The High Court Report - SCOTUS Oral Arguments - TopPodcast.com

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

The High Court Report – SCOTUS Oral Arguments — Government
The High Court Report – SCOTUS Oral Arguments

The High Court Report makes Supreme Court decisions accessible to everyone.
We deliver comprehensive SCOTUS coverage without the legal jargon or partisan spin—just clear analysis that explains how these cases affect your life, business, and community.

What you get: Case previews and breakdowns, raw oral argument audio, curated key exchanges, detailed opinion analysis, and expert commentary from a practicing attorney who’s spent 12 years in courtrooms arguing the same types of cases the Supreme Court hears.

Why it works: Whether you need a focused 10-minute update or a deep constitutional dive, episodes are designed for busy professionals, engaged citizens, and anyone who wants to understand how the Court shapes America.

When we publish: 3-5 episodes weekly during the Court’s October-June term, with summer coverage of emergency orders and retrospective analysis.

Growing archive: Oral arguments back to 2020 and expanding, so you can hear how landmark cases unfolded and track the Court’s evolution.
Your direct line to understanding the Supreme Court—accessible, thorough, and grounded in real legal expertise.**

Copyright: © Copyright 2025 The High Court Report

Latest Episodes:

Case Preview: Hencely v. Fluor | Battlefield Immunity Battle: When Contractors Breach and Soldiers Bleed Oct 27, 2025

Show notes

Hencely v. Fluor Corp. | Case No. 24-924 | Decided April 22, 2026 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether federal law preempts state tort claims against military contractors for unauthorized conduct violating military instructions.

Overview: Supreme Court narrows military contractor immunity, ruling contractors face state tort liability when they violate rather than follow government orders during wartime operations.

Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for contractor based on federal preemption.

Holding: The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in finding Winston Hencely’s state-law tort claims preempted where the Federal Government neither ordered nor authorized Fluor Corporation’s challenged conduct.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3 decision vacated Fourth Circuit judgment. Justice Thomas authored majority opinion joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson.

Majority Reasoning: (1) Neither Constitution nor federal statute expressly preempts tort suits against contractors who violate military instructions; (2) Boyle doctrine protects contractors only when they conform to government specifications, not when they breach obligations; (3) Federal preemption requires actual conflict with federal law, not judicial speculation about federal interests.

Separate Opinions:

Justice Alito (dissenting, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh): Constitution's war powers exclusively assign military authority to federal government; state regulation of combat zone security arrangements violates structural separation of powers and encroaches on federal military domain.

Implications: Military contractors lose blanket wartime immunity and face state tort liability when violating military instructions. Military families gain clearer accountability paths through state courts. Contractors must strengthen compliance with military supervision requirements to avoid potential liability. Decision reinforces targeted conflict preemption over broad field preemption doctrine.

The Fine Print:

Federal Tort Claims Act § 2680(j): Preserves government immunity for "any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war"
Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2: Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties constitute "the supreme Law of the Land" requiring state law to yield when conflicting with federal directives

Primary Cases:

Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. (1988): Federal preemption protects military contractors only when they conform to government specifications and follow precise government directions
Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. (1940): Contractors receive constitutional immunity only when sued precisely for accomplishing what Federal Government requested under valid authority

Oral Argument: Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 Oct 15, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question Presented: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Los Angeles
For Respondent: Christian B. Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana
United States as Amicus Curiae: Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice

Holding: Brigham City’s objective reasonableness standard for warrantless home entries to render emergency aid applies without further gloss and was satisfied in this case.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Episode Preview

[00:00:50] Argument Begins

[00:01:02] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:03:12] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:27:25] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:39:50] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:41:41] Respondent Free for All Questions

[00:55:44] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:00:52] United States as Amicus Curaie Opening Statement

[01:02:01] United States as Amicus Curaie Free for All Questions

[01:09:15] United States as Amicus Curaie Sequential Questions

[01:10:40] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 Oct 15, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25

Link to Docket: Here

Consolidated with: Robinson v. Callais | Case No. 24-110 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: Here

Case Preview: Here

Background: 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.

Question Presented: Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8? Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny? Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions? Is this action non-justiciable?

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner Press Robinson: Janai Nelson, New York
For Petitioner Louisiana: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
For Appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Missouri
For United States, as Amicus Curiae, in Support of Appellees: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:01:00] Argument Begins

[00:01:09] Appellant Press Robinson Opening Statement

[00:03:32] Appellant Press Robinson Free for All Questions

[00:26:15] Appellant Press Robinson Sequential Questions

[00:47:32] Appellant Louisiana Opening Statement

[00:49:02] Appellant Louisiana Free for All Questions

[00:57:59] Appellant Louisiana Sequential Questions

[01:20:21] Callais Appellees Opening Statement

[01:21:47] Callais Appellees Free for All Questions

[01:31:11] Callais Appellees Sequential Questions

[01:40:35] United States as Amicus Curaie Opening Statement

[01:41:42] United States as Amicus Curaie Free for All Questions

[01:51:08] United States as Amicus Curaie Sequential Questions

[02:25:32] Appellant Press Robinson Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25 Oct 14, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question Presented: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D.C. argued for petitioner.
For Respondent in Support of Vacatur: Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice argued for respondent in support of vacatur.
For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: John F. Bash, Austin, Texas.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:00:58] Argument Begins

[00:01:06] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:03:14] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:14:04] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:18:36] Respondent in Support of Vacatur Opening Statement

[00:19:45] Respondent in Support of Vacatur Free for All Questions

[00:33:22] Respondent in Support of Vacatur Sequential Questions

[00:34:41] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below Opening Statement

[00:37:03] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below Free for All Questions

[01:01:03] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below Sequential Questions

[01:02:09] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25 Oct 14, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Background: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added).

Question Presented:

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added).
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
For Respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below as to Question 1: Kasdin M. Mitchell, Dallas, Tex.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:00:47] Argument Begins

[00:00:55] Petitioner Opening Statement

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

[00:23:01] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:36:49] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:39:09] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:03:04] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:14:14] Court-Appointed Amicus Opening Statement

[01:16:15] Court-Appointed Amicus Free for All Questions

[01:27:23] Court-Appointed Amicus Sequential Questions

[01:28:11] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Postal Service v. Konan | Case No. 24-351 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25 Oct 08, 2025

Show notes

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

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Background: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq .), generally waives the United States' sovereign immunity for suits seeking damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of the federal government "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The FTCA, however, excepts from that waiver of immunity "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. 2680(b).

Question Presented: Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b).

Oral Advocates:

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

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

Oral Argument: Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 Oct 07, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question Presented: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va.
For United States as Amicus Curiae: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Shannon W. Stevenson, Colorado Solicitor General

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Case Preview

[00:00:50] Argument Begins

[00:00:57] Petitioner Opening Statement

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

[00:17:59] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:27:48] United States Opening Statement

[00:35:27] United States Sequential Questions

[00:45:41] Respondent Opening Statement

[01:09:00] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:22:28] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Barrett v. United States | Case No. 24-5774 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 Oct 07, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Barrett v. United States | Case No. 24-5774 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question Presented:

Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree.
Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) (3)(A), a question left open after" United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney , 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023).

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Matthew B. Larsen, Assistant Federal Defender, New York, N. Y.
For Respondent in Support of Petitioner: Aimee Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: Charles L. McCloud, Washington, D.C.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Case Preview

[00:01:00] Argument Begins

[00:01:07] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:02:51] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:14:24] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:30:00] United States Opening Statement

[00:31:10] United States Free for All Questions

[00:41:24] United States Sequential Questions

[00:45:49] Court-Appointed Amicus Opening Statement

[00:47:41] Court-Appointed Amicus Free for All Questions

[01:00:45] Court-Appointed Amicus Sequential Questions

[01:00:57] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 Oct 06, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25

Link to Docket: Here

Episode Preview: Here

Background:

Question Presented: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Frederick R. Yarger, Denver, CO.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Intro

[00:00:33] Argument Begins

[00:00:39] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:02:57] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:25:46] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:31:36] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:33:52] Respondent Free For All Questions

[00:59:19] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:00:05] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral Argument: Villarreal v. Texas | Case No. 24-557 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 Oct 06, 2025

Show notes

Oral Argument: Villarreal v. Texas | Case No. 24-557 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25

Link to Docket: Here

Preview Episode: Here

Question Presented: Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Stuart Banner, Los Angeles, Cal.
For Respondent: Andrew N. Warthen, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, San Antonio, Tex.; and Kevin J. Barber, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Timestamps

Table of Contents

[00:00:00] Episode Intro

[00:00:41] Argument Begins

[00:00:48] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:25:46] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:40:29] Respondent Opening Statement

[01:02:00] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:02:38] United States Opening Statement

[01:13:14] United States Sequential Questions

[01:16:15] Petitioner Rebuttal

Related Podcasts