The High Court Report - SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Latest Episodes:

Opinion Summary: GEO Group v. Menocal Mar 01, 2026

Show notes

Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal | Case No. 24-758 | Oral Argument Date: 11/10/25 | Docket Link: Here

Overview

Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Geo Group versus Menocal, which examines whether derivative sovereign immunity creates a fast-pass to appeal. Detainees sue a private contractor running an ICE facility, claiming forced labor—the company says "the government told me to do it" and wants to skip straight to appeal after the trial court found that the contractor held no derivative sovereign immunity. Must government contractors face years of expensive, potentially politically-motivated litigation first, or can they appeal immediately?

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner (GEO Group): Dominic E. Draye, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent (Menocal): Jennifer D. Bennett, San Francisco, California.
For United States as Amicus Curiae (Supporting Respondent): Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Holding: Parties cannot immediately appeal pretrial orders denying derivative sovereign immunity.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined, and in which Justice Thomas joined as to Parts I and III. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Opinion Summary: Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist Feb 28, 2026

Show notes

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Date Decided: 2/24/26 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: Here

Overview

Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group versus Palmquist, a forum fight about when courts keep cases they never should have had. A Texas family sued two companies over their child's heavy metal poisoning from baby food—but after a federal court wrongly kicked out one defendant and ran a two-week trial, an appeals court said the case never belonged in federal court, forcing everyone back to square one.

Questions Presented:

Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.

Holding: Because the federal trial court wrongly dismissed Whole Foods Market, the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner (Hain and Whole Foods): Sarah E. Harrington, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent (Palmquist): Russell S. Post, Houston, Texas

Interview: Adeel Bashir Breaks Down US v. Hemani | Guns and Ganja Fed Felony Trap Feb 27, 2026

Show notes

United States v. Hemani reaches far beyond marijuana policy. This case forces the Supreme Court to answer a fundamental question: Can the government strip Second Amendment rights without clearly defining who loses them?

Adeel Bashir joins The High Court Report to break down this high-stakes case. Adeel works as Federal Public and Community Defenders Sentencing Resource Counsel and defended numerous clients charged under this exact statute.

Adeel explains the case from each angle then widens the lens. Controlled substances under federal law include Adderall, Xanax, cough medicine, and supplements common in gyms across America. Millions of Americans could fall within the statute's reach without ever knowing it.

But the stakes cut both directions. The government argues that courts should defer to congressional judgment about which groups pose risks; a principle that, if accepted, preserves legislative flexibility to address evolving public safety concerns. Adeel walks through Congress' power to classify conduct as dangerous while noting that other prohibited-person categories may face similar challenges.

Something must give. The Court's reasoning here will define Second Amendment battles for years. You don't want to miss this episode.

Oral arguments take place Monday, March 2nd. To learn more about the case, check out The High Court Report case preview: Here.

Connect with Adeel Bashir on LinkedIn: Here.

Opinion Summary: Postal Service v. Konan | Can a Person Sue the Post Office for Intentional Nondelivery? Feb 26, 2026

Show notes

Postal Service v. Konan | Case No. 24-351 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 | Opinion Date: 2/24/26

Overview

Today we break down the February 24, 2026 Supreme Court opinion in United States Postal Service versus Konan. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the postal exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act shields the government even when postal workers deliberately refuse to deliver your mail—not just when they mess up accidentally.

Justice Thomas wrote for the majority. Justice Sotomayor fired back with a sharp dissent, accusing the majority of handing the Postal Service blanket immunity that Congress never intended to give.

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question Presented: Whether a plaintiff can sue the postal service for intentional mail nondelivery where the statute at issue (the Federal Tort Claims Act) permits lawsuits for "loss", "miscarriage", and "negligent transmission".

Holding: The United States retains sovereign immunity for claims arising out of the intentional nondelivery of mail because both “miscarriage” and “loss” of mail under the FTCA’s postal exception can occur as a result of the Postal Service’s intentional failure to deliver the mail.

Result: Vacated.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Easha Anand, Menlo Park, Ca.

Interview: How Adam Feldman Predicted the Trump Tariff Cases Ruling Feb 25, 2026

Show notes

Dr. Adam Feldman called it before the Court released it. His 25-year dataset — 1,700+ cases — flagged the timing before anyone else caught on. The High Court Report sits down with Dr. Feldman to break down exactly what the numbers revealed.

In this episode:

Why 107 days and six separate opinions directly predict each other — and what that pattern means for the 48 cases still ahead.

How one dataset predicted the Trump Tariff ruling's timing, complexity, and doctrinal fractures before the Court said a word.

Why the Court now pushes more than half its rulings into June — and what Trump's emergency application surge does to that trend.

Whether the Court's faster pace this term marks real change — or a one-year blip.

About Dr. Adam Feldman:

Founder of Empirical SCOTUS. Statistics Editor at SCOTUSblog. Head of legal analytics firm Empirilaw. J.D., UC Berkeley. Ph.D. in Political Science, USC. Post-doctoral fellow, Columbia Law School. Author of 15 peer-reviewed articles. Former trial lawyer.

Reach Adam Feldman via:

LinkedIn: Here;
Empirical SCOTUS: Here;
Legalytics: Here;
Empirilaw: Here.

Adam Feldman's Work:

The Supreme Court’s Vanishing Fall Docket: How Decision Timing Has Transformed Since 2000 (Jan. 26, 2026), available at: https://legalytics.substack.com/p/the-supreme-courts-vanishing-fall?utm_source=publication-search
The $133 Billion Question: Inside the Supreme Court’s Historic Tariff Case (Feb. 6, 2026), available at: https://legalytics.substack.com/p/the-133-billion-question-inside-the?utm_source=publication-search

Oral Argument: Pung v. Isabella County | Foreclosure Over $2k Tax Bill Triggers a Constitutional Clash Feb 25, 2026

Show notes

Overview

The Pung family lost their $194,400 home over a $2,242 tax bill — a tax bill they never owed. Isabella County auctioned the home for $76,000 and returned only $73,766. The family lost over $118,000 in home equity.

Question: Can local governments pay a person their home’s auction price or their home’s fair market value when the government auctions the home at a foreclosure sale?

Background: The Pung family lost $194,400 home over $2,242 tax bill they never owed. Isabella County auctioned the home, fetching $76,000. Pung family received only $73,766 back.

Pung Argues: Counties must give fair market value as compensation when government takes property, not whatever an auction produces. Losing $118,000 over $2,242 creates grossly disproportionate punishment violating Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause.

Isabella County Argues: Just compensation means what someone pays at a free and fair auction. No penalty exists, the Pungs lost only difference between auction price and debt.

Stakes: If Pung wins: Property owners get market value from forced home sales regardless of what a person pays at an auction. If Isabella County wins: property owners risk losing home equity over small, disputed, but unpaid property taxes.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner (Pung): Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC.
United States as Amicus Curiae: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice.
For Respondent (Isabella County, Michigan): Matthew Nelson of Warner Norcross and Judd.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:01:11] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:20] Pung Opening Statement

[00:02:58] Pung Free for All Questions

[00:26:21] Pung Round Robin Questions

[00:51:09] United States Opening Statement

[00:52:18] United States Free for All Questions

[00:59:56] United States Round Robin Questions

[01:19:40] Isabella County Opening Statement

[01:21:46] Isabella County Free for All Questions

[01:39:59] Isabella County Round Robin Questions

[01:43:00] Pung Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Enbridge v. Nessel | Deadline Drama and Treaty Tensions Feb 24, 2026

Show notes

Enbridge Energy v. Nessel | Oral Argument: 2/24/2026 | Case No. 24-783 | Docket Link: Here |

Overview: Pipeline company removes Michigan environmental lawsuit to federal court two years late, claiming extraordinary circumstances involving international treaty and state forum manipulation justify extending statutory deadline.

Question Presented: Can federal may extend the 30-day removal deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) for extraordinary circumstances.

Posture: District court allowed late removal; Sixth Circuit reversed and ordered remand to state court.

Main Arguments:

• Enbridge (Petitioner): (1) Equitable tolling presumption applies to all non-jurisdictional filing deadlines; (2) Congressional exceptions elsewhere don't preclude judicial flexibility here; (3) International treaty invocation and state forum manipulation create extraordinary circumstances

• Nessel (Respondent): (1) Removal deadlines govern forum selection, not claim staleness; (2) Six express statutory exceptions rebut tolling presumption; (3) Strategic litigation choices don't constitute extraordinary circumstances

Implications: Enbridge victory expands defendant flexibility for late federal court access when genuine emergencies arise but risks encouraging strategic removal delays. Nessel victory enforces strict congressional deadlines and prevents removal manipulation but could bar federal jurisdiction even when international treaties or diplomatic relations face genuine threats. Middle-ground ruling might distinguish ordinary delays from cases involving actual foreign policy implications, creating specialized removal doctrine for international law contexts.

The Fine Print:

• 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1): "The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading"

• 1977 U.S.-Canada Transit Pipelines Treaty, Article II(1): "Each Party shall ensure that no public authority in its jurisdiction implements any measure that would have the effect of impeding, redirecting, redirecting or interfering with in any way the transmission of hydrocarbons in transit"

Primary Cases:

• Young v. United States (2002): Equitable tolling applies to statutory deadlines that "prescribe a period within which certain rights may be enforced" unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise

• Arellano v. McDonough (2023): Detailed statutory exceptions within same provision rebut equitable tolling presumption; courts cannot add implied exceptions where Congress specified express ones

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioners (Petitioners Enbridge Energy): John Bursch of Bursch Law PLLC.
For Respondent (Nessel): Ann Sherman, Michigan's Solicitor General.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:00:40] Argument Begins

[00:00:51] Enbridge Opening Statement

[00:02:46] Enbridge Free for All Questions

[00:21:13] Enbridge Round Robin Questions

[00:31:21] Nessel Opening Statement

[00:33:22] Nessel Free for All Questions

[00:55:18] Nessel Round Robin Questions

[00:58:18] Enbridge Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. | Havana Harbor Heist Leads to Cruise Line Crisis Feb 23, 2026

Show notes

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. | Oral Argument: 2/23/2026 | Case No. 24-983 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether Title III liability requires proving defendants trafficked in property plaintiff currently owns a claim to, or property plaintiff would own absent confiscation.

Overview: Cuban property confiscation case challenges Eleventh Circuit's "counterfactual analysis" requiring proof of hypothetical property ownership, potentially gutting Congress's primary tool for pressuring hostile regimes.

Posture: Eleventh Circuit reversed district court grant of summary judgment for petitioner.

Main Arguments:

• Havana Docks (Petitioner): (1) Statute creates liability when plaintiff "owns the claim," not hypothetical property ownership; (2) Cuba confiscated physical dock facilities, not abstract concession rights; (3) Narrow interpretation defeats congressional deterrence objectives

• Cruise Lines (Respondent): (1) Property law requires respecting temporal limitations on original rights; (2) Concession excluded passenger services, preventing trafficking in cargo-only rights; (3) Congress balanced deterrence against property law principles

Implications: Havana Docks victory preserves congressional sanctions tool and reinforces meaningful private remedies against hostile regimes. Cruise lines victory creates roadmap for exploiting confiscated property through temporal limitations arguments, undermining deterrent effect and foreign policy objectives toward Cuba.

The Fine Print:

• 22 U.S.C. §6082(a)(1)(A): "Any person who traffics in property which the Cuban Government confiscated shall face liability to any United States national who owns the claim to such property"

• 22 U.S.C. §6023(12)(A): "Property" includes "any present, future, or contingent right, security, or other interest therein, including any leasehold interest"

Primary Cases:

• Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935): Congress can restrict presidential removal power for independent agencies through "for cause" requirements, establishing legislative authority over agency independence

• United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (2007): Courts reject interpretations that "reduce potential plaintiffs to almost zero, rendering statutory provisions a dead letter"

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner (Havana Docks Corp.): Richard Klingler of Ellis George LLP.
United States as Amicus Curiae: Aimee Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice.
For Respondents (Royal Caribbean Cruises): Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy, PLLC.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:01:02] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:12] Havana Docks Opening Statement

[00:03:15] Havana Docks Free for All Questions

[00:19:05] Havana Docks Round Robin Questions

[00:36:46] United States Opening Statement

[00:38:14] United States Free for All Questions

[00:47:30] United States Round Robin Questions

[00:57:21] Royal Caribbean Opening Statement

[00:59:35] Royal Caribbean Free for All Questions

[01:28:15] Royal Caribbean Round Robin Questions

[01:30:23] Havana Docks Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Exxon Mobil v. Corpora Cion Cimex (cuba) | Standoff Over Castro's 1960 Oil Refinery Heist Feb 23, 2026

Show notes

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corpora Cion Cimex, S.A. (Cuba) | Oral Argument: 2/23/26 | Case No. 24-699 | Docket Link: Here

Overview: Constitutional challenge to D.C. Circuit decision dismissing lawsuit against Cuban state-owned companies operating stolen American oil facilities raises fundamental questions about congressional authority to override sovereign immunity for targeted foreign policy objectives.

Question Presented: Whether Exxon Mobil can sue Cuban companies for seizing Exxon Mobil’s oil refineries and related property.

Posture: D.C. District Court denied Cuban companies' motion to dismiss; D.C. Circuit reversed for lack of jurisdiction

Main Arguments:

• Exxon (Petitioner): (1) Title III's "any person" language including foreign instrumentalities effects clear immunity abrogation; (2) Congressional purpose requires Cuban government accountability without FSIA compliance; (3) Supreme Court precedent eliminates magic-words requirement for immunity waiver

• Cimex (Respondent): (1) Kirtz distinction applies because FSIA creates restrictive immunity regime allowing suit progression; (2) Statutory harmonization principles permit Title III and FSIA coexistence without implied repeal; (3) Petitioner's interpretation creates subject-matter jurisdiction gaps

Implications: Exxon victory enables $9 billion in Cuban expropriation claims while establishing congressional authority for targeted immunity abrogation. A Cimex victory preserves traditional sovereign immunity protections, requiring Americans to satisfy onerous FSIA exceptions for Cuban trafficking claims.

The Fine Print:

• Helms-Burton Act § 6082(a)(1): "Any person that traffics in property which was confiscated...shall be liable to any United States national who owns the claim to such property"

• 22 U.S.C. § 6023(11): "'Person' means any person or entity, including any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state"

Primary Cases:

• Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (2024): Fair Credit Reporting Act abrogated federal sovereign immunity through "any person" language creating government liability; clear congressional intent overcomes immunity presumptions

• Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (2023): Statutory immunity abrogation requires "unmistakably clear" congressional language; recognizing immunity would negate authorized cause of action entirely

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner (Exxon Mobil): Morgan Ratner of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP argues for Petitioner Exxon Mobil.
United States as Amicus Curiae: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice.
For Respondents (Corporación Cimex): Jules Lobel, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:00:55] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:10] Exxon Mobil Opening Statement

[00:03:23] Exxon Mobil Free for All Questions

[00:18:48] Exxon Mobil Round Robin Questions

[00:32:32] United States Opening Statement

[00:33:51] United States Free for All Questions

[00:42:54] United States Round Robin Questions

[00:59:32] Corporacion Cimex Opening Statement

[01:01:51] Corporacion Cimex Free for All Questions

[01:28:01] Corporacion Cimex Round Robin Questions

[01:30:24] Exxon Mobil Rebuttal

Oral Argument Highlights: Trump Tariff Cases Feb 23, 2026

Show notes

Overview

This episode captures the most electrifying moments from the Supreme Court's November 2025 oral arguments in the consolidated Trump Tariff Cases—constitutional blockbusters that pit presidential emergency powers against Congress's exclusive authority to tax. These cases represent the most significant separation of powers challenge since the New Deal, with over $4 trillion in tariffs hanging in the balance.

TIMESTAMPS

[00:00:00] Episode Intro

[00:01:16] Introduction to the Major Question Doctrine

[00:01:16] Trump Tariff Cases Highlights

[00:01:28] Common-Sense Interpretation and Historical Context

[00:02:54] Debating Presidential Powers and Tariffs

[00:03:54] Historical Precedents and Legal Interpretations

[00:05:59] The Nixon Example and Its Significance

[00:09:30] Legislative History and Statutory Interpretation

[00:19:26] Nondelegation Principle and Constitutional Concerns

[00:24:17] Congressional Delegation and Political Oversight

[00:26:52] Historical Context of Presidential Tariff Authority

[00:28:10] Legal Interpretations of 'Regulate Importation'

[00:29:23] Debating the Scope of Presidential Powers

[00:32:07] Judicial Review and Congressional Intent

[00:33:15] Revenue-Raising vs. Embargoes

[00:35:08] Nondelegation Doctrine and Emergency Powers

[00:39:18] Clarifying the Nixon and Algonquin Precedents

[00:41:42] Final Arguments and Hypotheticals

[00:53:02] Episode Conclusion

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

The High Court Report – SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Overview

Overview

Overview

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected