several segments.
If you are interested in listening to the oral arguments in this case, they are scheduled to take place later this month on April 25th at 10 am Eastern time. You can listen to the oral arguments as they happen on the supreme court website supremecourt.gov
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's April 2, 2024 filing responding to Judge Cannon's order requiring preliminary proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on counts 1-32.
If you need a quick explainer on the Presidential Records Act, check out mine.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's April 2, 2024 filing responding to Judge Cannon's order requiring preliminary proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on counts 1-32.
If you need a quick explainer on the Presidential Records Act, check out mine.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com
When does a public official’s social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment? Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed (March 15, 2024) and find out.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com
Today I'll be reading both concurring opinions (which read like dissents) in Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson et al., decided March 4, 2024.
Today I'll be reading the per curiam opinion of the Court in Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson et al., decided March 4, 2024.
Alito, joined by Thomas, dissenting from denial of certiorari in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, decided Feb 20, 2024.
An update with critical commentary regarding today's order granting certiorari in Trump v. United States (from a very unhappy host).
Today I'll be reading the unanimous opinion of the Court in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, decided Feb 21, 2024.
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in McElrath v. Georgia (Feb 21, 2024)
"Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government," wrote Justice Alito, in his statement explaining why he concurred in the denial of certiorari in Missouri Dept. of Corrections v. Finney (February 20, 2024).
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting from the denial of application for stay and denial of certiorari in Smith v. Hamm (January 25, 2024).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts
The brand-new, unanimous opinion of the Court in Dept. of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, decided February 8, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts
Today I'll be reading the brand-new, unanimous opinion of the Court in Murray v. USB Securities (Feb 8, 2024) regarding the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts
Final episode for this opinion.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Next episode will be the last for this opinion.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Trump Jan 6th case, as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Keep your eye out today for Part One!
Listen to the landmark Supreme Court opinion Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Free Speech, KKK, Imminent Lawless Action Test)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
Access this opinion and other helpful case information here.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Over the next two episodes, I'll be reading two past opinions that will help us better understand two cases currently before the Court.
The past opinions are Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) and Packingham v. North Carolina (2017). The two cases currently before the Court are Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier; these two similar cases were granted cert on the same day and their oral arguments were both given on the same day - October 31, 2023.
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
Access this opinion and other helpful case information here.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading two very brief opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Tingley v. Ferguson, issued back on December 11th, 2023. The first dissent is from Justice Thomas and is only around 4 pages long; the second is Justice Alito's dissent, which is only a few paragraphs long and is written as if it were meant to be read at the end of Thomas' dissent - so, that's what I'm going to do.
Enjoy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-942_kh6o.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts, or stream directly from your browser at whatscotuswroteus.com
Listen to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Access the text of the opinion and other essential case information here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/79-1738
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts or stream directly from your browser at whatscotuswroteus.com
Listen to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Access the text of the opinion and other essential case information here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/79-1738
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts or stream directly from your browser at https://www.whatscotuswroteus.com
Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?
Listen to the full opinion of the Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States (1974).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Listen to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
Criminal Action No. 23-257
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?532581-1/district-columbia-circuit-court-oral-arguments-president-trumps-immunity-claims
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
https://www.whatscotuswroteus.com
Listen to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
Criminal Action No. 23-257
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/115576644.html
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?532581-1/district-columbia-circuit-court-oral-arguments-president-trumps-immunity-claims
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
https://www.whatscotuswroteus.com
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Criminal Action No. 23-257
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?532581-1/district-columbia-circuit-court-oral-arguments-president-trumps-immunity-claims
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Criminal Action No. 23-257
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?532581-1/district-columbia-circuit-court-oral-arguments-president-trumps-immunity-claims
The Chief Justice's 2023 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary
If you would like to listen to this report from last year and the year before, you can find them in the show catalog by scrolling back to December 2022.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts, or at
www.whatscotuswroteus.com
Today I'll be reading Donald Trump's petition for writ of certiorari regarding the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to exclude him from the Colorado primary election ballot - a petition that the Court recently granted. I know I still owe you all a second half to the Nixon opinion, but I've had a lot of listeners requesting to hear these documents, so I've made an executive decision to read them first.
Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al., filed January 4, 2023.
Brief in opposition to Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for writ of certiorari before judgment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, filed December 20, 2023.
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Brief in opposition to Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for writ of certiorari before judgment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, filed December 20, 2023.
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Brief of respondent, United States, in opposition (filed October 13, 2023) to petition for a writ of certiorari in Fischer v. United States.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/288406/20231030160318259_23-32%20Lang%20et%20al.%20-%20final.pdf
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Brief of respondent, United States, in opposition (filed October 13, 2023) to petition for a writ of certiorari in Fischer v. United States.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/288406/20231030160318259_23-32%20Lang%20et%20al.%20-%20final.pdf
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Fischer v. United States petition for writ of certiorari filed September 11, 2023; granted on December 13, 2023
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Fischer v. United States petition for writ of certiorari filed September 11, 2023; granted by the Supreme Court December 13, 2023
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Motion of the United States to expedite briefing on the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and for expedited merits briefing if the Court grants the petition in:
United States of America, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (filed Dec 11, 2023).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Listen to the second half of Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (December 11, 2023).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (December 11, 2023).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
In Memoriam: Retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
- Press Release Regarding Justice Sandra Day O’Connor — December 1, 2023
- Press Release Regarding Lying in Repose and Funeral Service
- Statements of the Justices
The Supreme Court has issued the first opinion in an argued case this term: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (Dec 5, 2023)
Access additional resources about this case on oyez.org
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-429
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
www.whatscotuswroteus.com
Justice Thomas, dissenting from the Court's denial of certiorari in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Abbott (November 20, 2023), a case in which DuPont asked the Court to review the District Court's application of collateral estoppel.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-13_d18e.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
www.whatscotuswroteus.com
Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissenting from the denial of certiorari in a case involving an Eighth Amendment challenge to a prisoner's conditions of confinement: Johnson v. Prentice (2023).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-693_21p3.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
www.whatscotuswroteus.com
Today I'll be reading the statement of Justice Kavanaugh regarding the denial of application for stay in Griffin v. HM Florida-Orl, LLC; Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted it.
Issued November 16, 2023
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a366_i42k.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
www.whatscotuswroteus.com
In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court was asked whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 violated the First Amendment. Listen to audio of the majority opinion now.
Access a pdf copy of the opinion here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/11-210/case.pdf
Access additional resources about the case on oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-210
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
www.whatscotuswroteus.com
In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court was asked whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Listen to audio of the majority opinion now.
Access additional resources about the case on oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-210
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
www.whatscotuswroteus.com
The Court's official commentary accompanying the recently issued Code of Conduct for Justices. Commentary begins on page ten of the linked document.
Audio of the newly-issued Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, dated November 13, 2023.
Access the original document here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_11-13-23
A new case before SCOTUS this term, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, threatens to overturn the landmark decision of the case I'll be reading today: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you listen to podcasts.
A new case before SCOTUS this term, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, threatens to overturn the landmark decision in the case I'll be reading today: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you listen to podcasts.
A preview of the Supreme Court term ahead and the podcast's third season.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you listen to podcasts or at www.whatscotuswroteus.com.
May a federal inmate who did not challenge their conviction on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity subsequently apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court retroactively invalidates the circuit precedent on which the inmate relied in not challenging their conviction?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jones v. Hendrix (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-857
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
May a federal inmate who did not challenge their conviction on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity subsequently apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court retroactively invalidates the circuit precedent on which the inmate relied in not challenging their conviction?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jones v. Hendrix (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-857
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does the government have the authority to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by an individual on behalf of the government if it initially declined to take over the case, and if so, what standard applies?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1052
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does the government have the authority to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by an individual on behalf of the government if it initially declined to take over the case, and if so, what standard applies?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1052
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-227
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to the opinion of the Court in Smith v. United States (June 2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1576
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to the opinion of the Court in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin (June 2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-381
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Justice Thomas delivers the unanimous opinion of the Court in United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc. (2023).
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1326
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Justice Thomas delivers a unanimous opinion of the Court in United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc.(2023).
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1326
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
An update about the weeks ahead.
2023 Term Supreme Court Calendar
Granted and Noted Cases List
October Session Oral Arguments:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalOctober2023.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2023.pdf
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-806
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-806
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, Inc. (2023) in which the Court was asked whether the Lanham Act permits the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for the use of that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States.
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1043
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Samia v. United States (2023)
Access additional resources about this case on oyez.org:
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does the Securities Act of 1933 require plaintiffs to plead and prove that they bought shares registered under the registration statement they claim is misleading?
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani (2023)
Access additional resources about this here case on oyez.org.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does a Pennsylvania state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023) Majority Opinion
Access additional resources for this case on oyez.org.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
An update on the show as we say goodbye to summer and look forward to a new term next month.
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dubin v. United States (2023)
Visit oyez.org for additional case resources here.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dubin v. United States (2023)
Is the mention of someone's name during the commission of a predicate offence considered aggravated identity theft?
Visit oyez.org for additional case resources here.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Navajo Nation (2023)
The Court was asked whether the 1868 Treaty between the Navajo Nation and the United States imposes an affirmative duty on the United States to secure water for the tribe.
Visit oyez.org for additional case resources here.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy (June 29, 2023)
In this case, the Court was asked whether inconvenience to coworkers is an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing accommodations for religious exercise as requested by employees.
Find additional resources about this case here on Oyez.org
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy (June 29, 2023)
In this case, the Court was asked whether inconvenience to coworkers is an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing accommodations for religious exercise as requested by employees.
Find additional resources about this case here on Oyez.org
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case)
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case)
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case)
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
Final episode of United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case).
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case). Covers pages 21 - 31 of the 45 page indictment.
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case)
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
pages 9-21 of the indictment
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case)
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
Held: A district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing.
Majority opinion in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (June 23, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: An offense may "relate to" obstruction of justice under the Immigration & Nationality Act's definition of an "aggravated felony," even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.
Listen to the majority opinion in Pugin v. Garland (June 22, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in Counterman v. Colorado (2023)
*Warning: This episode includes a quote containing an "f bomb" precisely at the 3-minute mark, which is why it has been labeled explicit.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
I apologize for the delay in posting this final segment of this opinion; I'm in the middle of a move. Thanks for your patience!
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023). Next episode, I'll be reading the final 19 pages.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does Colorado's public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation violate the First Amendment?
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does Colorado's public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation violate the First Amendment?
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to part 2 of Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does Colorado's public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation violate the First Amendment?
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the HEROES Act (2003) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
Audio of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Biden v. Nebraska (2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the HEROES Act (2003) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
Audio of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Biden v. Nebraska (2023). Part 1 of 2.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a web designer to create expressive designs that speak messages with which the designer disagrees.
Majority opinion in Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a web designer to create expressive designs that speak messages with which the designer disagrees.
Majority opinion in Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a web designer to create expressive designs that speak messages with which the designer disagrees.
Majority opinion in Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Majority Opinion in Moore v. Harper (June 27, 2023)
*This opinion has been divided into three episodes.
Music by Epidemic Sound
The opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Lora v. United States (June 16, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment?
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023)
Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment?
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Listen to audio of the full federal indictment of Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta issued June 8, 2023 by the U.S. Department of Justice in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Access the full charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf
Opinion of the Supreme Court in Dupree v. Younger (May 25, 2023)
A party need not reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment in order to preserve it for appeal.
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (June 8, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (June 8, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority opinion in Allen v. Milligan (2023), formerly Merrill v. Milligan.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority opinion in Allen v. Milligan (2023), formerly Merrill v. Milligan.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority opinion in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters (June 1, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound.
The opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota (May 25, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (May 25, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (May 25, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 empower the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of state militias?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Ohio Adjutant General's Dept. v. FLRA (2023)
Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider?
Audio of Gonzalez v. Google, Inc. (May 18, 2023)
What is the proper test is for determining whether a work is “transformative” under the first factor of the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith(May 18, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
What is the proper test is for determining whether a work is “transformative” under the first factor of the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith (May 18, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution?
Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution?
Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (May 11, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Percoco v. United States (May 11, 2023).
Audio of the 1970 opinion of the Supreme Court in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
Read in anticipation of the Court’s decision in National Pork Producers v. Ross argued earlier this term.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 2004 opinion of the Supreme Court in KP Permanent Makeup v. Lasting Impression (2004)
Music by Epidemic Sound
If you are interested in learning more about the Supreme Court, there's really no better way to do that than to read the opinions the Justices write. But, if you're a little new to reading SCOTUS opinions, the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court provides the public with helpful, general information contained within the about the court tab of the Court's official website supremecourt.gov.
I'll be reading some of that information in a series of four bonus episodes: The Supreme Court at Work; The Justices; History and Traditions; and an entire episode dedicated to the most helpful frequently asked questions answered on the website. In today's episode, the third in the series, I'll be reading about the history and traditions of the Supreme Court and its iconic building- links to the text have been included in the episode description. Enjoy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/historyandtraditions.aspx
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtbuilding.aspx
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of Justice White's 1993 dissenting opinion in Shaw v. Reno.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of brief readings about the nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, as provided by the Public Information Office.
Episode 2 in a series of four bonus episodes.
Music by Epidemic Sound
About the Court, Part I: The Supreme Court at Work
If you are interested in learning more about the Supreme Court, there's really no better way than to read the opinions the Justices write. But, if you're a little new to reading SCOTUS opinions, the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court provides the public with helpful, general information contained within the about the court tab of the Court's official website supremecourt.gov. In the weeks ahead, I'll be reading some of that information in a series of four bonus episodes: The Supreme Court at Work; The Justices; History and Traditions; and an entire episode dedicated to the most helpful frequently asked questions answered on the website. In today's episode, the first in the series, I'll be reading The Supreme Court at Work - a link to which is included in the episode description. Enjoy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtatwork.aspx
Audio of Justice Sotomayor's dissent from denial of certiorari in Burns v. Mays (April 24, 2023)
Audio of Justice Jackson's April 3, 2023 dissent from denial of certiorari in Brown v. Louisiana
Audio of Donziger v. United States (March 27, 2023) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari.
Audio of Part 2: MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (April 19, 2023)
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court.
Audio of parts I and II of a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (April 19, 2023) written by Justice Jackson. Next episode will begin with part III of the opinion.
Audio of Turkiye Halk Bankasi a.k.a. Halkbank v. United States (April 19, 2023) Majority Opinion
Audio of Justice Alito dissenting from grant of application for stay in Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (April 21, 2023)
Audio of Part 2 of the opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (April 14, 2023).
Audio of the opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (April 14, 2023).
Audio of West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Apr 6, 2023) Justice Alito Dissenting from Denial to Vacate Injunction (Title IX, Transgender Athletes)
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Wilkins v. United States (March 28, 2023)
Hey, listeners - I know it's been a while since I've published a new episode; so, I wanted to let you know that I'm still here, I've just been down with a cold and my voice just isn't quite up to par yet. However, the Court did issue a new opinion on an argued case earlier this week as well as one opinion relating to orders. I am slowly beginning to produce those opinions as I get better and will have them published as soon as possible - maybe even some time this weekend. So, stay tuned and as always - thanks for listening to what scotus wrote us.
Audio of Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (March 21, 2023) Majority Opinion (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA))
Audio of Chapman v. Doe (March 20, 2023) Justice Jackson, Dissenting to Grant for Certiorari (Abortion, Munsingwear Vacatur, Dobbs v. Jackson, Mootness)
Audio of Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019) Majority Opinion (States are immune from suit in the courts of other states)
Back in 1993, Gilbert Hyatt was an inventor, raking-in loads of cash from a patent he owned. When an auditor with the Franchise Tax Board of California learned about Hyatt's success, he decided to look into it. As you may have already guessed, the auditor found some discrepancies in Mr. Hyatt's accounting - so, he opened an audit on Hyatt's 1991 state tax return, finding even more discrepancies related to Hyatt's recent move from California to Nevada - so, he extended the audit to include California tax returns from 1992. As a result, the Franchise Tax Board of California found that Hyatt owed the state $1.8 million unpaid taxes, $1.4 million in penalties, and $1.2 million in interest for a total of $4.5 million for 1991. But, wait, there's more. The tax board also found Hyatt owed more than $6 million in taxes and interest for 1992, not including penalties.
Of course, Hyatt challenged the results of the audit - first with the Franchise Tax Board of California (without any luck) and then in California courts. In 1998, he sued the tax board for damages in Nevada state court.
Last episode, I read Nevada v. Hall (1979) a case in which the Court held that sovereign states can be sued in another state's courts without the first state's consent.
So, when Hyatt's case finally worked its way before the Supreme Court, the Franchise Tax Board of California asked the Court to reconsider Nevada v. Hall. In doing so, the Court determined that states are indeed immune from suit in the courts of other states, overruling the Court's forty-year-old precedent in Nevada v. Hall.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Nevada v. Hall (1979) Majority Opinion (State immunity from suit in the courts of another state)
Today I'll be reading the 1979 opinion of the Court in Nevada v. Hall in which respondents, residents of California, sued the State of Nevada for injuries that they sustained on a California highway when a Nevada-owned vehicle on official business collided with a vehicle occupied by the California respondents - killing the Nevada driver.
The question before the Court in this case was whether a state is constitutionally immune from suit in the courts of another state. And, in a 6-3 decision, the Court they are not- permitting sovereign states to be haled into another state's courts without the first state's consent.
Forty years later, in 2019, in a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, the Court overturned Nevada v. Hall in a case I'll be reading next episode - Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which held that that states are indeed immune from suit in the courts of other states.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) Majority Opinion
In federal court and 48 states, all it takes is one juror to prevent a guilty verdict at trial. Only two states do not abide by this rule; they are Oregon and Louisiana, which require a 10-2 jury verdict.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated to the states the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a unanimous verdict.
The Court said yes, incorporating the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to the states while overturning their 1972 decision in Apodaca v. Oregon, holding that a unanimous verdict is indeed required to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Thomas, Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari in City of Ocala v. Art Rojas (Mar 6, 2023)
Audio of Justice Gorsuch's statement regarding denial of certiorari in City of Ocala v. Art Rojas (March 6, 2023)
Audio of Davis v. United States (Feb 21, 2023) Justice Jackson Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari
This episode, I will be reading Justice Jackson's dissent to the denial of cert in Davis v. United States, decided Feb 21, 2023. Enjoy.
Audio of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Dissenting Opinion
U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR.
Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point.
Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation.
In this case, the Court was asked…
Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?
The Court sided with Bittner in a surprising 5-4 split. Today I'll be reading Justice Barrett's dissenting opinion, in which she is joined by an unlikely collection of colleagues.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2 of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion
U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR.
Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point.
Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation.
In this case, the Court was asked…
Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion
U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR.
Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point.
Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation.
In this case, the Court was asked…
Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion (Escheatment, MoneyGram Official Checks)
When property is abandoned and unclaimed, it often ends up becoming the property of the state where it's located - a legal principle called escheatment. But, when such property isn't tangible like, say, real estate - when it's something intangible, like an uncashed money order- figuring out who is entitled to that money can get a little messy.
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There were three questions before the Court in this case regarding uncashed MoneyGram Official Checks - and the answers may determine who gets hundreds of millions of dollars in unclaimed money.
First, what exactly is a MoneyGram Official Check? Is it a traveler’s check, a money order, or some other similar written instrument (other than a third-party bank check) on which a financial organization, business association, or bank is directly liable under federal law.
Second, whether Pennsylvania and Wisconsin may claim any abandoned and unclaimed property associated with MoneyGram Official Checks.
Third, whether all future sums payable on abandoned MoneyGram Official Checks should be paid to Delaware.
Why is this such a big deal to Delaware? Well, for its compact size and population, a disproportionate percentage of American companies are incorporated there to benefit from business-friendly laws. In fact, there are so many businesses in Delaware that deal with unclaimed funds, the state ends up receiving a sizable chunk of revenue each year. In 2021, for example, eight percent of Delaware's state revenue came from unclaimed property - including uncashed moneygram checks. That's because one of those Delaware businesses happens to be - you guessed it - Moneygram.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Barrett's dissenting opinion in Cruz v. Arizona (Feb 22, 2023)
In 2005, John Montenegro Cruz was sentenced to death after a jury convicted him of first-degree murder for killing a Tucson police officer in 2003. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2012, the state court dismissed Cruz’s petition for post-conviction relief and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review.
In 2014, Cruz initiated federal habeas proceedings, which were still ongoing when SCOTUS decided Lynch v. Arizona (Lynch II) in 2016, which held that the Arizona Supreme Court had misapplied precedent. Now, normally, it would have been hopeless for Cruz to file a second petition for post-conviction relief, but for an exception in Arizona law that a “significant change in the law” could intervene in his favor. So, Cruz filed that second petition, arguing that the Lynch II decision was indeed a significant change in the law, that it was retroactive, and that it just might overturn his sentence.
The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Lynch II was not a significant change in the law under Arizona’s rules of criminal procedure Rule 32.1(g) is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Gorsuch, Dissenting in Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of NEW OPINION: Cruz v. Arizona (Feb 22, 2023)
In 2005, John Montenegro Cruz was sentenced to death after a jury convicted him of first-degree murder for killing a Tucson police officer in 2003. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2012, the state court dismissed Cruz’s petition for post-conviction relief and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review.
In 2014, Cruz initiated federal habeas proceedings, which were still ongoing when SCOTUS decided Lynch v. Arizona (Lynch II) in 2016, which held that the Arizona Supreme Court had misapplied precedent. Now, normally, it would have been hopeless for Cruz to file a second petition for post-conviction relief, but for an exception in Arizona law that a “significant change in the law” could intervene in his favor. So, Cruz filed that second petition, arguing that the Lynch II decision was indeed a significant change in the law, that it was retroactive, and that it just might overturn his sentence.
The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Lynch II was not a significant change in the law under Arizona’s rules of criminal procedure Rule 32.1(g) is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (Feb 22, 2023) Majority Opinion
Michael Hewitt was paid a set, daily rate for his job working as a supervisor on an offshore oil rig, but he frequently had to work far more than the usual 40-hour work week - only without the benefit of overtime. So, Hewitt sued his employer, Helix Energy Solutions, to get the overtime pay that Hewitt argued was owed to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In response, Helix argued that they didn't have to pay overtime to "highly-compensated employee[s]" like Hewitt. But, Hewitt claimed that his set, daily rate technically wasn't even considered a "salary basis" anyway – which, again, meant that he qualified for overtime.
Helix ended up winning in District Court, then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed before the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a
supervisor making over $200,000 a year with a daily rate is entitled to overtime, despite an existing regulation carving out an exception for highly paid executives.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (2023) Majority Opinion - Unanimous
Before David and Kate Bartenwerfer were even married, they bought a house together and decided to join the house-flipping bandwagon. So, they bought a home in San Francisco and renovated it - a project the couple claimed was mostly David's thing - Kate was largely uninvolved in that process. Soon, the Bartenwerfer's flipped the home, selling it to Kieran Buckley. But, what Buckley didn't know was that the home was riddled with significant defects that David knowingly withheld from him. Buckley sued and a jury awarded damages. But, the Bartenwerfer's, now married and deeply in debt, had become insolvent and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy court found that the debt could not be discharged in bankruptcy because it had been obtained fraudulently - finding that the couple had intended to deceive Buckley and, specifically, that David knew he was lying about the condition of the house during the sale - and even if Kate didn't know about the fraudulent scheme, she could still be held accountable for the debt because of their partnership relationship.
By the time this case found its way before the Court, the question was whether a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for someone else's fraud, even if they didn't know anything about the fraud when it was committed.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc. (1999) Majority Opinion
Can subcontractors on federal projects force the government to pay when prime contractors don't?
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Dissenting Opinion
The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Majority Opinion
The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States (1965)
About six months before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, two very similar cases were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day in January - United States v. Mississippi and Louisiana v. United States - both cases were regarding state voting laws that prevented African Americans from voting. Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States in which the Attorney General of the United States sued the state of Louisiana in a federal court, claiming that the state had violated the Fifteenth Amendment of the US Constitution for denying African-Americans the right to vote through unfair voter registration requirements specifically tailored for that purpose.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, they held that Louisiana's bogus voter suppression laws indeed violated the Fifteenth Amendment. And, in case you were wondering, the Court issued a similar decision in the Mississippi case argued that same day.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Romer v. Evans (1996).
In 1992, the voters of Colorado adopted Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution, which prohibited any legislative, judicial or executive action to protect individuals from discrimination that is based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Several affected citizens challenged the amendment in Court. The trial court issued a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement and, on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Colorado violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; the Court said it did.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1972 opinion of the Court in Eisendtadt v. Baird (1972)
After his lecture on birth control and over-population at Boston University, William Baird gave contraceptive foam to an unmarried woman. But, it was a felony to give contraceptives to unmarried people in Massachusetts in 1967, so Baird was charged with the felony crime of distributing contraceptives to unmarried men or women.
The question before the Court in this case was whether the right to privacy was violated, as in Griswold v. Connecticut. In the end, the Court held that the Massachusetts law was indeed unconstitutional, but not on privacy grounds. Instead, the law's distinction between single and married recipients did not pass the rational basis test of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Justice Sotomayor, Dissenting (Muslim Travel Ban)
Audio of Part 1 of Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in Trump v. Hawaii (2018)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) - also known as the Muslim Travel Ban case in which former President Donald Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645, asserting that it sought to improve the procedures used to screen the citizens of particular countries to determine whether they present “public safety threats” if permitted to enter the United States §1(a). So, the Proclamation placed entry restrictions on nationals from eight foreign countries whose systems for sharing information about those nationals were deemed inadequate by the former President.
There were several questions before the Court in this case.
First, whether the president had the statutory authority to issue the Proclamation to begin with. Also, whether the plaintiffs’ challenge to such authority was justiciable in federal court, whether the global injunction barring enforcement of certain parts of the Proclamation was impermissibly overbroad and, finally, whether the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Contact Us
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) - also known as the Muslim Travel Ban case in which former President Donald Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645, asserting that it sought to improve the procedures used to screen the citizens of particular countries to determine whether they present “public safety threats” if permitted to enter the United States §1(a). So, the Proclamation placed entry restrictions on nationals from eight foreign countries whose systems for sharing information about those nationals were deemed inadequate by the former President.
There were several questions before the Court in this case:
First, whether the president had the statutory authority to issue the Proclamation to begin with. Also, whether the plaintiffs’ challenge to such authority was justiciable in federal court, whether the global injunction barring enforcement of certain parts of the Proclamation was impermissibly overbroad and, finally, whether the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Contact the Show
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Majority Opinion (Minimum Wage for Women, Right to Contract)
In the case I'll be reading today, the Court revisited the minimum wage for women issue once again. This time, regarding a Washington state law requiring a minimum wage of $14.50 for women for a 48-hour work week. But an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, Elsie Parrish, received less than the required wage. So, she sued her employer to recover the difference in wages owed to her under the law. Her employer argued that the minimum wage requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
This time, the Court held that a minimum wage for women did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. Citing Muller v. Oregon, the Court held that states may use their police power to restrict individual freedom to contract - overruling Adkins and marking an end to the Court's broad view of the freedom to contract during the Lochner era.
Contact Show
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Justice Gorsuch, Concurring (Insular Cases)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Majority Opinion (Puerto Rico, SSI Benefits)
Next episode, I'll be reading Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in this case.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through Fourteenth Amendment)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 1: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through Fourteenth Amendment)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Dissent Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)
Audio of Dissent Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions; Handguns)
Audio of Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Handguns)
Audio of new opinion related to orders: Toth v. United States (Jan 23, 2023) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari.
We finally have our first opinion of the Court in an argued case this term! Listen to Audio of the opinion of the Court in Arellano v. McDonough (Jan 23, 2023).
Audio of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in the first Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin in 2013 known as Fisher I.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other helpful case information at Oyez.org.
The original Fisher v. University of Texas case from 2013 known as Fisher I.
Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Today I’ll be reading the 2003 opinion of the Court in Virginia v. Black, a case that asked the Supreme Court whether a Virginia law prohibiting the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group violated the First Amendment.
I’m reading this opinion in light of a new case that the Court has agreed to hear later this term – Counterman v. Colorado - asking: in order to establish that a statement is a "true threat" which we already know is not protected by the First Amendment, must the government show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement; or, is it enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence?
In this opinion, the Court addresses what makes a threat a true threat - which is why I thought that those of you who are interested in the yet-to-be-scheduled Counterman v. Colorado might like to hear it.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the Supreme Court case San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1959) Majority Opinion (Labor Unions, Federal Preemption, National Labor Relations Board)
In light of last week's oral arguments in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, today I'll be reading San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the 1959 Supreme Court Case that first established the Garmon preemption; in other words, when state court action is preempted by federal labor law.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information at Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) Majority Opinion (EEOC Guidelines, Religious Accommodations in Employment, Undue Hardship)
In the 1960s, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created Guidelines that required employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious practices of employees - as long as those accommodations do not place undue hardship on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court further defined "undue hardship" as anything greater than a trivial cost to the employer in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Last week, the Court agreed to hear a similar case this term that asks them to reconsider that precedent. The new case is Groff v. DeJoy and it is the fourth case to ask the Court to overturn the Trans World case in recent years - which is why I decided to read the Trans World case today.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Part 2 of the audio in Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas. I read the majority opinion in this case in a November 7th episode.
This episode includes the separate one-page opinion written by Justice Thomas at the beginning of this episode.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of new opinion relating to orders in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (Jan 11, 2023) Justice Alito on Denial of Application for Stay (New York Gun Law, Second Amendment, Second Circuit)
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org
Audio of Stanton v. Stanton (1975) Majority Opinion (Utah; Age of legal adulthood determined by an individual's sex).
What if the age of adulthood in your state was determined by an individual's sex? In Utah circa 1975, that meant 18 years old if you're a female and 21 if you're a male.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)
This episode concludes with Part IV of the opinion.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 1: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)
This episode includes parts I - III of the opinion. Next episode will begin with part IV of the opinion.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Audio of Dunn v. Ray (2019) Dissenting; Dunn v. Smith (2021) Concurring (Applications to Vacate Stay/Injunction; Inmate Execution; Religious Freedom)
Tip: Dunn v. Smith (2021) begins around minute 10:06, after the reading of Dunn v. Ray (2019)
In 2019, Alabama had a policy holding that only their approved Christian chaplain was permitted to enter the execution chamber during execution - regardless of the inmate's religious beliefs. When Dominique Ray, a Muslim man, requested that his imam be present instead, Alabama refused - eventually changing their policy to exclude all clergy in the execution chamber. When the Supreme Court was asked to intervene, the application for stay was denied, with only the Court's four liberal justices voting for Ray.
About a month later, a Buddhist inmate asked the Court to intervene in Texas when they wouldn't allow his spiritual advisor into the execution chamber and the Court intervened to allow it - with Justices Kavanaugh and Robert's added vote. Somehow, these two conservative justices had a change of heart in this case.
But, when a third almost-identical case from Alabama appeared before the Court in 2021, Kavanaugh and Roberts once again had another change of heart, only back in the opposite direction, dissenting. In that case, when Willie Smith, a Christian man, asked the Court to intervene after Alabama denied his request for a Christian pastor to enter the execution chamber with him, the Court intervened to allow it. Again, two conservatives voted with the liberal justices; but, this time, they were the newly-seated Justice Barrett and one "mystery" Justice that could have only been Justice Alito or Justice Gorsuch since Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas dissented.
These three cases had nearly identical circumstances. What would have made Kavanaugh and Roberts vote so differently for the Buddhist man, Patrick Murphy? After all, Kavanaugh and Roberts are both Christians who have been accused in the past of being unjustly preferential to the freedom of Christian's first amendment rights over other religions. But, Smith, the third prisoner was the only Christian out of the three. Other than the prisoner's religion and the states they were from, the facts of the three cases were nearly identical save for one other major factor: Patrick Murphy, the Buddhist inmate, was white.
Because the Court did not issue an opinion in Patrick Murphy's case, the only two opinions I can read for you today are those of the two black inmates whom Justices Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, and one other conservative justice voted against both times: Dunn v. Ray (2019) and Dunn v. Smith (2021). These two opinions are very brief, so I will be reading them both this episode.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) Plurality Opinion (Affirmative Action, Michigan Constitutional Amendment)
In today's opinion of the Court, we go back to Michigan once again for another Affirmative Action case; but, in this 2006 case, Michigan voters passed a proposition to amend the state constitution to prohibit "all sex-and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting." The very next day, a Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action formed to sue the governor and administrators from several state universities, arguing that the proposition and constitutional amendment violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the proposition was unconstitutional.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether an amendment to a state's constitution to prohibit both race-and sex-based discrimination and preferential treatment in public university admission decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Court said No.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic sound
Audio of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) Majority Opinion (Foster Care, Same-sex Couples, Catholic Social Services)
Because Philadelphia Catholic Social Services (CSS) had a policy against licensing same-sex couples to be foster parents, the City of Philadelphia pulled the organization's license to place children in foster homes in March 2018. So, CSS sued the City of Philadelphia. In asking the court to order Philadelphia to renew their contract, CSS argued that its right to free exercise of religion and free speech entitled it to reject qualified same-sex couples based solely on the fact the couples were gay.
Three questions before the Court in this case were:
-
To succeed on their free exercise claim, must plaintiffs prove that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views, or only provide sufficient evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable?
-
Should the Court revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith?
-
Does the government violate the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?
In a unanimous decision, the Court sided with Fulton, holding that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123
We have another opinion related to orders for 2022:
Audio of Arizona v. Mayorkas (Dec. 27, 2022) Justices Gorsuch and Jackson Dissenting to Stay (Title 42 Orders)
Audio of the Chief Justice's 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary
Happy New Year!
At 6pm this New Year's Eve, the Supreme Court will release the Chief Justice's annual report. The Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary is simply an opportunity for the Chief Justice to reflect on the year that has passed and share thoughts on the year ahead - not only as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but as the head of the Federal Judicial Branch. I'll be reading this year's report as soon as it's released - and I'll have it published long before it's time to toast to the new year on the West Coast!
But, before I do that, I thought it might be a good idea to read for you the annual report that was issued last New Year's Eve (2021) so you can judge for yourself how well it stacks-up to the year that actually unfolded.
Access past Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx
Music and Sound Effects by Epidemic Sound
Part 2: Audio of parts IV - VI of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. (2021).
Google created the programming language for its Android Operating System based on Java, an Application Programming Interface (API) owned by Oracle. So, Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement. A federal district judge held that programming languages are so essential to the progress of science and useful arts that APIs are not subject to copyright law because, if they were, it would stifle innovation and collaboration, which are both essential to the very purpose of copyright. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that district court ruling, holding that APIs are copyrightable, but it stopped short of determining whether Google's use of was fair use. Upon remand back to the district court, a jury found that Google's use of the Java API was fair use. Oracle appealed, and the Federal Circuit again reversed the lower court. The Federal Circuit held that Google's use was not fair as a matter of law.
Today I'll be reading Google v. Oracle - a case in which the Supreme Court was asked whether copyright protection extends to a software interface and, if it does, whether the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the creation of a computer program constitutes fair use.
In order to decide as little as possible in the resolution of this case, the Court declined to answer the first question and, instead, proceeded under the assumption that software code is subject to copyright protection. In a 6-2 opinion, the Court decided that Google’s limited copying of the Java SE API indeed qualified as a fair use under copyright law.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on here on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of parts I, II, and III of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. (2021).
Google created the programming language for its Android Operating System based on Java, an Application Programming Interface (API) owned by Oracle. So, Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement. A federal district judge held that programming languages are so essential to the progress of science and useful arts that APIs are not subject to copyright law because, if they were, it would stifle innovation and collaboration, which are both essential to the very purpose of copyright. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that district court ruling, holding that APIs are copyrightable, but it stopped short of determining whether Google's use of was fair use. Upon remand back to the district court, a jury found that Google's use of the Java API was fair use. Oracle appealed, and the Federal Circuit again reversed the lower court. The Federal Circuit held that Google's use was not fair as a matter of law.
Today I'll be reading Google v. Oracle - a case in which the Supreme Court was asked whether copyright protection extends to a software interface and, if it does, whether the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the creation of a computer program constitutes fair use.
In order to decide as little as possible in the resolution of this case, the Court declined to answer the first question and, instead, proceeded under the assumption that software code is subject to copyright protection. In a 6-2 opinion, the Court decided that Google’s limited copying of the Java SE API indeed qualified as a fair use under copyright law.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on here on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
For ten years, Gerald Bostock served Clayton County, Georgia as a child welfare services coordinator. During his tenure there, Bostock consistently received positive evaluations. That is, until 2013 when colleagues began openly criticizing him at work after learning that he belonged to a gay softball league, bringing attention to his sexual orientation. Around this time, Clayton County initiated an internal audit of the program that Bostock managed just before terminating him - not for mismanagement of the program - but, for alleged "conduct unbecoming" of County employees. The alleged conduct in question was, apparently, being gay.
Bostock promptly filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), marking the beginning of a long legal battle that would eventually find its way before the Supreme Court of the United States - asking whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses sexual orientation.
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that an employer who fires an individual employee for being gay or transgender indeed violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Chiafalov. Washington(2020) Majority Opinion (State laws against faithless electors, Electoral College vote)
Music by Epidemic Sound
We continue reading the second half of the 2014 primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - written by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join as to all but Part III–Section C–1, which we finished reading just before concluding last episode. We continue with Part III, Section C-2
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 1 of the primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014).
In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of certain contraceptives - based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Part 2: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion
In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives - based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion Parts I and II
In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives - based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. Lee (1982) Edwin Lee, an Amish man, employed several Amish workers on his farm; but because his religion held a provision against federal social security in general, he didn’t pay quarterly social security taxes. So, in 1978, the (IRS) sent him a bill for $27,000 in unpaid taxes. He paid for the first quarter of 1973 and then he sued for a refund – arguing that the tax violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The district court held that the Social Security tax was unconstitutional as applied.
This is a case that the U.S. Supreme Court heard this on direct appeal. It asks whether the United States government can require payment of Social Security taxes from those who religiously object to social security benefits.
In a unanimous decision, the Court said yes - holding that, by entering into the commercial activity of employing others, accepted certain limits on the exercise of his beliefs.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the Opinion of the Supreme Court in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985).
In 1977, former President Gerald Ford agreed to publish his memoirs with Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. along with a prepublication deal with Time Magazine to publish an article featuring a sizable excerpt about pardoning former President Richard Nixon. But, before Time Magazine even had the chance to release their article, The Nation Magazine was given unauthorized access to Ford's manuscript and subsequently published an article containing a verbatim excerpt of over 300 words. So, Harper & Row sued The Nation for copyright infringement. The District Court ruled for Harper and Row, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that The Nation's use of the copyrighted material qualified as fair use.
The question before the Court in this case was whether the Copyright Revision Act of 1976's fair use doctrine allowed The Nation's unauthorized use of excerpts former President Gerald Ford's unpublished manuscript.
The Court held that The Nation's use of verbatim excerpts from the unpublished manuscript was not a fair use.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1984 opinion of the Supreme Court in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
Do you remember Sony Betamax?
Back in the 80s, Sony Corporation of America manufactured and sold the "Betamax" home video tape recorder (VTR). Since Universal City Studios owned the copyrights to many of the broadcast tv programs that consumers used Betamax to record, Universal sued Sony for copyright infringement - seeking monetary damages, an equitable accounting of profits, and an injunction against the manufacturing and marketing of the VTR's. The District Court ruled against Universal, holding that the noncommercial home use of recorded material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works, not copyright infringement. The District Court further concluded that, even if the home use of a VTR had been considered an infringement, Sony could not be held liable as contributory infringers. But, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Sony liable for contributory infringement.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Sony's sale of "Betamax" video tape recorders to the general public constituted contributory infringement of copyrighted public broadcasts under the Copyright Act.
The Court held that "[t]he sale of the VTR's to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of [Universal's] copyrights." And American Gen X kids like me were able to continue recording episodes of Family Ties and The Love Boat.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
You guys remember Sony Betamax? Next episode, I'll be reading the 1984 opinion of the Court in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Sony's sale of "Betamax" video tape recorders to the general public constituted contributory infringement of copyrighted public broadcasts under the Copyright Act.
Check it out.
Audio of the 2015 opinion of the Court in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank.
In 1994, the Korean entity Hana Bank extended its services to the United States. In an advertising campaign that summer, they used the names "Hana Overseas Korean Club" in English and "Hana Bank" in Korean along with their corresponding logo.
That fall, a completely unrelated entity, Hana Financial, Inc. (HFI) was founded in California. They obtained a trademark for their logo in 1996, displaying the words "Hana Financial." Hana Bank (the first entity) was aware that HFI was using the name Hana Financial but, since the two weren’t direct competitors at the time, they didn't see any reason to take action against HFI. Imagine their surprise when, in 2007, HFI filed a complaint against them for trademark infringement!
In a district court, the jury found that, since Hana Bank was the first to use the "Hana Bank" trademark in the United States - and had been using it continuously since that time - Hana Bank's trademark could be "tacked" to their 1994 advertisements using the similar name "Hana Bank." HFI appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was: who determines whether a trademark may be tacked to an earlier mark? Is it a question of law which a court must decide, or a question of fact for the jury?
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that tacking is a mixed question of law and fact to be determined by the jury.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of Smiley v. Holm (1932) Majority Opinion
If you've been following Moore v. Harper this term, a case in which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 7th, you'll be interested in today's episode. That's because I'll be reading the 1932 opinion of the Court in Smiley v. Holm, asking the Court whether the Governor of Minnesota could veto a congressional redistricting plan proposed by the state legislature.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Parts IV and V of the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017)
The questions before the Court in this case were whether the lower court erred in determining that North Carolina’s new districting plan constituted a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause,
whether the claims should have been dismissed under the doctrine of issue preclusion or claim preclusion, and whether the Supreme Court should resolve a disagreement between the differing conclusions reached by the lower court and the North Carolina Supreme Court in this case.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Parts I, II, and III of the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017)
The questions before the Court in this case were whether the lower court erred in determining that North Carolina’s new districting plan constituted a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause,
whether the claims should have been dismissed under the doctrine of issue preclusion or claim preclusion, and whether the Supreme Court should resolve a disagreement between the differing conclusions reached by the lower court and the North Carolina Supreme Court in this case.
So, how did the Court rule in this case in which the conservative Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the liberal justices on the bench? You'll have to listen to find out!
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Johnson v. Missouri (Nov 30, 2022) Justice Jackson Dissenting from Denial of Application for Stay.
Audio of Part 2: Skilling v. United States (2010) Majority Opinion
Jeffrey Skilling was a longtime officer of the seventh-highest revenue-grossing company in America, Enron Corporation. He served as CEO from February until August 2001, when he resigned
He was later convicted of conspiracy, securities fraud, making false representations to auditors, and insider trading. On appeal, he argued that the government prosecuted him under an invalid legal theory and that the jury was biased.
There were two questions before the Supreme Court in this case:
1) When a presumption of jury prejudice arises because of the widespread community impact and inflammatory publicity of the defendant's alleged conduct, can the government rebut the presumption of prejudice? If so, must the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror was actually prejudiced?
2) Whether the federal "honest services" fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, requires the government to prove that the defendant's conduct was intended to achieve "private gain" rather than to advance the employer's interests, and, if not, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
The opinion of the Court was divided into three parts; parts one and two cover the facts of the case and answer the first question regarding juror bias. Part three addresses the second question before the Court regarding the federal "honest service" fraud statute.
I have divided this opinion into two episodes. Part One, which I read last episode, included parts one and two of the opinion, regarding the facts of the case and jury bias.
This episode, Part Two will cover part three of the opinion, regarding the federal "honest service" fraud statute. And like I mentioned last episode, this episode contains the part of the opinion that relates to a case before the Court this term, Percoco v. United States.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of parts II and III of Skilling v. United States (2010) Majority Opinion (Jury Bias, Fair Trial, Enron)
Jeffrey Skilling was a longtime officer of the seventh-highest revenue-grossing company in America, Enron Corporation. He served as CEO from February until August 2001, when he resigned
He was later convicted of conspiracy, securities fraud, making false representations to auditors, and insider trading. On appeal, he argued that the government prosecuted him under an invalid legal theory and that the jury was biased.
There were two questions before the Supreme Court in this case:
1) When a presumption of jury prejudice arises because of the widespread community impact and inflammatory publicity of the defendant's alleged conduct, can the government rebut the presumption of prejudice? If so, must the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror was actually prejudiced?
2) Whether the federal "honest services" fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, requires the government to prove that the defendant's conduct was intended to achieve "private gain" rather than to advance the employer's interests, and, if not, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.
The opinion of the Court was divided into three parts; parts one and two cover the facts of the case and answer the first question regarding juror bias. Part three answers the second question before the Court regarding the federal "honest service" fraud statute.
I'll be splitting this opinion into two episodes. Part One, which is this episode, will include parts one and two of the opinion, regarding jury bias.
Part Two will cover part three of the opinion, regarding the federal "honest service" fraud statute.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of the 1990 opinion of the Court in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.
Two Oregon men were fired from their jobs at the same organization when their employer learned that they had ingested peyote for religious purposes. When the two men later applied for unemployment benefits, they were denied because they had been fired over their criminal conduct. In this case, the Court was asked whether a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
In 2002, when Arizona passed a law requiring a photo ID in order to register to vote, The Election Assistance Commission notified them that the new law violated the National Voter Registration Act and Arizona residents and organizations petitioned for a restraining order to prevent the new law from taking effect, which the district court denied. But, when the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an emergency injunction, it was granted.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in granting that injunction.
In a per curiam decision, the Court said it did because, given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, they would allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the new law. So, the case was remanded and the Purcell Principle was born, holding that states shouldn't change election laws when an election is imminent.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2 of 2: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) Dissenting Opinion (Arizona; Voting Rights Act, Section 2)
Part 1 of 2: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) Dissenting Opinion (Arizona; Voting Rights Act, Section 2)
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
In Arizona, voters can either vote in-person at a precinct or vote center – or they can receive a ballot by mail with various options for returning it.
Arizona counties can choose either a vote center or a precinct-based system for voting in person.
Counties who choose the vote-center system permit registered voters to vote at any polling location in the county. Counties who choose the precinct-based system permit registered voters to vote only at the designated polling place in their precinct – and about 90% of Arizona’s population falls under this option. Under this precinct-based system, if a voter arrives at a polling place and is not listed on the voter rolls for that precinct, they can cast a provisional ballot. But, after election day, when election officials review all provisional ballots, if officials determine the voter voted out of precinct, the county just chucks that ballot straight in the trash. The Democratic National Committee challenged this policy, claiming that it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act since it adversely and disparately affected Native American, Hispanic, and African American citizens of Arizona.
Then, in 2016, Republican legislators passed H.B. 2023, criminalizing the collection and delivery of another person’s ballot. The DNC challenged H.B. 2023, arguing that – because it was enacted with discriminatory intent - it violated Section 2 of the VRA as well as the Fifteenth Amendment.
At trial, the district court found in favor of Arizona on all claims. The DNC appealed, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. And then, a majority of the full Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court “clearly erred.”
So, the two questions before the Supreme Court in this case were whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
And whether Arizona’s H.B. 2023 violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment.
In a 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the Court said no to both.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of the Unanimous opinion of the Court in McDonnell v. United States (2016).
Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell, and his wife, Maureen McDonnell, were indicted on federal charges of honest services fraud and extortion charges after they accepted a total of $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams, while Governor McDonnell was in office. Williams was the chief executive officer of Star Scientific, a Virginia-based company that had developed Anatabloc, a nutritional supplement made from anatabine, a compound found in tobacco. Star Scientific wanted public universities to perform research studies on anatabine, and Williams wanted Governor McDonnell’s assistance in obtaining those studies.
To convict them, the Government had to show that the Governor committed (or agreed to commit) an “official act” in exchange for the loans and gifts.
According to the Government, Governor McDonnell arranged meetings for Williams with other Virginia officials to discuss Star Scientific’s product, hosted events for the company at the Governor’s Mansion, and contacting other government officials concerning the research studies.
Governor McDonnell was tried before a jury and convicted.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether, for the purpose of federal bribery statutes, an official action was limited to the exercise or threatened exercise of actual governmental power, and if the term is not limited in this manner, whether the statutes are unconstitutional.
In a unanimous decision for McDonnell, the Court held that an official act must involve a formal exercise of governmental power on something specific pending before a public official and that arranging meetings, contacting another official, or hosting an event - on its own - is not enough to be considered an official act.
Music by Epidemic Sound
A quick case preview regarding an upcoming case before the Court this term: Percoco v. United States.
"When a public official accepts money to convince the government to do something, we call him a crook. But when a private citizen accepts money to convince the government to do something, we call him a lobbyist." That's from the opening paragraph of petitioner's brief in Percoco v. United States begins. It's not just a well-worded sentiment, either - it's true.
This is because public officials are entrusted to make decisions in the best interest of the public; they have power over those they serve - and if they are making decisions for us based on what's best for their bank account rather than what's best for the public, we all suffer. But the First Amendment permits citizens to petition the government to make decisions that aligns with their self-interests - including lobbyists.
On November 28, the Court will hear one of the more ridiculous cases I've encountered in quite a while: Percoco v. U.S. - asking the court whether a private citizen who holds no elected office or government employment, but has informal political or other influence over governmental decision-making, owes a fiduciary duty to the general public such that he can be convicted of honest-services fraud. I'll pause here while you get your laughter under control. Why am I so quick to offer my opinion in this case? First as a political scientist, a former government affairs person, and a general observer of mankind, I don't think it's overstepping to express my doubts over any proposition that suggests criminalizing the influence that private citizens may have over public officials. And second, if it were a crime for members of the general public to convince public officials to make certain decisions, I imagine there wouldn't be nearly enough jails to house them all.
If this sounds like an interesting case to you, you'll want to keep an eye out for it because I plan to read it to you all just as soon as it is issued by the Court.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 2018 Opinion of the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins were engaged to be married and busy making wedding plans. For their cake, they decided to ask Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO to create a custom-designed cake for their wedding reception. But the owner, Jack Phillips, wasn't on-board. Phillips refused because his religious beliefs forbade same-sex marriage.
The question before the Court in this case was whether Colorado's public accommodations law compelling a cake maker to create a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.
The Court held the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for refusing to create a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding, violated the Free Exercise Clause.
I'm reading today's case in anticipation a very similar case this term - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, with oral arguments scheduled for December 5th. This case involves a website developer who wants to publicly communicate her refusal to provide services in connection with same-sex marriages, claiming that a public accommodations law compelling her to do so violates her first amendment right to free speech.
Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
This episode, we look back on the show's first season in this selection of my favorite introductions. Enjoy!
Music by Epidemic Sound
Contact the Show
Audio of Buffington v. McDonough (Nov 7, 2022) Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (V.A. Benefits, Chevron Deference)
Audio of Anthony v. Louisiana (Nov 7, 2022) Justice Sotomayor Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (Harmless-error, Structural-error, Prosecutor Testimony).
Justice Thomas Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari in Clendening v. United States (Nov 7, 2022)
Case Keywords: Injured Military Personnel, Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), Feres v. United States (1950), Feres doctrine, injury incident to military service, Camp Lejeune, U.S. Sovereign Immunity.
Contact the Show
Music and Sound Effects by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Gorsuch Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari in Khorrami v. Arizona (November 7, 2022)
On Monday, November 7th, the Court issued orders that included a long list of denials that, in turn, inspired five dissenting opinions from four justices. Two of the five dissents were penned by Justice Gorsuch - one of which dissented from the Court's denial of Khorrami v. Arizona, arguing that juries with fewer than 12 people violate the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Jackson's dissent to denial of certiorari in Chinn v. Shoop (2022).
On Monday, the Court issued orders that included a long list of denials which produced five different dissents - including Justice Jackson's first ever opinion as a Supreme Court Justice - dissenting to the denial of certiorari in Chinn v. Shoop (2022)
Case Keywords: capital case, Brady v. Maryland, Strickland v. Washington, reasonable probability materiality standard, intellectual disability
Music by Epidemic Sound
We continue reading Baker v. Carr (1962) beginning with Part IV: Justiciability.
Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.
The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court. Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.
I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.
The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court. Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.
I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016).
The case I'll be reading today is similar to a 2003 case I read a couple of weeks ago, Grutter v. Bollinger. Both involved white females who had applied for admission to a particular university and were subsequently denied. In this case, Abigail Fisher applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. In keeping with the Court's ruling in Grutter, the University of Texas considered many factors in the admissions process, including race. Fisher sued the University arguing that the University's consideration of race in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court disagreed and so did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, it held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard in its decision. The case was remanded, the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the admissions process indeed satisfied the strict scrutiny standard.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Contact the Show.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of the Supreme Court opinion in Morton v. Mancari (1974).
Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934. A provision in that law gave hiring preference Native Americans for positions in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to further the cause of Native American self-governance. But, when Congress passed the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, prohibiting racial discrimination in federal employment, non-Indian employees of the BIA filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, claiming that Section 472 of the Indian Reorganization Act had been repealed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act; and besides, it violated the non-Indian employee's Fifth Amendment right to property without due process. The District Court ruled in their favor and the United States government appealed to the Supreme Court.
The questions before the Court in this case were whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 indeed repealed Section 472 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and whether Section 472 violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court said no to both questions.
Access this SCOTUS case and other essential information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of the 1994 opinion of the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
Nearly sixty years later after it was first released, the opening bass riff in Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" is recognizable to even the youngest generation of Americans, otherwise the rap group 2 Live Crew would have never created a parody of it in 1989 - that parody was 2 Live Crew's song Pretty Woman. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., copyright holders of the original song, sued 2 Live Crew and their record company claiming "Pretty Woman" by 2 Live Crew infringed upon Acuff-Rose's copyright. While the District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair.
The question before the Supreme Court was whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody of the original song by Roy Orbison could be a fair use within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976. In a unanimous opinion, the Court said yes.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Decided October 11, 2022. Thomas v. Lumpkin (ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias, impartial jury).
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
Access this SCOTUS opinion here.
Audio of Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).
Last episode, I read the 2019 majority opinion Rucho v. Common Cause - a case in which a three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina's 2016 congressional district map was the product of Republican-directed partisan gerrymandering, enjoining the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Court consolidated Rucho with a very similar gerrymandering case out of Maryland - only that case was at the direction of Democrats.
In the 5-4 majority opinion, split along their own ideological and partisan lines, the majority held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Today I'll be reading the dissenting opinion in this Supreme Court case which held that - not only is partisan gerrymandering within the Court's reach - ignoring it ultimately robs Americans of their most fundamental constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process and to choose their political representatives - not the other way around.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of the 2019 opinion of the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause.
A three-judge District Court ruled that North Carolina's 2016 congressional district map was the product of partisan gerrymandering, enjoining the state from using the map after November 2018. North Carolina Republicans appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 opinion, split along their own ideological and partisan lines, the court held that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond the reach of the federal courts. However, the majority opinion is 34 pages long - which seems like an awfully long reach for an argument that is beyond their reach. A significant portion of these pages seem to argue that partisan gerrymandering is simply the way it is in American politics and that, unless such gerrymandering is racial and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, it's all just part of the game. Now, that's a lot of arguing against a claim that the majority holds is simply none of their business.
In the next episode I'll be reading the dissenting opinion in this case in which the minority called-out the Court for ignoring the opportunity to address a critical question involving the violation of “the most fundamental of . . . constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process."
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2022).
The NAACP challenged a state voter ID law arguing that it violated the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The North Carolina state attorney general, who happens to be a Democrat, was already defending the constitutionality of the North Carolina voter ID law in state and federal court when the Republican leaders of the state's House andSenate sought to represent the state in this litigation. I guess they thought that a Democrat couldn't get the job done to their satisfaction.
The District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit twice rejected their requests. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the North Carolina legislators had a right to intervene in the case; the Court ruled that they did.
Access this SCOTUS decision and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
This episode, we continue reading the second half the 2010 opinion of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Picking up where we ended last episode, we begin with Part III of the opinion.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or BCRA (BIK-rah) (even more commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act) placed restrictions on federal campaign contributions in an effort to regulate "big money" and prevent corruption. One such restriction prevented corporations and labor unions from financing electioneering communications.
The conservative nonprofit Citizens United sought an injunction from the D.C. District Court in an attempt to prevent BRCA from being applied to their new film Hillary: The Movie, featuring commentary that was critical of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations.
Striking down election restrictions dating back nearly a century, the Court held that that, under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited; freedom of political speech applied to both corporations and individuals alike. The Court's decision completely changed the political playing field in federal campaigns, clearing the way for the creation of Super PACs and effectively allowing those with the deepest pockets to, without publicly disclosing their identity, donate unlimited cash to federal campaign advertising - so long as fundraising organizations do not directly coordinate political ads with the candidate's campaign.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 2010 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 or BCRA (bik-rah) - more commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act, placed restrictions on federal campaign fundraising in an effort to regulate "big money" campaign contributions and prevent corruption. One such restriction prevented corporations and labor unions from financing electioneering communications.
The conservative nonprofit Citizens United sought an injunction from the D.C. District Court in an attempt to prevent BRCA from being applied to their film Hillary: The Movie, featuring commentary that was critical of Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations.
Striking down election restrictions dating back nearly a century, the Court held that that, under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, and freedom of political speech applied to both corporations and individuals alike. The Court's decision completely changed the political playing field, clearing the way for the creation of Super PACs and effectively allowing those with the deepest pockets to, without publicly disclosing their identity, donate unlimited cash to federal campaign advertising - so long as fundraising organizations do not directly coordinate political ads with the candidate's campaign.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
This episode, we continue reading the 2003 opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, starting with Part III.
Access this SCOTUS opinion in full here.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).
The question before the court was whether the consideration of race in the University of Michigan Law School's admissions process violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a five-to-four decision, the Court held that, because race was only one factor in an individualized review every applicant, it did not violate applicant's rights equal protection of the law.
Access this Supreme Court Opinion here.
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of the 2015 opinion of the Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
If you are losing sleep over Moore v. Harper, the upcoming case that asks the Court to consider the constitutionality of the Independent State Legislature Theory, you'll be glad you listened to today's episode. That's because it provides an excellent review of the precedent and history of the Election Clause's use of the word "legislature."
Arizona voters passed Proposition 106 in 2000, amending the Arizona state constitution to remove congressional redistricting authority from the legislature and, instead, gave that authority to the new Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). When the IRC approved a new congressional district map in 2012, the state legislature sued the IRC, claiming that prop 106 violated the Constitution's Election Clause. The legislature argued that the Elections Clause gave redistricting authority to the state legislatures, which made prop 106 unconstitutional and, therefore, invalid. The federal district court disagreed, holding prop 106 did not violate the Elections Clause. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision.
While Chief Roberts wrote a dissent in which he argued that the Elections Clause’s use of the word “legislature” should be read to mean “representative body,” the majority opinion provided a review of the history and the Court's precedents establishing that the words "the legislature" in this clause did not mean the representative body alone.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1988 unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell.
Hustler is a pornographic magazine whose founder, Larry Flint, wasn't one to shy away from tucking a little social and political commentary in-between photo layouts. In 1983, the magazine's lead story included a parody of a political ad claiming that the very politically-active, conservative, Christian Fundamentalist minister Jerry Falwell committed incest with his mother in an outhouse (gross, I know).
Reverend Falwell sued Hustler magazine to recover damages for libel, emotional distress, and for invading his privacy. On the emotional stress claim, a jury awarded him damages of $150,000 and Hustler Magazine appealed and the case found its way to the Supreme Court. The constitutional question before them was whether patently offensive statements regarding public figures are protected under the First Amendment's free speech clause. In a unanimous decision, the Court said yes.
This isn't just a provocative, high-profile case that's more than just a little interesting (if we're being honest); rather, it established important precedent about parody as it relates to the First Amendment right to free speech.
This case has been on my mind recently after learning about an Ohio man who filed a petition for certiorari after he had been arrested and subsequently acquitted for creating a parody Facebook page that made fun of his local police department. If this case sounds familiar to you, it's likely because of all the public attention it received when the famous parody publication, The Onion, recently filed a very real amicus brief with the Court in support of the petitioner explaining, in-between bits of its own parody, why parody is an essential form of expression in our democracy - perhaps now more than ever before.
Access this SCOTUS case, oral arguments, and other essential information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018). The two questions before the Court were: 1) whether the arresting officers had probable cause to arrest for unlawful entry under District law, despite a claim of good-faith entry, and 2) whether the law was sufficiently clearly-established to justify the denial of immunity to the arresting officers.
But, mostly, I just read this case today because it's an interesting case that all the justices agreed upon (for the most part). And I really needed that.
Access the full SCOTUS case with citations and other essential information here.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (2000).
You'll want to listen to this episode before oral arguments in Moore v. Harper to be scheduled for later this term.
Today I'll be reading Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (2000) which seems to be the origin of the highly controversial Independent Legislature Theory - the idea that state legislatures are the ultimate authority in determining the rules by which states appoint their allotted number of electors to the electoral college - a power so absolute that it cannot even be checked by state courts and officials.
If this sounds familiar, it's because it's very similar to former president Trump's efforts to appoint unauthorized slates of electors in several states that he lost, hoping to overturn the 2020 election in his favor. While those efforts were ultimately unsuccessful, it is important to note that three sitting justices embrace (and, indeed, endorse) the theory - first described in this concurring opinion from Bush v. Gore, written 22 years ago by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Here is a great article about the Independent Legislature Theory from The Brennan Center for Justice. I keep it bookmarked and refer to it often.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations and other essential case information at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000).
I'm reading this opinion today as homework to prep us for the upcoming case Moore v. Harper, which will require the Court to consider the controversial Independent Legislature Theory.
Two questions before the Court were 1) whether the Florida Supreme Court violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution; and whether standardless manual recounts violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
Over the next few episodes, I'll be reading some opinions of the Court that you'll want to hear before Moore v. Harper is heard and subsequently decided by the Court. If you are interested in learning about the origins of the Independent Legislature Theory, you won't want to miss the next episode in which Chief Justice Rehnquist gives it substance.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations and other essential case information at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1986 opinion of the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles.
Back in 1986, the Court heard a case with circumstances that were almost identical to those in Merrill v. Milligan (2022). The case was Thornburg v. Gingles (pronounced with a "j") and the question before the Court was the same as it is in Merrill v. Milligan - whether the District Court erred by holding that a North Carolina redistricting plan unlawfully discriminated against blacks in six voting districts. The Court held that five of the six districts unlawfully diluted the power of the collective black vote. In Thornburg v. Gingles, the Court established three criteria to determine the validity of vote dilution claims like the one presented by the State of Alabama in Merrill v. Milligan. These criteria make up what is now known as the Gingles test.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations and other essential information at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/83-1968
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence from the Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022)
Packing and cracking is a popular (but illegal) gerrymandering technique and, according to a District Court last January, it's how the Republican-led State of Alabama redistricted their seven-seat congressional map following the 2020 census. Packing and cracking works just as the name describes: using Alabama's map as an example, district lines were drawn so that they look "cracked" after distributing white voters as evenly as possible across six voting districts, while the areas with the greatest concentration of black residents were "packed" into the one voting district. The goal of this technique, which has been used in the past by both political parties, is to end up with as many congressional districts as possible for the friendly party - which was six out of seven districts that voted consistently for Republican candidates, in this particular case.
Several organizations challenged the packed and cracked map, arguing that the map limits the number of districts in which Black voters are likely to vote for their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policy. The district court agreed and ordered Alabama back to the drawing board.
But the Supreme Court put the lower court’s ruling on hold until the new 2022 term begins, effectively allowing Alabama to use their allegedly gerrymandered map through the primary elections and, likely, into the midterm elections that will determine the leadership of both congressional chambers of Congress.
Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for October 4th, the second day of the October sitting. The question before the Court will be whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations
Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022
Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Chief Justice Roberts' dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022).
Packing and cracking is a popular (but illegal) gerrymandering technique and, according to a District Court last January, it's how the Republican-led State of Alabama redistricted their seven-seat congressional map following the 2020 census. Packing and cracking works just as the name describes: using Alabama's map as an example, district lines were drawn so that they look "cracked" after distributing white voters as evenly as possible across six voting districts, while the areas with the greatest concentration of black residents were "packed" into the one voting district. The goal of this technique, which has been used in the past by both political parties, is to end up with as many congressional districts as possible for the friendly party - which was six out of seven districts that voted consistently for Republican candidates, in this particular case.
Several organizations challenged the packed and cracked map, arguing that the map limits the number of districts in which Black voters are likely to vote for their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policy. The district court agreed and ordered Alabama back to the drawing board.
But the Supreme Court put the lower court’s ruling on hold until the new 2022 term begins, effectively allowing Alabama to use their allegedly gerrymandered map through the primary elections and, likely, into the midterm elections that will determine the leadership of both congressional chambers of Congress.
Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for October 4th, the second day of the October sitting. The question before the Court will be whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations
Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022
Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Kagan's dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022)
Packing and cracking is a popular (but illegal) gerrymandering technique and, according to a District Court last January, it's how the Republican-led State of Alabama redistricted their seven-seat congressional map following the 2020 census. Packing and cracking works just as the name describes: using Alabama's map as an example, district lines were drawn so that they look "cracked" after distributing white voters as evenly as possible across six voting districts, while the areas with the greatest concentration of black residents were "packed" into the one voting district. The goal of this technique, which has been used in the past by both political parties, is to end up with as many congressional districts as possible for the friendly party - which was six out of seven districts that voted consistently for Republican candidates, in this particular case.
Several organizations challenged the packed and cracked map, arguing that the map limits the number of districts in which Black voters are likely to vote for their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policy. The district court agreed and ordered Alabama back to the drawing board.
But the Supreme Court put the lower court’s ruling on hold until the new 2022 term begins, effectively allowing Alabama to use their allegedly gerrymandered map through the primary elections and, likely, into the midterm elections that will determine the leadership of both congressional chambers of Congress.
Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for October 4th, the second day of the October sitting. The question before the Court will be whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations
Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022
Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Judgement of the Court.
This episode features a case you'll want to understand before the Supreme Court's October term begins. And that's because, on the very first day of the November session, scheduled for October 31st, the Court will be hearing oral arguments in two Affirmative Action cases. They are: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
In the judgement I'll be reading today, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the question before the court was whether the University of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Allan Bakke's application for admission to its medical school.
In an 8–1 DECISION FOR BAKKE, the Court held no single majority opinion; instead, the justices held their own opinions (for the most part) and Justice Powell delivered a judgement of the Court.
This audio includes the primary text of the judgement, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full judgement, all opinions, and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
Music by Epidemic Sound
Introduction audio is clipped at minutes 28:18 and 29:58 from the opinion announcement audio from June 26, 1978, courtesy of oyez.org at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Audio of the 1962 opinion of the Court in Engel v. Vitale.
When public schools in the state of New York incorporated the voluntary recitation of a brief, daily prayer each morning, several groups got together and argued that the school's conduct violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals disagreed.
When the case was decided by the Supreme Court, it held that the school's conduct crossed that line of separation the Constitution has drawn between church and state and that public schools had no business writing formal prayers to be memorized and recited, voluntarily or not.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information (including the original audio recordings of oral arguments) at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Dissenting Opinion, Part I, Sections A and B.
Hey, SCOTUS fans - I thought it was important that I include a reading of the portion of the dissenting opinion in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District that reviews the facts of the case because it includes a significant amount of important facts of the case that were omitted by the majority opinion that I read last episode. I will be reading the opening paragraphs as well as Part I, sections A and B which focus on retelling the facts of the case leading up to the termination of Joseph Kennedy from Bremerton High School.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-418
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022).
High School Football Coach Joseph Kennedy prayed aloud with a number of students during and after school games on numerous occasions. When the Bremerton School District asked him to stop, citing the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, Kennedy refused, rallying significant local support. He sued the school district, arguing that the only Constitutional rights that had been violated were his, under the First Amendment as well as Title Seven of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When the case made it before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the prayer of an employee of a public school during school sports activities was protected speech under the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, and if so, whether the school could prohibit the public prayer in an effort to avoid violating the Establishment Clause?
The Court held that both the free exercise and the free speech clauses protect personal religious observance, like Joseph Kennedy's prayers, from government reprisal. One of the things that makes this decision so significant is that it replaced the legal standard the Court had used for the previous five decades, the Lemon Test, with a new standard loosely defined as a consideration or analysis of historical practices and understandings. The Lemon Test was established in the opinion of the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which I just so happened to read last episode.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-418
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1971 Opinion of the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman.
In 1968 and 1969 Pennsylvania and Rhode Island passed similar laws that allocated state funding to supplement the teaching of secular material in private religious schools.
In both cases, tax-paying citizens sued to have the respective state laws declared unconstitutional, arguing that they violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. When these cases, combined, made it before the Supreme Court, they agreed.
The Court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test (known as the Lemon test) in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. According to the Lemon test, the statute must have three things: a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.” All three of the prongs in the test had to be satisfied for a law to survive a challenge under the Establishment Clause. And I use the past-tense "had" just now because, earlier this year, the Supreme Court held, in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, that the Lemon test shall no longer be the legal standard for determining whether a law violates the establishment clause. Instead, the Court shall rely solely on an analysis historical practices and understandings rather than any kind of test regarding the law's legislative purpose, effects, or possible entanglement between government and religion. I'll be reading Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in the next episode.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations and other essential information: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1969 opinion of the Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa wanted to find a way to publicly express their support for a truce to end to the Vietnam war. So, they got together and decided to wear black armbands to school throughout the holiday season as a symbolic expression of their support. When word of this plan reached the school administrators, they promptly created a policy prohibiting students from wearing the armbands and warning that any student who refused to remove their armband would be suspended.
Several students wore their armbands anyway and were sent home when they refused to remove them. The students and their parents sued the school district for violating their freedom of expression - a complaint which was dismissed by the district court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed that decision. When the case made it before the Supreme Court, the constitutional question was whether the school policy prohibiting the wearing black armbands in symbolic protest while attending a public school violated the students' First Amendment freedom of expression. In a 7-2 majority, the Court said it did.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential information at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1824 opinion of the Court in Gibbons v. Ogden.
Steamboat operators Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons were partners brought together not by the mutual love of steamboats, but the by the sharing of a common enemy. A New York state law gave the exclusive rights to navigate state waters to steamboat operators Livingston and Fulton for a period of twenty years. Because it was clear their businesses would not survive if the Livingston/Fulton monopoly were to remain, Ogden and other competitors who relied on the ability to navigate state waters, tried to prevent it from taking effect, but Livingston and Fulton managed to buy most of them out - except Aaron Ogden, who partnered-up with a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey under a federal license: Thomas Gibbons.
Three years later, the Ogden/Gibbons partnership came to an end when Ogden sued Gibbons in state court for taking another boat on one of Ogden's regular New York routes without authorization. Gibbons argued that his federal license gave him the authorization to navigate Ogden's route because the federal government controlled interstate commerce through the United States Congress, not the state of New York, who issued Ogden's license. The state court disagreed with Gibbons and so they granted Ogden a permanent injunction.
When the case made it before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Commerce Clause in fact gave Congress authority over interstate navigation, as Gibbons claimed. The Court agreed entirely with Gibbons in a unanimous decision that interstate navigation fell under interstate commerce and New York could not interfere with it. Therefore, the New York law giving a twenty year monopoly to Livingston and Fulton, was invalid.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1967 opinion of the Court in Katz v. United States.
Charles Katz was a gambling man. Since he lived in Los Angeles and his bookies lived in Miami and Boston, he placed his bets over the phone. And since all of this was illegal, Mr. Katz placed these phone calls on public pay phones just in case the feds were onto him and decided to tap his phone. Katz wasn't being unduly paranoid, either because the feds were onto him and, in fact, the FBI was a step ahead of him. So, federal agents placed attached recording device to the outside of the phone booths Katz was known to use to place his bets.
Katz was indicted on eight counts for the illegal transmission of gambling information from LA to Boston and Miami and subsequently convicted. He appealed, arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected Katz argument since the recording device was not placed inside the phone booth itself, but attached to the outside. When the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, the question before them was whether the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures required the agents to first obtain a search warrant to wiretap the public pay phone even though the device technically wasn't a wiretap. In a 7-1 decision, the Court said that it did.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations and other helpful information at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1927 opinion of the Court in Buck v. Bell.
A 1924 Virginia law that originated from a bill created by leaders of eugenics movement allowed the nonconsensual reproductive sterilization of individuals confined to institutions for various conditions. The law allowed patients to be sterilized by doctors when the patients had a condition that the doctors believed could be passed to the patient's children. This case took place decades before genetics was understood the way doctors and scientists understand it today. Many of these conditions were among those that doctors mistakenly believed to be hereditary.
A pregnant Virginia woman, Carrie Buck, was diagnosed as a "feeble minded woman" and confined to a state mental institution when the Virginia sterilization law was passed. Because her so-called feeble-mindedness was said to have been present in Carrie's family for three generations, her doctor began the process to have her sterilized. The question before the Court in this case was whether the Virginia law denied Carrie Buck the right to due process of the law and the equal protection of the laws provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.
So, what did the Court say? Since this is a very short opinion, I won't give any spoilers.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/274us200
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940).
It is customary for Jehovah's Witnesses to directly share the message of their religious faith with others by canvasing neighborhoods door-to-door or simply approaching people in public and striking up a conversation. That's what Newton Cantwell and his sons were doing one day in a Connecticut neighborhood whose residents were primarily Catholic. The Cantwells angered two pedestrians that day when part of their message was critical of the Catholic faith. The Cantwells were arrested and charged with the violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate, and for inciting a common-law breach of the peace.
The question before the Court in this case was whether the convictions of Newton Cantwell and his sons violated the First Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court not only sided with Cantwell, but their decision in this case incorporated the First Amendment freedom of religion to the states.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/310us296
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1964 opinion of the Court in New York Times Company v. Sullivan.
During the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was charged with perjury in the city of Montgomery, Alabama. Leaders from within the movement published an ad in the New York Times asking for financial contributions for Dr. King's legal defense. Although Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner L.B. Sullivan was not mentioned in the ad, he felt that the ad's criticism of the police, who were under his general leadership, reflected poorly on him.
Sullivan asked the Times for a public retraction, as required or a public figure seeking punitive damages in a lawsuit for libel under Alabama law. The Times refused. So, Sullivan filed a libel action against the Times and several leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. In state court, the jury in awarded him $500,000 in damages. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed and the New York Times appealed.
The question before the Supreme Court of the United States was whether Alabama's libel law violated the First Amendment's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled for the Times. The Court held that the a libelous statement must show that it was made with what Justice Brennan called "actual malice," or knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity of the statement when it is directed toward a public figure.
Access this SCOTUS opinion with citations at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1963/39
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1905 opinion of the Court in Lochner v. New York.
In 1895, the state of New York enacted the Bakeshop Act, which limited the number of hours that bakers could work to no more than ten hours per day and no more than sixty hours per week. Joseph Lochner owned a bakeshop in New York and was charged with violating the act when one of his employees was discovered to have exceeded his legal workload. Lochner was issued a fine of $25 for his initial violation (the equivalent to about $900 today) but he decided not to challenge the conviction.
A few years later, Lochner was busted for violating the Bakeshop Act a second time, convicted a second time issued a fine of $50. This time, Lochner appealed his conviction to the state court, but was denied. When his case eventually made it before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1905, the question was whether New York's Bakeshop Act violated the liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with Lochner's right to contract.
*The decision in Lochner v. New York was overturned in 1937 in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish.
Access the full SCOTUS opinion with citations here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/198us45
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1986 opinion of the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick.
While in the bedroom of his home, Michael Hardwick was observed by a police officer in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another man. He was subsequently with violating a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy. Hardwick challenged the constitutionality of the Georgia law in Federal District Court, which the Court later dismissed. But, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia appealed to the Supreme Court.
The question before the court was whether homosexuals have a constitutional right to engage in consensual sodomy in the privacy of their own home. In a 5-4 decision, the court said no, holding that states were free to outlaw consensual homosexual sodomy - that is, until the Court overturned this decision in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas. However, in his recent concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), Justice Clarence Thomas expressed a desire to reconsider Lawrence v. Texas, which brings a previously overturned case like this one back into the spotlight.
Access full opinion with citations at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140
Music by Epidemic Sound.
*Introduction audio clip is taken from oral arguments audio file (at 00:22:18) given before the Supreme Court of the United States - courtesy of oyez.org at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Audio of the 1973 opinion of the Court in Frontiero v. Richardson.
When the case was argued in 1973, federal law provided that the spouses of men serving in the military became dependents automatically; but, the spouses of women who served in the military were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over half of their financial support. So, when United States Air Force Lieutenant Sharron Frontiero applied to receive a dependent's allowance for her husband in 1968, she was denied the allowance because his income was not low enough to qualify. The question before the Court in this case was whether the federal law, having different qualification requirements based on the service member's sex alone, violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. The Court said it did, although they disagreed over the appropriate standard of review and the level of scrutiny to apply.
Access the full SCOTUS opinion with citations here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694
Music by Epidemic Sound
*Introduction audio clip is taken from oral arguments audio file (at 00:27:17) given before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 17, 1973 - courtesy of oyez.org at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Audio of the SCOTUS opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States in 1816 and placed a branch in Baltimore, MD - which, two years later, Maryland passed legislation to tax. The bank refused to pay the tax. The state appeals court held that the Second Bank itself was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not specifically grant the federal government the right to charter a bank. The question before the Supreme Court in this case was: 1) whether Congress had the right to establish the bank and, 2) whether Maryland's law taxing the federal bank unconstitutionally interfered with congressional powers.
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress indeed had the implied power to incorporate the bank and that states had the power of taxation, just not over instruments of the federal government employed in the execution of their constitutional powers.
Find a full copy of the opinion with citations here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Gitlow v. New York (1925). The question before the Court was whether the First Amendment prevents a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the government's violent overthrow.
Possibly the most significant thing about this case is that, although the Court said the New York Criminal Anarchy law did not violate Gitlow's First Amendment right to free speech, they decided to nonetheless selectively incorporate that exact same right to the states. In fact, it was the first case ever to selectively incorporate a specific liberty from the Bill of Rights to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Access a copy of this SCOTUS opinion with citations at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/268us652
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore (1833).
In a lawsuit attempting to recover financial loss, Baltimore wharf owner John Barron alleged that construction initiated by the city beginning in 1815 redirected water flow and caused so much sand to accumulate that it eventually deprived the harbor of the deep waters necessary for larger ships to use the wharf, resulting in a significant loss of profits for Mr. Barron. He sued the city to try to recover some of his financial losses. The trial court awarded him $4,500 in damages, which the Maryland appellate court struck down.
The question before the Court in this case was whether the Fifth Amendment denies the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property owner (a.k.a. the taking clause).
I omit citations when reading SCOTUS opinions to provide a better listening experience. You may access the opinion here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/32us243
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1958 unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama.
In 1958, in an effort to keep the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from conducting future business in Alabama, a circuit court issued a restraining order at the request of the state and subsequently issued a subpoena for a list of records belonging to the NAACP - including their membership roster. Today I'll be reading the 1958 opinion of the Court in NAACP v. Alabama in which the Supreme Court determined whether the State of Alabama's actions violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Citations have been omitted from this SCOTUS reading to provide a better listening experience, but you may access a copy of the opinion here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1957/91
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1958 unanimous opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Aaron.
A few years after the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Arkansas legislature and Governor Orval Faubus openly resisted the Supreme Court's decision to desegregate public schools. So, the February following the integration crisis at Little Rock High School, members of the Little Rock school board and Superintendent filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, urging suspension of the plan to integrate schools - they were asking the courts for black students to be returned to their former segregated schools for the next two-and-one-half years while they figured out a more permanent solution to avoid integration. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question before them was whether Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation.
In a unanimous per curiam opinion the Court broke it down like this: it was constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause to deprive black students of their equal rights under the law, and that since the Supremacy Clause of Article VI made the U.S. Constitution the supreme law of the land, and Marbury v. Madison made the Supreme Court the final interpreter of the Constitution, the precedent set forth in Brown v. Board of Education was the supreme law of the land and was therefore binding on all the states. Yes, even Arkansas.
I omit citations when reading SCOTUS opinions in order to provide a better listening experience; you may access the opinion here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/1/#tab-opinion-1942101
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1966 per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court in Parker v. Gladden.
During Lee Parker's 1961 murder trial in Multnomah County, Oregon, the bailiff stated to an alternate juror, “Oh, that wicked fellow, he is guilty.” Two regular jurors overheard this statement. Parker was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to the Oregon State Penitentiary for a potential maximum sentence of life. The Supreme Court of Oregon denied a rehearing and affirmed Parker's conviction.
The question before the Court was weather the bailiff's statement violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury through the due process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a per curiam decision with one dissent, the Court said it did, making the right to an impartial jury applicable to the states.
I omit citations to provide a better listening experience; access the full SCOTUS opinion here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/81
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1963 opinion of the Court in Gideon v. Wainwright.
When Clarence Gideon appeared without a lawyer before a Florida court for the felony charge of breaking and entering, he requested an attorney be appointed for him. But, Florida state law only allowed a court-appointed attorney to indigent defendants in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. So, Gideon represented himself in trial. President Lincoln was right when he said that he who represents himself has a fool for a client. But, what else is that fool supposed to do in order to defend his innocence if he can't afford an attorney? Gideon was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. After filing a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing his constitutional right to be represented by counsel, that court denied habeas corpus relief. When the case made it before the Supreme Court of the United States, a unanimous Court sided with Gideon that his Sixth Amemdment right to counsel. The opinion I'll be reading today expanded the decision of the Court in Powell v. Alabama which incorporated to the states the right to an attorney in capital punishment cases by applying this right to the defendants in all felony cases.
Citations are omitted from this SCOTUS reading to provide a better listening experience. Read the entire opinion at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1932 opinion of the court in Powell v. Alabama - applied the Sixth Amendment right to a court-appointed attorney in capital punishment cases.
Citations are excluded in order to create a more enjoyable listening experience. For a copy to this SCOTUS case in full, visit:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/287us45
Music by Epidemic Sound
We continue reading the third and final segment of the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393
We continue reading the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford where we left off in Part 1 .
I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393
Audio of the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. For the next several episodes, I'll be reading an opinion from 1857 that has long since been overturned and relegated to the trash heap of bad Supreme Court decisions - Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the Dred Scott decision, the Taney Court held that African Americans, slave or free, were not citizens of the United States. I've decided to read this opinion over several episodes for two reasons: one is that it is incredibly lengthy and the other is that its contents shock the conscience. By this, I mean that its contents are so racist and offensive that both the listener and the reader are likely to need a little time to recover in-between each segment. I do want to warn those listening, especially those listening with African ancestry, that this opinion is incredibly insulting and no longer has any place in United States constitutional law save for its historical evidence of the stain of slavery.
I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393
Music by Epidemic Sound
A reading of the SCOTUS decision that gave the Supreme Court the authority to determine the constitutionality of laws, policies, lower court decisions, and conflicts among the states: Marbury v. Madison (1803). This is the decision that established the Courts power of judicial review and set the foundation for the Supreme Court going forward.
This audio includes the primary text of Justice Hugo Black's dissenting opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/332us46https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
Music by Epidemic Sound
A reading of Justice Hugo Black's famous dissenting opinion in Adamson V. California (1947).
In the 1947 case Adamson v California, the question before the Supreme Court of the United States was whether a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applied to state courts through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court found that it did not - and it would not apply to the states until 1964 in Malloy v. Hogan. The Court also held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not automatically apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states at once; instead, each right had to be selectively incorporated to the states one-by-one on a case-by-case basis as each right made its way before the Supreme Court.
This audio includes the primary text of Justice Hugo Black's dissenting opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/332us46
Music by Epidemic Sound
In the 1947 case Adamson v California, the question before the Supreme Court of the United States was whether a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applied to state courts through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court found that it did not - and it would not apply to the states until 1964 in Malloy v. Hogan.
In today's opinion, the Court also held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not automatically apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states at once; instead, each right had to be selectively incorporated to the states one-by-one on a case-by-case basis as each right made its way before the Supreme Court.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/332us46
Music by Epidemic Sound
A reading of the 1937 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Palko v. Connecticut.
In 1935, Connecticut resident Frank Palko was charged with first-degree murder, but received a conviction of second-degree murder instead. Although he was convicted of a lesser charge, he received a lifetime sentence. The state appealed; at the new trial, they argued the exact same charge as in the first. Palko was convicted of first-degree murder and, this time, sentenced to death.
Does Palko's second trial violate his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy as applied to the states by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In an 8-1 decision, the Court said no.
The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction. In this majority opinion, Justice Cardozo established legal principles that would guide the decisions of the Court for three decades. He wrote that the most fundamental of the first eight amendments, like freedom of speech and thought, were absorbed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So fundamental are some rights that they don't even need to be "incorporated" to the states. Unfortunately for Mr. Palko (poor fella), the Court held that protection against double jeopardy was not fundamental enough. So, Frank Palko was put to death by electric chair after being twice tried for the same crime in Connecticut the following year.
So, here's the reason this case is so significant:
Selective incorporation was a process of incorporating or applying the rights listed in the first eight constitutional amendments selectively - meaning, one by one, on a case by case basis as the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment in question indeed applies to the states. In today's case, Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Court was given the opportunity to incorporate the Fifth Amendment right against being tried twice for the same crime - known as double jeopardy. They, in fact, did the opposite by specifically holding double jeopardy as not automatically applicable to the states.
If you are interested in learning more about selective incorporation, you won't want to miss the next two episodes because I'll be reading both the majority and dissenting opinions in Adamson v. California (1947). Justice Hugo Black's, dissent in this case is one of the most famous dissents ever written - and it has a lot to say about selective incorporation - none of it good. I'm also planning on doing a bonus episode about it, so keep your eye out for it over the next couple of weeks.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/302us319
Music by Epidemic Sound
A reading of the 1966 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona.
Most of us have watched enough television to recite the entire Miranda warning that police say when they arrest someone. But, not everyone knows why they say it or why it's called the Miranda warning or Miranda rights. If you're one of those people, you won't be for long. That's because today I'll be reading the 1966 opinion of the Court in Miranda v. Arizona. Last episode, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), we learned about the establishment of the exclusionary rule making evidence obtained during searches and seizures - that violate the Fourth Amendment - inadmissible in state court. Miranda v. Arizona expanded the exclusionary rule to include statements obtained in law enforcement interviews that violate the Fifth Amendment (right against self-incrimination) and Sixth Amendment right to counsel) rights of the person being questioned. So, while you might have had the Miranda warning memorized before listening to this episode, now you'll know precisely when and why police recite it.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759
Music by Music Unlimited at Pixabay
A reading of the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Mapp v. Ohio.
In a 6 - 3 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Mapp, and established the exclusionary rule - that evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court. Additionally, this decision incorporated the Fourth Amendment to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236
Episode Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Promo Music by ComaStudio at Pixabay
*Introduction clip is taken from at oral arguments given before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 29, 1961 at 00:05:28 of audio recording; courtesy of oyez.org at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This week we heard the Supreme Court opinions in two major segregation cases: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education as well as a special bonus episode reviewing a century-long segregation timeline. In this bonus episode, picking up where the last bonus episode ended, you'll hear the story of the first court-ordered public school integration following the Brown decision.
Public newsreel clips courtesy of the Library of Congress
A reading of the unanimous decision of the Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) in which the Court held that public school segregation based on race is unconstitutional, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and, while it didn't end segregation overnight, it put an end to the Separate-but-Equal legal doctrine that defined the Jim Crow Era - marking the beginning of a new Era of Civil Rights in America.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483
Sound effects by Pixabay
This bonus episode walks the listener through a century-long American timeline of slavery and segregation that is connected by three Supreme Court decisions - two of which are featured on the show this week: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and Brown v. Board of Education (1954).
For more episodes like this one, you might want to check out a subscription to the show on Apple Podcasts, in which I go beyond the Court's opinions to tell the stories behind the cases featured on the show.
Special thanks to Charles Shomo for the music on this episode by Caffeine Creek Band on Pixabay
A reading of the 1896 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Plessy v. Ferguson.
In today's listener library episode, we are going all the way back to the Court's 1896 opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson - the decision that ushered-in the Jim Crow Era by establishing the he so-called separate-but-equal doctrine of legal segregation. This doctrine endured until the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas, which held that racial segregation in public schools violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537
Sound Effects by Phoenix Connection Brazil from Pixabay:
A reading of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. O'Brien (1968).
David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse; he said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 - a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime. The question before the Court was not whether Mr. O'Brien was guilty of violating the law, but whether the law violated O'Brien's freedom of speech. In a 7-to-1 majority, the Court not only said it didn't, it also established a new test to determine if government regulation of symbolic speech is justified. The test asks if the regulation is within the constitutional power of the Government; if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is not greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/232
Episode Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Music for promo by ComaStudio at Pixabay
In this listener library episode, I'll be reading the 1971 Supreme Court case New York Times Company v. United States which addressed the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it considered to be "classified information," in an act that the Court considered to be unconstitutional prior restraint of the free press. In New York Times v. United States, the Supreme Court established important precedent by reaffirming the prior restraint doctrine when they allowed newspapers to print the Pentagon papers which were secret documents about the Vietnam war that had been stolen by a former Pentagon employee and given to the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish. The Court held that the newspapers not only had a first-amendment right to publish the information at issue, but also that the public had a right to hear it.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
A reading of the opinion of the Court in Schenck v. United States (1919). During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed flyers to the public stating that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The flyers urged the public to disobey the draft, but to do so peacefully. Because he made an effort to cause widespread insubordination within the military while disrupting the recruitment and the draft processes, Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917. Both Schenck and Baer were convicted of the charges and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment. The question before the Court was whether Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for speaking out against the draft violated his right to free speech under the first amendment. In an unanimous decision, the Court gave a qualified "no" while establishing a new legal standard for the Court to use in determining the constitutionality of subversive speech: the Clear and Present Danger test.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
A reading of the opinion of the Court in Reed v. Reed (1971). The question in this case was whether an Idaho Probate Code stating that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court said it did.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-4
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Music Audio File URL:
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
A reading of the recent opinion of the Court in Carson v. Makin (2022). The constitutional question before the Court was: does a Maine state law prohibiting students from choosing to use otherwise generally available student-aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Music Audio File URL:
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
A reading of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Judgement of the Court.
This episode features a case you'll want to understand before the Supreme Court's October term begins. And that's because, on the very first day of the November session, scheduled for October 31st, the Court will be hearing oral arguments in two Affirmative Action cases. They are: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
In the judgement I'll be reading today, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the question before the court was whether the University of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Allan Bakke's application for admission to its medical school.
In an 8–1 DECISION FOR BAKKE, the Court held no single majority opinion; instead, the justices held their own opinions (for the most part) and Justice Powell delivered a judgement of the Court.
This audio includes the primary text of the judgement, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full judgement, all opinions, and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
Introduction audio is clipped at minutes 28:18 and 29:58 from the opinion announcement audio from June 26, 1978, courtesy of oyez.org at:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
A reading of the Opinion of the Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967). The question before the Court was whether a Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage violated the fourteenth amendment's equal protection and due process clauses; the Court said it did.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
Introduction audio clip is taken from oral arguments given before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 10, 1967 - courtesy of oyez.org at https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
interracial marriage #SCOTUS #Supreme Court Opinions #audio
A reading of the dissenting opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). In this case, the opinion of the Court struck down the oversight provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. At issue in this case are sections 5 and 4(b). Section 5 prohibits voting districts with a history of race-based voter suppression policies from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without first gaining official authorization; Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts. Section 5 was originally enacted for five years, but Congress has continually voted to renew it since that time.
The question before the Court in this case was whether the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act (as defined by of Section 4(b)) exceeded Congress' constitutional authority. In 2013, the Court said "yes," it did, striking down these oversight provisions entirely unless or until new legislation is passed to replace it.
This audio includes the primary text of the dissenting opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
SCOTUS #Supreme Court Opinions #Voting Rights Act #SCOTUS audio
A reading of the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) which struck down the oversight provisions of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. At issue in this case are sections 5 and 4(b). Section 5 prohibits voting districts with a history of race-based voter suppression policies from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without first gaining official authorization; Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts. Section 5 was originally enacted for five years, but Congress has continually voted to renew it since that time.
The question before the Court was whether the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act (as defined by of Section 4(b)) exceeded Congress' constitutional authority. In 2013, the Court said "yes," it did, striking down these oversight provisions entirely unless or until new legislation is passed to replace it.
This audio includes the primary text of the majority opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-96
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
A reading of the unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). The question before the court was whether the President's "executive privilege" confidentiality power is totally immune from judicial review.
- This case was decided together with No. 73-1834, Nixon, President of the United States v. United States,also on certiorari before judgment to the same Court.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access the full opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL:
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
Introduction audio is clipped from the opinion announcement given before the Court on July 24, 1974. Audio courtesy of oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/73-1766
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
A reading of the majority opinion in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
In this listener library episode, I read the case that asks if an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that advocates illegal activities violated the constitutional right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court created a two-pronged test to evaluate whether subversive speech acts are constitutionally protected - and it remains the legal standard used by the Court today. Known as the imminent lawless action test or the Brandenburg test, it holds that speech can be prohibited if it is both "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and it is "likely to incite or produce such action." So, did the Court decide if this case passed the test? You'll have to listen to find out.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access a companion copy of the case documents with text and citations, additional opinion(s), syllabus, facts of the case, appendix, etc., on Oyez at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Audio File URL:
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
Introduction clip is from the opening few seconds of oral argument to the Court on February 27, 1969 Audio courtesy of oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License
A reading of the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The question before the Court was whether the Constitution protects the right of married couples to be counseled on the use of contraceptives.
In Justice Thomas' recent concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022) he wrote of three past substantive Due Process decisions he would like to revisit in the upcoming term; this is one of those cases. The other two decisions are Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (Same-sex intimacy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) (Same-sex marriage); both are also featured in listener library episodes this season.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access a companion copy of the case documents with text and citations, additional opinion(s), syllabus, facts of the case, appendix, etc., on Oyez at the link below:
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
Introduction is clipped from the first 20 seconds of the oral arguments (with silence removed) given on March 29, 1965 to the Supreme Court of the United States. Audio courtesy of oyez.org
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496
released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License
A reading of Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022) in which he wrote of three past substantive Due Process decisions he would like to reconsider in the upcoming term: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) (Same-sex marriage), Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (Same-sex intimacy), and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) (Contraception). Look for each of these cases featured in listener library episodes on the show this season.
This audio includes the primary text of the opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access a companion copy of the case documents with text and citations, additional opinion(s), syllabus, facts of the case, appendix, etc., on Oyez at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Pixabay
A reading of Lawrence v. Texas Majority Opinion 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Same-sex Intimacy)
In Justice Thomas' recent concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), he wrote of three past substantive Due Process decisions he would like to revisit in the upcoming term; this is one of those cases.
Are laws which criminalize sexual intimacy between same-sex partners unconstitutional? In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court said yes...and no.
Case Syllabus, lengthy citations, appendix, and footnotes are omitted from this opinion to provide a better listening experience. However, everything you need to know about this case, including a case summary, links to the full text of each opinion in the case, audio recordings of oral arguments, etc., is available through the Oyez.org link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Lesfm at Pixabay
Audio File URL:
http://pixabay.com/music/elevator-music-elevator-music-bossa-nova-background-music-version-60s-10900/
Sound clip of Justice Kennedy taken from June 26, 2003 Opinion Announcement audio file at 00:08:01 and 00:08:19, released under the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial 4.0 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Accessed July 22, 2022. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102
The continued reading of the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? The Supreme Court of the United States said, "yes" in its 7 - 2 decision in Roe v. Wade. Nearly 50 years later, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022). In this special listener's library two-episode series, I read the original case: Roe v. Wade (1973).
Listen to Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in other Season 1 episodes.
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Lesfm at Pixabay
Sound clips in introduction are from Roe v. Wade oral arguments (1971)
Released by oyez.org under the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial 4.0 International License: Accessed July 22, 2022.
A reading of the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? The Supreme Court of the United States said, "yes" in its 7 - 2 decision in Roe v. Wade. Nearly 50 years later, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022). In this special listener's library two-episode series, I read the original case: Roe v. Wade (1973).
Listen to Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in other Season 1 episodes.
Music by Oleksii Kaplunskyi at Lesfm at Pixabay
Sound clips in introduction are from Roe v. Wade oral arguments (1971)
Released by oyez.org under the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial 4.0 International License: Accessed July 22, 2022.
We continue reading the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) where last episode ended. This decision established that the U.S. Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry one another.
Case Syllabus, citations, appendix, and footnotes are omitted from this recording to provide a better listening experience. However, everything you need to know about this case, including a case summary, links to the full text of each opinion related to the case, audio recordings of oral arguments, etc., is available through the Oyez.org and Supreme Court (full slip opinion) links below:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556
A reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). This decision established that the U.S. Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry one another.
Case Syllabus, citations, appendix, and footnotes are omitted from this recording to provide a better listening experience. However, everything you need to know about this case, including a case summary, links to the full text of each opinion related to the case, audio recordings of oral arguments, etc., is available through the Oyez.org and Supreme Court (full slip opinion) links below:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556
A reading of the dissenting opinion in the US Supreme Court Decision that overturned Roe v. Wade (1973): Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022) . This decision overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and gave states the right to prohibit abortions regardless of the stage or circumstances of the pregnancy.
This audio includes the primary text of the dissenting opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access a companion copy of the case documents with text and citations, additional opinion(s), syllabus, facts of the case, appendix, etc., on Oyez at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392
A reading of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022).
Case Syllabus, citations, appendix, and footnotes are omitted from this recording to provide a better listening experience. However, everything you need to know about this case, including a case summary, links to the full text of each opinion related to the case, audio recordings of oral arguments, etc., is available through the Oyez.org and Supreme Court (full slip opinion) links below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_new_l537.pdf
A reading of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (June 23, 2022). The constitutional question addressed in this case is whether New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrates a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment.
Case Syllabus, citations, appendix, and footnotes are omitted from this recording to provide a better listening experience. However, everything you need to know about this case, including a case summary, links to the full text of each opinion related to the case, audio recordings of oral arguments, etc., is available through the Oyez.org link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843
Click here to check out SCOTUSblog for more resources
We continue from last episode with the reading of the US Supreme Court Case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022). This landmark decision overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and gave states the right to prohibit abortions regardless of the stage or circumstances of the pregnancy.
This audio includes the primary text of the majority opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access a companion copy of the case documents with text and citations, additional opinion(s), syllabus, facts of the case, appendix, etc., on Oyez at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392
A reading of the majority opinion in the US Supreme Court Case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022). This decision overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and gave states the right to prohibit abortions regardless of the stage or circumstances of the pregnancy.
This audio includes the primary text of the majority opinion, but excludes citations in order to create a better listening experience. You may access a companion copy of the case documents with text and citations, additional opinion(s), syllabus, facts of the case, appendix, etc., on Oyez at the link below:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392