SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Latest Episodes:

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson Apr 22, 2024

Show notes

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175

Argued on 2024-04-22.

For petitioner: Theane D. Evangelis, Los Angeles, Cal. For United States, as amicus curiae: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

In Martin v. City of Boise , 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prevents cities from enforcing criminal restrictions on public camping unless the person has "access to adequate temporary shelter." Id . at 617 & n.8. In this case, the Ninth Circuit extended Martin to a classwide injunction prohibiting the City of Grants Pass from enforcing its public-camping ordinance even though civil citations. That decision cemented a conflict with the California Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, which have upheld similar ordinances, and entrenched a broader split on the application of the Eighth Amendment to purportedly involuntary conduct. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless denied rehearing en banc by a 14-to-13 vote. The question presented is: Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:07) ORAL ARGUMENT OF THEANE D. EVANGELIS

(00:54:25) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EDWIN S. KNEEDLER

(01:48:43) ORAL ARGUMENT OF KELSI B. CORKRAN

(02:20:48) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF THEANE D. EVANGELIS

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Thornell v. Jones Apr 17, 2024

Show notes

Thornell v. Jones, No. 22-982

Argued on 2024-04-17.

For petitioner: Jason D. Lewis, Deputy Solicitor General, Phoenix, Ariz. For respondent: Jean-Claude Andre, Santa Monica, Cal.

Question Presented:

Over thirty years ago, Respondent Danny Lee Jones beat Robert Weaver to death and also beat and strangled Weaver's 7-year-old daughter, Tisha, to death, for which he was convicted and sentenced to death. The district court denied habeas relief following an evidentiary hearing on Jones's ineffective-assistance-of-sentencing-counsel claims. But a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court, giving no deference to the district court's detailed factual findings. Judge Mark Bennett authored a nine-judge dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing. The Question Presented is: Did the Ninth Circuit violate this Court's precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing Strickland prejudice when it disregarded the district court's factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the State's rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief?

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JASON D. LEWIS

(00:33:27) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JEAN-CLAUDE ANDRE

(01:02:01) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF JASON D. LEWIS

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Fischer v. United States Apr 16, 2024

Show notes

Fischer v. United States, No. 23-5572

Argued on 2024-04-16.

For petitioner: Jeffrey T. Green, Bethesda, Md. For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Did the D.C. Circuit err in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (“ Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"). Which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations. to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JEFFREY T. GREEN

(00:34:28) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

(01:36:15) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF JEFFREY T. GREEN

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon Apr 15, 2024

Show notes

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, No. 23-50

Argued on 2024-04-15.

For petitioners: Easha Anand, Stanford, Cal. For United States, as amicus curiae: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Megan M. Wold, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

To make out a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that legal process was instituted without probable cause. Thompson v. Clark , 142 S. Ct. 1332, 1338 (2022). Under the charge-specific rule, a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge, even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause. Under the "any-crime" rule, probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause. The question presented is: Whether Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, as the Second, Third, and Eleventh circuits hold, or by the "any-crime" rule, as the Sixth Circuit holds.

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EASHA ANAND

(00:28:49) ORAL ARGUMENT OF VIVEK SURI

(00:36:54) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MEGAN M. WOLD

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Snyder v. United States Apr 15, 2024

Show notes

Snyder v. United States, No. 23-108

Argued on 2024-04-15.

For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C

Question Presented:

18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) makes it a federal crime for a state or local official to "corruptly solicit[,] demand[,] ... or accept[] ... anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any" government business "involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more." The question presented, on which the circuits are divided, is: Whether section 666 criminalizes gratuities, i.e ., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF LISA S. BLATT

(00:30:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF COLLEEN R. SINZDAK

(01:34:19) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF LISA S. BLATT

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Connelly v. United States Mar 27, 2024

Show notes

Connelly v. United States, No. 23-146

Argued on 2024-03-27.

For petitioner: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Yaira Dubin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C

Question Presented:

Closely held corporations often enter into agreements requiring the redemption of a shareholder's stock after the shareholder's death in order to preserve the closely held nature of the business. Corporations that enter such agreements often purchase life insurance on the shareholder in order to fund the transaction. The question presented is: Whether the proceeds of a life-insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder's stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder's shares for purposes of the federal estate tax .

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF KANNON K. SHANMUGAM

(00:27:24) ORAL ARGUMENT OF YAIRA DUBIN

(00:48:24) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF KANNON K. SHANMUGAM

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Erlinger v. United States Mar 27, 2024

Show notes

Erlinger v. United States, No. 23-370

Argued on 2024-03-27.

For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Menlo Park, Cal. For respondent supporting petitioner: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: D. Nick Harper, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant's prior convictions were "committed on occasions different from one another," as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JEFFREY L. FISHER

(00:30:21) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC J. FEIGIN ON

(01:03:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF D. NICK HARPER,

(01:30:12) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF JEFFREY L. FISHER

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine Mar 26, 2024

Show notes

FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine, No. 23-235

Argued on 2024-03-26.

For federal petitioners: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioner Danco Laboratories, L.L.C.: Jessica L. Ellsworth, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Erin M. Hawley, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

Question Presented:

This case concerns mifepristone, a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2000 as safe and effective for terminating early pregnancies. The Fifth Circuit held that respondents-doctors and associations of doctors who oppose abortion-have Article III standing to challenge FDA's 2016 and 2021 actions with respect to mifepristone's approved conditions of use and that those actions were likely arbitrary and capricious. The court therefore affirmed the district court's stay of the relevant agency actions. The questions presented are: 1. Whether respondents have Article III standing to challenge FDA's 2016 and 2021 actions. 2. Whether FDA's 2016 and 2021 actions were arbitrary and capricious. 3. Whether the district court properly granted preliminary relief.

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:08) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

(00:37:12) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JESSICA L. ELLSWORTH

(00:50:13) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIN M. HAWLEY

(01:29:46) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. San Carlos Apache Tribe Mar 25, 2024

Show notes

Becerra, Sec. of H&HS v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, No. 23-250

Argued on 2024-03-25.

For petitioners: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 23-253: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 23-250: Lloyd B. Miller, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

Question Presented:

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq ., permits eligible Indian tribes to contract with the federal government to assume responsibility for federal health care programs administered for the benefit of Indians. Upon entering into the contract, a tribe is entitled to the appropriated funds that the Indian Health Service (IHS) would have otherwise allocated to the federal program. 25 U.S.C. 5325(a)(1). The Act also requires IHS to pay "contract support costs"-funds "added to" that appropriated amount to cover the costs of activities the tribe must undertake to operate the transferred program, but which either "normally are not carried on" by IHS when acting as program operator, or which IHS would have "provided * * * from resources other than" the appropriated funds transferred under the contract. 25 U.S.C. 5325(a)(2). Separately, contracting tribes are permitted to collect payment from third-party payors-like private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid-when they provide health care services to covered individuals. The question presented is as follows: Whether IHS must pay "contract support costs" not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe's expenditure of income collected from third parties.

Oral Argument Links:

SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

SCOTUS Docket Page

Question Presented

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CAROLINE A. FLYNN

(00:34:55) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY

(01:03:54) ORAL ARGUMENT OF LLOYD B. MILLER

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Harrow v. Dept. of Defense Mar 25, 2024

Show notes

Harrow v. Dept. of Defense, No. 23-21

Argued on 2024-03-25.

For petitioner: Joshua P. Davis, San Francisco, Cal. For respondent: Aimee W. Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

When a federal employee petitions the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) provides: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board." In the decision below, the Federal Circuit relied on settled circuit precedent holding this filing deadline to be jurisdictional, despite recent opinions from other Circuits and this Court holding analogous filing deadlines to be nonjurisdictional. The question presented is whether the 60-day deadline in Section 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional.

Oral Argument Links: