SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Latest Episodes:

Devillier v. Texas Jan 16, 2024

Show notes

Argued on 2024-01-16.

For petitioners: Robert J. McNamara, Arlington, Va. For respondent: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Question Presented:

In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles , this Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was "self-executing" and that "[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary" for claims for just compensation because they "are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]" 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). Since First English , several state courts of last resort have held that the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause requires them to entertain claims directly under the Clause without the need for statutory authorization. Two federal Circuits, the Fifth and the Ninth, disagree and have held that claims for just compensation are only available if they are legislatively authorized. The question presented is: May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?

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.)

Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green 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 ROBERT J. McNAMARA

(00:31:26) ORAL ARGUMENT OF AARON L. NIELSON

(00:52:39) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EDWIN S. KNEEDLER

(01:09:17) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ROBERT J. McNAMARA

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

Smith v. Arizona Jan 10, 2024

Show notes

Smith v. Arizona, No. 22-899

Argued on 2024-01-10.

For petitioner: Hari Santhanam, Chicago, Ill. For United States, as amicus curiae: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Alexander W. Samuels, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Phoenix, Ariz.

Question Presented:

Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst's statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert's opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.

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 HARI SANTHANAM

(00:25:32) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC J. FEIGIN

(00:45:12) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ALEXANDER W. SAMUELS

(01:23:39) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF HARI SANTHANAM

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

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado Jan 09, 2024

Show notes

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. 22-1074

Argued on 2024-01-09.

For petitioner: Paul J. Beard, II, Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Aileen M. McGrath, San Francisco, Cal.; and Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Question Presented:

George Sheetz applied, to the County of El Dorado, California, for a permit to build a modest manufactured house on his property. Pursuant to legislation enacted by the County, and as the condition of obtaining the permit, Mr. Sheetz was required to pay a monetary exaction of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements. The County demanded payment in spite of the fact that it made no individualized determination that the exaction-a substantial sum for Mr. Sheetz-bore an "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" to the purported impacts associated with his modest project as required in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n , 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard , 512 U.S. 37 4, 391 (1994). Mr. Sheetz challenged the exaction as an unconstitutional condition under Nollan and Dolan . A California trial court upheld the exaction, holding that, because it was authorized by legislation, the exaction was immune from Nollan/Dolan review. In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. California's judicially-created exemption from Nollan/Dolan scrutiny for legislative exactions conflicts with the decisions of other federal and state courts across the country, and is in strong tension with this Court's more recent precedents. The question presented is whether a permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan and Dolan simply because it is authorized by legislation.

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.)

Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green 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 PAUL J. BEARD, II

(00:44:10) ORAL ARGUMENT OF AILEEN M. McGRATH

(01:14:00) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERICA L. ROSS

(01:25:50) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF PAUL J. BEARD, II

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

United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC Jan 09, 2024

Show notes

United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, No. 22-1238

Argued on 2024-01-09.

For petitioner: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex.

Question Presented:

Section 1004(a) of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, Pub. L. No.115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1232 (28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6)(B) (2018)), amended the schedule of quarterly fees payable to the United States Trustee in certain pending bankruptcy cases. In Siegel v. Fitzgerald , 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), this Court held that that provision contravened Congress's constitutional authority to "establish * * * uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies," U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4, because it was initially applied only in the 88 federal judicial districts that have United States Trustees but not in the 6 districts that have Bankruptcy Administrators. This Court left open the question of "the appropriate remedy" for the violation. Siegel , 142 S. Ct. at 1783. The question presented in this case is: Whether the appropriate remedy for the constitutional uniformity violation found by this Court in Siegel , supra , is to require the United States Trustee to grant retrospective refunds of the increased fees paid by debtors in United States Trustee districts during the period of disuniformity, or is instead either to deem sufficient the prospective remedy adopted by Congress or to require the collection of additional fees from a much smaller number of debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator districts.

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 MASHA G. HANSFORD

(00:25:49) ORAL ARGUMENT OF DANIEL L. GEYSER

(00:57:53) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF MASHA G. HANSFORD

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

FBI v. Fikre Jan 08, 2024

Show notes

FBI v. Fikre, No. 22-1178

Argued on 2024-01-08.

For petitioners: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Gadeir Abbas, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Individuals are sometimes removed from the No Fly List during ongoing litigation about their placement on that list. The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that an individual's removal from the No Fly List moots a case when the government represents that the individual will not be placed back on the list based on currently available information. In conflict with those decisions, the Ninth Circuit held in this case that respondent's claims were not moot even though he was removed from the No Fly List in 2016 and the government provided a sworn declaration stating that he "will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information." The question presented is whether respondent's claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are moot.

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 SOPAN JOSHI

(00:50:50) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GADEIR ABBAS

(01:18:07) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF SOPAN JOSHI

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

Campos-Chaves v. Garland, Att'y Gen. Jan 08, 2024

Show notes

Campos-Chaves v. Garland, Att'y Gen., No. 22-674

Argued on 2024-01-08.

For Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General: Charles L. McCloud, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioner in 22-674 and respondents in 22-884: Easha Anand, Stanford, Cal. VIDED.

Question Presented:

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that a noncitizen who does not appear at a removal hearing shall beordered removed in absentia. but only if she was provided "written notice required under paragraph (l) or (2) of section 1229(a).'' 8 U.S.C. §1229a (b)(5)(A). The Act authorizes rescission of an in absentia order if the noncitizen "did not receive no- tice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)." Id. §1229a (b)(5)(C)(ii). Paragraph (1) of section 1229(a) requires a single notice document that contains all the information specified in the statute, including the "time and place" of proceedings. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland , 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1480-1485 (2021). Paragraph (2) requires notice of the "new time and place" "in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such pro-ceedings." The question presented is: If the government serves an initial notice document that does not include the "time and place" of proceedings, followed by an additional document containing that information, has the government provided notice "required under" and •' in accordance with para- graph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)" such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen's request to rescind that order?

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 CHARLES L. McCLOUD

(01:38:18) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF CHARLES L. McCLOUD

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

Muldrow v. St. Louis Dec 06, 2023

Show notes

Muldrow v. St. Louis, No. 22-193

Argued on 2023-12-06.

For petitioner: Brian Wolfman, Washington, D. C.; and Aimee W. Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Robert M. Loeb, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual" with respect to "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). The Eighth Circuit below followed binding circuit precedent to hold that discriminatory job transfers (and denials of requested transfers) are lawful under Title VII when they do not impose "materially significant disadvantages" on employees. The question presented is: Does Title VII prohibit discrimination as to all "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment," or is its reach limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees?

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.)

Cert. Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.)

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

Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green 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 BRIAN WOLFMAN

(00:37:02) ORAL ARGUMENT OF AIMEE W. BROWN

(01:00:02) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ROBERT M. LOEB

(01:33:57) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF BRIAN WOLFMAN

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

Moore v. United States Dec 05, 2023

Show notes

Moore v. United States, No. 22-800

Argued on 2023-12-05.

For petitioners: Andrew M. Grossman, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to lay "taxes on incomes ... without apportionment among the several States." Beginning with Eisner v. Macomber , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), this Court's decisions have uniformly held "income," for Sixteenth Amendment purposes, to require realization by the taxpayer. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit approved taxation of a married couple on earnings that they undisputedly did not realize but were instead retained and reinvested by a corporation in which they are minority shareholders. It held that "realization of income is not a constitutional requirement" for Congress to lay an "income" tax exempt from apportionment. App.12. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit became "the first court in the country to state that an 'income tax' doesn't require that a 'taxpayer has realized income."' App.38 (Bumatay, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). The question presented is: Whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.

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 ANDREW M. GROSSMAN

(00:49:29) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

(01:59:28) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ANDREW M. GROSSMAN

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

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. Dec 04, 2023

Show notes

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124

Argued on 2023-12-04.

For petitioner: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D. C. For respondents The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.: Pratik A. Shah, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants ’ consent.

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 CURTIS E. GANNON

(00:48:44) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GREGORY G. GARRE

(01:16:50) ORAL ARGUMENT OF PRATIK A. SHAH

(01:39:49) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF CURTIS E. GANNON

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

SEC v. Jarkesy Nov 29, 2023

Show notes

SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859

Argued on 2023-11-29.

For petitioner: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: S. Michael McColloch, Dallas, Tex.

Question Presented:

1. Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment. 2. Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine. 3. Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.

Oral Argument Links: