Supreme Court Oral Arguments

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

Government
**Supreme Court Oral Arguments**

A podcast feed of the audio recordings of the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.
* Podcast adds new arguments automatically and immediately after they become available on supremecourt.gov
* Detailed episode descriptions with facts about the case from oyez.org and links to docket and other information.
* Convenient chapters to skip to any exchange between a justice and an advocate (available when an aligned transcript is ready).
Also available in video form at https://www.youtube.com/@SCOTUSOralArgument

Latest Episodes:

[23-997] Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida Jan 13, 2025

Show notes

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Jan 13, 2025.

Petitioner: Karyn D. Stanley.
Respondent: City of Sanford, Florida.

Advocates:

Deepak Gupta (for the Petitioner)
Frederick Liu (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)
Jessica C. Conner (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Karyn Stanley, a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, retired due to Parkinson's disease in 2018 after serving for about 19 years. When she joined in 1999, the City's policy provided free health insurance until age 65 for employees retiring due to disability. However, in 2003, the City changed its plan, limiting the health insurance subsidy for disability retirees to 24 months post-retirement. Unaware of this change, Stanley filed suit in April 2020, shortly before her subsidy was set to expire, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, Florida Civil Rights Act, Equal Protection Clause, and Florida Statutes section 112.0801. The district court dismissed or granted summary judgment on all claims in favor of the City, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, relying on (and reaffirming) binding precedent within that circuit that “a Title I plaintiff must ‘hold[ ] or desire[ ]’ an employment position with the defendant at the time of the defendant's allegedly wrongful act.”

Question

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?

[24-656] TikTok, Inc. v. Garland Jan 10, 2025

Show notes

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland

Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Jan 10, 2025.

Petitioner: TikTok, Inc.
Respondent: Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General.

Advocates:

Noel J. Francisco (for the Petitioners TikTok, Inc., et al.)
Jeffrey L. Fisher (for the Petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al.)
Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

TikTok is a social media platform with approximately 170 million monthly U.S. users that allows users to create and watch short video clips. The platform’s content is determined by a recommendation engine originally developed by ByteDance, a China-based company that is TikTok’s ultimate parent. While TikTok created a U.S. subsidiary (TTUSDS) and partnered with Oracle to handle U.S. operations and data security, ByteDance retains significant control over the platform's global operations and source code development.

In response to national security concerns about Chinese influence over TikTok, both the Trump and Biden administrations attempted various measures to address these risks, including attempted forced divestiture and transaction bans. After lengthy negotiations over TikTok’s proposed National Security Agreement proved unsuccessful, Congress passed a law in 2024 requiring “foreign adversary controlled applications” (specifically including TikTok) to divest from foreign ownership or face effective shutdown through prohibitions on U.S. companies providing hosting and distribution services. The law takes effect on January 19, 2025, though companies can avoid the prohibitions by completing a qualified divestiture that eliminates foreign adversary control and operational relationships.

Three sets of petitioners (ByteDance/TikTok, Based Politics, and eight individual TikTok creators) filed constitutional challenges to the Act in May 2024, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Act survived constitutional scrutiny.

Question

Does the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violate the First Amendment?

[23-900] Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. Dec 11, 2024

Show notes

Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 11, 2024.

Petitioner: Dewberry Group, Inc.
Respondent: Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Advocates:

Thomas G. Hungar (for the Petitioner)
Nicholas S. Crown (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting neither party)
Elbert Lin (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Dewberry Engineers and Dewberry Group are two businesses in the real estate development industry that both use the “Dewberry” name. In 2006, they confronted each other over their competing brands, leading to a lawsuit that was settled in 2007 with a confidential settlement agreement (CSA). The CSA allowed Dewberry Engineers to use its registered marks freely while strictly limiting Dewberry Group’s use of “Dewberry.” It prohibited Dewberry Group from challenging Dewberry Engineers’ federal trademark registrations and required Dewberry Group to abandon pending applications for the “Dewberry Capital” mark.

In 2017, Dewberry Group decided to rebrand, changing its name from “Dewberry Capital” to "Dewberry Group” and adopting several subbrands. Despite the CSA, Dewberry Group applied to register new “Dewberry” marks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for real estate-related services. The USPTO rejected these applications due to likelihood of confusion with Dewberry Engineers’ marks. Dewberry Engineers sent cease-and-desist letters to Dewberry Group, claiming trademark infringement and breach of the CSA. Dewberry Group refused to abandon its applications, arguing that the CSA allowed its use of “Dewberry” marks other than “Dewberry Capital” for non-architectural services.

The district court ruled in favor of Dewberry Engineers and ordered Dewberry Group to pay almost $43 million in disgorged profits for infringing on Dewberry Engineers’ trademark. The district court also enjoined Dewberry Group from further violating its agreement with Dewberry Engineers and required Dewberry Group to pay Dewberry Engineers’ attorney fees. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does an award of the “defendant's profits” under the Lanham Act allow a court to require the defendant to disgorge profits earned by legally separate, non-party corporate affiliates?

[23-975] Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado Dec 10, 2024

Show notes

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado

Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 10, 2024.

Petitioner: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
Respondent: Eagle County, Colorado.

Advocates:

Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioners)
Edwin S. Kneedler (for the Federal Respondents)
William M. Jay (for Respondents Eagle County, et al.)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile railway in Utah’s Uinta Basin. The railway’s primary purpose would be to transport waxy crude oil from the basin to the national rail network. The STB conducted an environmental review process, including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Board issued a final decision in December 2021, authorizing the construction and operation of the railway subject to environmental mitigation conditions.

In its environmental analysis, the STB considered various impacts of the railway’s construction and operation within the project area, including effects on water resources, air quality, special status species, land use, and local economies. However, the Board declined to analyze certain “downline impacts”—effects from increased train traffic on existing rail lines beyond the new railway. The STB also omitted analysis of other potential environmental effects, such as increased crude oil refining impacts on Gulf Coast communities, upline impacts of increased drilling in the Uinta Basin, and downline effects of potential oil spills along the Colorado River. Finally, the Board did not disclose the potential effects of the project on historic sites or structures along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The Board justified these omissions by arguing that minimal increases in train traffic on existing lines were unlikely to cause significant impacts, and that some effects were beyond the scope of its regulatory authority.

Eagle County asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the Board’s orders, and the granted the petitions in part, denied them in part, and vacated the underlying order.

Question

Does the National Environmental Policy Act require an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority?

[23-861] Feliciano v. Department of Transportation Dec 09, 2024

Show notes

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 9, 2024.

Petitioner: Nick Feliciano.
Respondent: Department of Transportation.

Advocates:

Andrew T. Tutt (for the Petitioner)
Nicole F. Reaves (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast Guard reserve officer, performed active duty from July to September 2012 under 10 U.S.C. § 12302, receiving differential pay. His service was extended to July 2013 without differential pay. From July 2013 to September 2014, he served again under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) to support various operations, followed by medical treatment until February 2017 under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(h). In 2018, he filed an appeal alleging a hostile work environment and later amended it to include claims about denied differential pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5538. The Board denied his request for differential pay, citing Adams v. Department of Homeland Security, 3 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which required service in a statutory contingency operation for eligibility. Mr. Feliciano appealed this decision.

Question

Is a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

[23-909] Kousisis v. United States Dec 09, 2024

Show notes

Kousisis v. United States

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 9, 2024.

Petitioner: Stamatios Kousisis.
Respondent: United States of America.

Advocates:

Jeffrey L. Fisher (for the Petitioners)
Eric J. Feigin (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

The U.S. Department of Transportation provides funds to state agencies for transportation projects, requiring recipients to set participation goals for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs). Kousisis, Frangos, and their companies, Alpha and Liberty Maintenance, were awarded contracts for two Philadelphia projects with DBE requirements. They committed to working with Markias, Inc., a certified DBE, claiming they would obtain millions in paint supplies from the company.

However, the defendants submitted false documentation about Markias’s role in the projects. Instead of Markias supplying products or performing a commercially useful function as required, it served merely as a pass-through. The defendants arranged for actual suppliers to send invoices to Markias, which then issued its own invoices with a 2.25% fee added. This scheme allowed the defendants to appear compliant with DBE requirements, a condition for receiving payments and avoiding penalties. The jury convicted Kousisis and Alpha of false statements, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud.

The district court calculated the loss based on the defendants’ “ill-gotten profits,” determining that this was an appropriate measure of loss when the actual loss to the government was not measurable at the time of sentencing. This calculation led to a 20-point sentencing enhancement corresponding to a loss between $9.5 million and $25 million.

Kousisis and Alpha appealed their convictions and the calculation of the loss for sentencing purposes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the loss calculation.

Question

Can deception to induce a commercial exchange constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme?

[23-477] United States v. Skrmetti Dec 04, 2024

Show notes

United States v. Skrmetti

Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 4, 2024.

Petitioner: United States of America.
Respondent: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee.

Advocates:

Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the Petitioner)
Chase B. Strangio (for the Respondents L.W., et al., supporting the Petitioner)
J. Matthew Rice (for the Respondents Jonathan Skrmetti, et al.)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2023, Tennessee and Kentucky passed laws restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors. These laws prohibited healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex-transition surgeries to minors for the purpose of altering their appearance or validating their gender identity when inconsistent with their biological sex. Both laws included exceptions for certain medical conditions and provided mechanisms for enforcement, including professional discipline for healthcare providers and extended statutes of limitations for lawsuits.

In response, groups of transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers challenged these laws in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. They sought preliminary injunctions to prevent the laws from taking effect. In both cases, district courts initially granted injunctions, finding that the laws likely infringed on parents’ fundamental rights to direct their children's medical care and discriminated based on sex. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed these injunctions, allowing the laws to go into effect pending further legal proceedings.

Question

Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

[23-867] Republic of Hungary v. Simon Dec 03, 2024

Show notes

Republic of Hungary v. Simon

Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 3, 2024.

Petitioner: Republic of Hungary.
Respondent: Rosalie Simon.

Advocates:

Joshua S. Glasgow (for the Petitioners)
Sopan Joshi (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)
Shay Dvoretzky (for the Respondents)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

This case arises from the Hungarian government’s confiscation of Jewish-owned property during the Holocaust. In 1944, Hungary rapidly exterminated over half a million Jews and seized their property. Fourteen Holocaust survivors sued Hungary and its agency, Magyar Államvasutak Zrt., seeking compensation for this seized property. To overcome Hungary’s sovereign immunity, the plaintiffs invoked the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception, asserting they were either stateless or Czechoslovakian nationals at the time of the takings, not Hungarian nationals. This claim was made in response to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Fed. Republic of Germany v. Philipp that a country’s taking of property from its own nationals is generally excluded from the FSIA’s expropriation exception.

The case has a complex litigation history, with multiple appeals focusing on the plaintiffs’ nationality status and FSIA jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Hungary to disprove, contrasting with the Second Circuit’s decision that plaintiffs must demonstrate a link between the expropriated property’s funds and U.S. commercial activity.

Question

1. Does historical commingling of assets suffice to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?

2. Must a plaintiff make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference?

3. Does a sovereign defendant bear the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA?

[23-824] United States v. Miller Dec 02, 2024

Show notes

United States v. Miller

Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 2, 2024.

Petitioner: United States of America.
Respondent: David L. Miller.

Advocates:

Yaira Dubin (for the Petitioner)
Lisa S. Blatt (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2014, All Resorts Group, Inc. paid $145,138.78 to the Internal Revenue Service to cover personal tax debts of two of its principals. The company filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2017. Subsequently, the United States Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding against the United States to avoid these transfers, relying on Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and Utah's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The United States did not contest the substantive elements required to establish a voidable transfer but argued that sovereign immunity would bar an actual creditor from avoiding the tax payments outside of bankruptcy. This prevented the Trustee from satisfying the "actual creditor requirement" of Section 544(b)(1). The Trustee countered that the sovereign immunity waiver in Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code applied not only to the adversary proceeding but also to the underlying state law cause of action. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Trustee, and both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Question

May a bankruptcy trustee avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy?

[23-1038] FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C. Dec 02, 2024

Show notes

FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C.

Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Dec 2, 2024.

Petitioner: Food and Drug Administration.
Respondent: Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C.

Advocates:

Curtis E. Gannon (for the Petitioner)
Eric N. Heyer (for the Respondents)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2009, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, requiring FDA approval for new tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. FDA issued guidance on the application process, stating that long-term studies were not necessary and emphasizing the importance of marketing plans to prevent youth access. Manufacturers were encouraged to use existing data and observational studies. In January 2020, FDA announced it would prioritize enforcement against flavored, cartridge-based e-cigarette products due to their popularity among youth.

Wages and White Lion Investments (Triton Distribution) and Vapetasia, manufacturers of flavored nicotine liquids for refillable e-cigarette systems, submitted applications in September 2020. Their applications included existing studies on e-cigarettes generally and detailed marketing plans to restrict youth access. However, in August 2021, FDA unexpectedly announced a new requirement for randomized controlled trials or longitudinal cohort studies specific to flavored products. Shortly after, FDA denied the applications of Triton and Vapetasia, citing a lack of evidence that their flavored products would benefit adult users enough to outweigh risks to youth. The manufacturers challenged this decision, arguing that FDA had changed its requirements without notice and refused to consider their marketing plans.

Question

Was the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected