SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Latest Episodes:

EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. Mar 25, 2025

Show notes

EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., No. 23-1229

Argued on 2025-03-25.

For petitioner: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association in support of petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondents Calumet Shreveport Refning, L.L.C., et al.: Michael R. Huston, Phoenix, Ariz.

Question Presented:

In a pair of final actions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied 105 petitions filed by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program. Six of those refineries petitioned for review of EPA's decisions in the Fifth Circuit, which denied the government's motion for transfer to the D.C. Circuit. The question presented is as follows: Whether venue for the refineries' challenges lies exclusively in the D.C. Circuit because the agency's denial actions are "nationally applicable" or, alternatively, are "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect." 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(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 MALCOLM L. STEWART

(00:41:37) ORAL ARGUMENT OF SETH P. WAXMAN

(01:06:13) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MICHAEL R. HUSTON

(01:40:19) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF MALCOLM L. STEWART

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

Louisiana v. Callais Mar 24, 2025

Show notes

Louisiana v. Callais, No. 24-109

Argued on Mar 24 2025.

For appellant in 24-109: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La. For appellants in 24-110: Stuart C. Naifeh, New York, N. Y. For appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Mo. VIDED.

Question Presented:

Over the State's strenuous objections, the Middle District of Louisiana held, Robinson v. Ardoin , 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022)-and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Robinson v. Ardoin , 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023)-that Louisiana likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by failing to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The Fifth Circuit gave the Legislature a small window of time to adopt its own remedial plan, or else the State would have to go to trial, which would almost certainly end in the Middle District imposing its own preferred map. Rather than acquiesce in the Middle District's preferences, the Legislature reclaimed its sovereign redistricting pen and passed S.B. 8, which created a second majority-Black district as the courts demanded, protected the Legislature's sovereign prerogatives, and achieved its political goals. In this case, a majority of a three-judge court sitting in the Western District of Louisiana enjoined S.B. 8 as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The questions presented are: 1. Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8? 2. Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny? 3. Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions? 4. Is this action non-justiciable? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS JURISDICTION NOTED 11/4/

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 J. BENJAMIN AGUIÑAGA

(00:20:56) ORAL ARGUMENT OF STUART C. NAIFEH

(00:50:41) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EDWARD D. GREIM

(01:17:23) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF J. BENJAMIN.

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

Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. Mar 24, 2025

Show notes

Riley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen., No. 23-1270

Argued on 2025-03-24.

For petitioner: Keith Bradley, Denver, Colo. For respondent in support of petitioner: Ephraim McDowell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: Stephen J. Hammer, Dallas, Tex.

Question Presented:

Petitioner Pierre Riley, ineligible for cancellation of removal or discretionary relief from removal, sought deferral in withholding-only proceedings, pursuant to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. After the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision reversing an immigration judge's grant of relief, Riley promptly petitioned for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Although both parties urged the court to decide the merits of the case, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley's petition for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1), which states "[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal." This holding implicates two circuit splits, each of which independently warrants review. 1. Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited. 2. Whether a person can obtain review of the BIA's decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that BIA decision? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1609 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT ’ S BRIEF. 1. Whether the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1) for filing a petition for review of an order of removal is jurisdictional. 2. Whether a noncitizen satisfies the deadline in Section 1252(b)(1) by filing a petition for review challenging an agency order denying withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture within 30 days of the issuance of that order. STEPHEN J. HAMMER, ESQUIRE, OF DALLAS, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 11/4/

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 KEITH BRADLEY

(00:14:14) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EPHRAIM McDOWELL

(00:30:53) ORAL ARGUMENT OF STEPHEN J. HAMMER

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

NRC v. Texas Mar 05, 2025

Show notes

NRC v. Texas, No. 23-1300

Argued on 2025-03-05.

For petitioners in 23-1300: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioner in 23-1312: Brad Fagg, Washington, D. C. For respondents Texas, et al.: Aaron L. Nielson, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex. For respondent Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd.: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

Question Presented:

1. Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq ., which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority. 2. Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq ., and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq ., permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.

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 MALCOLM L. STEWART

(00:36:08) ORAL ARGUMENT OF BRAD FAGG

(00:52:04) ORAL ARGUMENT OF DAVID C. FREDERICK

(01:15:58) ORAL ARGUMENT OF AARON LLOYD NIELSON

(01:32:39) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF MALCOLM L. STEWART

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 & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Mar 04, 2025

Show notes

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, No. 23-1141

Argued on 2025-03-04.

For petitioners: Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Catherine E. Stetson, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

The Mexican Government has sued leading members of the American firearms industry, seeking to hold them liable for harms inflicted by Mexican drug cartels. According to Mexico, America's firearms companies have engaged in a series of business practices for decades-from selling semi-automatic rifles, to making magazines that hold over ten rounds, to failing to impose various sales restrictions-that have created a supply of firearms later smuggled across the border and ultimately used by the cartels to commit crimes. Mexico asks for billions of dollars in damages, plus extensive injunctive relief imposing new gun-control measures in the United States. The district court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars suits against firearms companies based on criminals misusing their products. But the First Circuit reversed. It held that PLCAA does not bar this suit because Mexico stated a claim that defendants' business practices have aided and abetted firearms trafficking to the cartels, proximately harming the Mexican government. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the "proximate cause" of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico. 2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.

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 NOEL J. FRANCISCO

(00:40:28) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CATHERINE E. STETSON

(01:25:55) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF NOEL J. FRANCISCO

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

CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. Mar 03, 2025

Show notes

CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., No. 23-1201

Argued on 2025-03-03.

For petitioner in 24-17: Aaron Streett, Houston, Tex. For petitioners in 23-1201: Matthew D. McGill, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

Question Presented:

Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

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 AARON STREETT

(00:10:20) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MATTHEW D. McGILL

(00:19:35) ORAL ARGUMENT OF SARAH M. HARRIS

(00:26:47) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CARTER G. PHILLIPS

(00:46:14) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF MATTHEW D. McGILL

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

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman Mar 03, 2025

Show notes

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, No. 23-1259

Argued on 2025-03-03.

For petitioner: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Michael J. Radine, Hackensack, N. J.

Question Presented:

For more than 70 years, this Court has "required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60 (b)(6)" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to show 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment." Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). This Court has also stressed that a movant must be "faultless" to obtain relief. Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship , 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). "This very strict interpretation of Rule 60(b) is essential if the finality of judgments is to be preserved." Gonzalez , 545 U.S. at 535 (cleaned up). In this case, Respondents declined multiple invitations and opportunities to amend their complaint. The District Court then dismissed their complaint with prejudice, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Only then did Respondents move to vacate the judgment so they could file an amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(6)'s well-settled standard. But the Second Circuit reversed, based on an unprecedented "balanc[ing]" test that requires district courts to consider Rule 15(a)'s "liberal pleading principles" when addressing a Rule 60 (b)(6) motion to reopen a judgment for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. The question presented is: Whether Rule 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

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 MICHAEL H. McGINLEY

(00:26:51) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MICHAEL J. RADINE

(00:49:41) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF MICHAEL H. McGINLEY

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

Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services Feb 26, 2025

Show notes

Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, No. 23-1039

Argued on 2025-02-26.

For petitioner: Xiao Wang, Charlottesville, Va.; and Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, Columbus, Ohio.

Question Presented:

Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." App. 5a.

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

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF XIAO WANG

(00:16:20) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ASHLEY ROBERTSON

(00:31:50) ORAL ARGUMENT OF T. ELLIOT GAISER

(00:53:49) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF XIAO WANG

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

Perttu v. Richards Feb 25, 2025

Show notes

Perttu v. Richards, No. 23-1324

Argued on 2025-02-25.

For petitioner: Ann M. Sherman, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich. For respondent: Lori Alvino McGill, Charlottesville, Va.

Question Presented:

In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?

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 ANN M. SHERMAN

(00:45:53) ORAL ARGUMENT OF LORI ALVINO McGILL

(01:13:41) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ANN M. SHERMAN

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

Esteras v. United States Feb 25, 2025

Show notes

Esteras v. United States, No. 23-7483

Argued on 2025-02-25.

For petitioners: Christian J. Grostic, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Cleveland, Ohio. For respondent: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

The supervised-release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), lists factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for a court to consider when sentencing a person for violating a supervised·release condition. In that list, Congress omitted the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(2)(A)-the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense. The question presented is: Even though Congress excluded section 3553(a)(2)(A) from section 3583(e)'s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, may a district court rely on the section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release? Five circuit courts of appeals, including the panel orders below, have concluded that district courts may rely on the section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors. Four circuit courts of appeals, plus the dissents from orders denying rehearing en banc below, have concluded that they may not.

Oral Argument Links: