TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Government

    Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

    Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day — and following the Court’s decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it “information sourcing,” and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients. 

    *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.

    Advertise

    Copyright: © 2026 Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY v. LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS (Removes injunction below) Sep 29, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Court here removed the District Court's Stay. The Court held that the plaintiffs seeking a prohibition of the Governments use of the SAVE program to help states check voter rolls is overturned. The Court will decide in another case if the States are able to clean voter rolls within 90 days of an election).

    Support the show


    People Not Politicians v. Onder (Elections & the Purcell Principle) Sep 26, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    In People Not Politicians v. Onder, the Supreme Court stayed federal-court orders that would have forced Missouri to use its 2025 congressional map instead of the 2022 map. Under state law, the 2025 map cannot take effect unless voters approve it in a referendum. Relying on Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Court held that federal courts should not change a state's election rules on the eve of an election, especially here, where ballots on the 2022 map had already been printed and mailed and voting had begun. It also rejected the Eighth Circuit's view that the Missouri Supreme Court caused the late change, noting that the state court had flagged the referendum requirement months before the primary.

    Support the show


    NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. SHERROD BROWN, ET AL. (Ripeness, Admin Law, Media Discounts for people running for public office). Sep 05, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Court did not seem to think the 4th Circuit should have made a ruling on an appeal from the 4th Circuit, therefore they grant a stay of the 4th's Stay.

    Support the show


    DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL. (Federal Election rules and Article III Standing) Sep 05, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Support the show


    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES (WHITE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, ARTICLE III STANDING) Sep 01, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    The Supreme Court Thinks the National Trust for Historic Preservation in The United States Does not have Article III Standing. (Simplified)

    Construction on the White House East Wing can resume (Simplified)

    Support the show


    WEST VIRGINIA v. B. P. J. (Transgender Athletes, Title IX) Jul 01, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    1. Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.

    Support the show


    TRUMP v. BARBARA (BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP) RJD Recoding Jul 01, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

    Support the show


    Trump v. Barbara (Birthright citizenship) JB recording. Jul 01, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, striking down Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The Court relied on the common law rule of jus soli and its precedent in Wong Kim Ark, rejecting the Government's domicile-based theory. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court; Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part, while Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch each dissented.

    Support the show


    National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (Campaign Finance/Election Law) Jul 01, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    In NRSC v. FEC the Supreme Court granted Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to answer the question of whether the limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) on how much political parties can spend in direct coordination with their federal candidates violate the First Amendment.

    Held: FECA’s political party coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kagan, J. Filed a dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined.

    Read by Jake A. Leahy.

    Support the show


    CHATRIE v. UNITED STATES (4a and Geofence Warrant for Google Location history) Jun 29, 2026
    Show notes

    Send us Fan Mail

    Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information.

    Support the show


    1 2 3 59 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights