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.**

Latest Episodes:

Opinion Summary: Kousisis v. United States | Case No. 23-909 | Date Decided: 5/22/25 May 22, 2025

Show notes

Opinion Summary: Kousisis v. United States | Case No. 23-909 | Date Decided: 5/22/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme. Whether a sovereign's statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services.
Whether all contract rights are "property."

Holding: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion con¬curring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal.
For Respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:57 Justice Barrett’s Majority Opinion

09:01 Justice Thomas’ Concurring Opinion

15:22 Justice Gorsuch opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment

24:27 Justice Sotomayor opinion concurring in the judgment

00:29:52 Case Implications

Opinion Summary: A.A.R.P. v. Trump | Case No. 24A1007 | Date Decided: 5/16/25 May 16, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Case No. 24A1007 | Date Decided: 5/16/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether Venezuelan nationals detained as alleged members of a terrorist organization are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice and opportunity to challenge their removal before being deported under the Alien Enemies Act, and if so, what minimum notice requirements must the government provide to satisfy due process.

Plain Language Breakdown:

In this case, the Supreme Court decided that Venezuelan nationals detained by the government as alleged members of a terrorist organization must receive adequate notice before being removed from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act. The Court found that the District Court's inaction for over 14 hours constituted a constructive denial of the detainees' request for emergency relief, and that due process requires notice that allows detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal through habeas proceedings. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal and granted an injunction preventing the government from removing class members until the Fifth Circuit could determine what level of notice is constitutionally required.

Justice Kavanaugh concurred, agreeing with the temporary injunction but expressing a preference for the Supreme Court to resolve the critical legal issues promptly rather than remanding to lower courts.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the District Court's actions were reasonable given the circumstances and insufficient evidence was presented to prove imminent harm to the detainees; he also questioned whether class relief could be obtained in habeas proceedings and whether the requirements for class certification could be met in this case.

Voting Details: The Supreme Court delivered a Per Curiam opinion. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, with whom Justice Thomas joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction and Plain Language Breakdown

02:10 Summary of Per Curiam Opinion

12:47 Summary of Justice Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion

14:33 Summary of Justice Kavanaugh Dissenting Opinion

Highlights: Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc. | Case No. 24A884 | Date Argued: 5/15/25 May 16, 2025

Show notes

Here are some highlights from the Trump v. CASA, Inc. case heard on May 15, 2025.

Justice Kagan and Justice Barrett went viral for their questions. Those portions begin around 09:17.

Please see the oral argument episode for additional case details.

As always, I welcome any feedback on the episode or podcast.

Email: scotus.cases.pod@gmail.com.

Oral Argument: Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc. | Case No. 24A884 | Date Argued: 5/15/25 May 16, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc. | Case No. 24A884 | Date Argued: 5/15/25

Consolidation Note: The following cases were consolidated: (1) Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc., Case No. 24A884; (2) Trump, President of U.S. v. Washington, Case No. 24A885; and (3) Trump, President of U.S. v. New Jersey, Case No. 24A886.

Parties:

Applicants: United States and Federal Officials
Respondents: (1) States and cities such as New Jersey, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, and the City and County of San Francisco; (2) Immigrant rights organizations such as CASA, Inc. and Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, Inc; and (3) private individuals.

Links to Docket: Here (Case No. 24A884); Here (Case No. 24A885); and Here (Case No. 24A886).

Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s 1/20/25 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states.

Background:

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order regarding birthright citizenship.
Section 1 of the Order recognizes that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., confer citizenship upon all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. That provision, known as the Citizenship Clause, repudiated Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), which infamously misinterpreted the Constitution to deny U.S. citizenship to people of African descent based solely on their race. Congress has reaffirmed the Citizenship Clause in the INA, which provides that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is a citizen of the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1401(a).
Section 1 of the Order identifies two circumstances in which a person born in the United States is not subject to its jurisdiction: “(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that 6 person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.” Citizenship Order § 1.
Section 2 of the Order directs the Executive Branch (1) not to issue documents recognizing U.S. citizenship to the persons identified in Section 1 and (2) not to accept documents issued by state, local, or other governments purporting to recognize the U.S. citizenship of such persons. See Citizenship Order § 2(a). Section 2 specifies that those directives “apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order,” i.e., after February 19. Id. § 2(b).
Three district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have issued overlapping nationwide injunctions at the behest of 22 States, two organizations, and seven individuals. Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to “hundreds of thousands” of unspecified individuals who are “not before the court nor identified by the court.”
Three Circuit Courts of Appeals refused to limit the nationwide injunctions.

Applicant's Position:

The Solicitor General argues that universal injunctions have reached crisis levels, particularly since the start of the current Administration in 2025. The Solicitor General notes that district courts issued more universal injunctions and temporary restraining orders in February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration. The Solicitor General contends this trend prevents the Executive Branch from performing its constitutional functions before courts can fully examine the merits of those actions, and threatens to overwhelm the Supreme Court's emergency docket.
The Solicitor General asserts that the universal injunctions in this case are particularly problematic because they extend to all 50 states and millions of aliens nationwide, even though tailored relief for the actual plaintiffs would fully address their alleged harms.
The Solicitor General argues the injunctions were improperly granted to States that lack standing to raise Citizenship Clause claims, defying the principle that States may only assert their own rights, not those of third parties. Furthermore, the Solicitor General contends the injunctions improperly bar federal agencies from even developing implementation guidance, and the overlapping nature of multiple universal injunctions from different courts creates a "jurisdictionally messy" scenario where the government must prevail in multiple appeals to implement the Order anywhere.

Respondents' Position:

Respondents argue that this case presents a uniquely poor candidate for challenging universal injunctions. They emphasize that the Executive Order directly conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent interpreting the Citizenship Clause, and the government notably does not even attempt to defend the Order's constitutionality in its emergency application. The Respondents contend that while emergency relief might be appropriate in some cases to limit the geographic scope of relief, it is not appropriate where the Supreme Court has already settled the precise constitutional question for the entire nation.
Respondents also argue that the government failed to demonstrate any significant or irreparable harm that would justify emergency relief, let alone warrant contravening nationwide precedent. They point out that the injunctions merely protect a status quo regarding birthright citizenship that dates back to English common law and has existed throughout American history, except for the aberration of Dred Scott.
Respondents emphasize that maintaining this status quo until the cases are resolved imposes no harm on the Executive Branch, while stripping hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship would inflict tremendous and irreparable harms on the States and the public.

Oral Advocates:

For Applicants: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For State and City Respondents: Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Solicitor General, Trenton, N.J.
For Private Respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D.C.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Introduction

[00:00:14] Applicant's Opening Statement Begins

[00:02:13] Applicant Free for All Questions Begin

[00:27:45] Applicant Sequential Questions Begin

[01:03:17] Applicant Questions End, Respondent (State and City) Opening Statement Begins

[01:05:25] Respondent (State and City) Free for All Questions Begin

[01:19:03] Respondent (State and City) Sequential Questions Begin

[01:43:37] Respondent (State and City) Questions End, Respondent (Private) Opening Statement Begins

[01:44:56] Respondent (Private) Free for All Questions Begin

[02:00:10] Respondent (Private) Sequential Questions Begin

[02:13:40] Respondent (Private) Questions End, Applicant Rebuttal Begins

Opinion Summary: Barnes v. Felix | Case No. 23-1239 | Date Decided: 5/15/25 May 15, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Barnes v. Felix | Case No. 23-1239 | Date Argued: 1/22/25 | Date Decided: 5/15/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from using "unreasonable" force. U.S. Const. amend. IV. In Graham v. Connor, this Court held that reasonableness depends on "the totality of the circumstances." 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (quotation marks omitted). But four circuits-the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth-cabin Graham. Those circuits evaluate whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred under the "moment of the threat doctrine," which evaluates the reasonableness of an officer's actions only in the narrow window when the officer's safety was threatened, and not based on events that precede the moment of the threat. In contrast, eight circuits-the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits-reject the moment of the threat doctrine and follow the totality of the circumstances approach, including evaluating the officer's actions leading up to the use of force.

In the decision below, Judge Higginbotham concurred in his own majority opinion, explaining that the minority approach "lessens the Fourth Amendment's protection of the American public" and calling on this Court "to resolve the circuit divide over the application of a doctrine deployed daily across this country." Pet. App. 10a-16a (Higginbotham, J., concurring).

Question Presented: Whether courts should apply the moment of the threat doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. That analysis demands careful attention to the facts and circumstances relating to the incident. Most notable here, the totality of the circumstances inquiry has no time limit.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky, Washington, D. C.; and Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
For Respondents: Charles L. McCloud, Washington, D. C.; and Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Austin, Tex. (for Texas, et al., as amici curiae.)

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

[00:00] Introduction

[00:38] Justice Kagan Unanimous Opinion

[04:35] Justice Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion

[10:12] Case Implications

In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey of Justice David Souter May 09, 2025

Show notes

In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey of Justice David Souter

Episode Overview

In this special memorial episode, we discuss the remarkable life and judicial career of Justice David H. Souter, a Supreme Court Justice who defied political expectations and remained committed to principled jurisprudence.

Key Highlights

Born: September 17, 1939 in Melrose, Massachusetts
Appointed to Supreme Court: 1990 by President George H.W. Bush
Retired: 2009 (succeeded by Justice Sotomayor)
Passed Away: May 8, 2025

Notable Career Milestones

Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University
New Hampshire Attorney General
Associate Justice of New Hampshire Supreme Court
Judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals
Supreme Court Justice (1990-2009)

Landmark Cases Discussed

1. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) (Opinion Here)

Co-authored opinion affirming Roe v. Wade
Crafted influential section on judicial precedent

2. Bush v. Gore (2000) (Opinion Here)

Demonstrated judicial independence
Critiqued recount process while questioning judicial overreach

Judicial Philosophy Highlights

Believed law should adapt to empirical realities
Advocated for judicial restraint
Supported separation of church and state
Consistently prioritized legal principles over political expectations

The Supreme Court issued two press releases: Here and Here.

Interview: From Buffalo to the Bench, A Conversation with Chief Justice Roberts May 08, 2025

Show notes

Episode Description:

This episode features a May 7, 2025 conversation between Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo. They discuss why judicial independence matters in our democracy and how it helps balance power between different parts of government.

Both judges share stories about their personal backgrounds, law school experiences, and key moments in their careers. They also talk about what makes legal writing effective and why court decisions should be written clearly so everyone can understand them. The conversation gives listeners a unique look into the thoughts of two important judges as they reflect on their shared history and how the legal world has changed over time.

Background:

On May 7, 2025, Chief Justice John Roberts headlined the Western District of New York 125th Anniversary Dinner Event in Buffalo, NY. As part of this event, U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo interviewed Chief Justice Roberts. From the Event's press release:

“Chief Justice Roberts was born in Buffalo and spent his early childhood here, so we claim him as one of our own,” said Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford. “His willingness to join us for our 125th Anniversary makes the celebration all the more special. It’s a testament to Western New York’s rich legal history and the Chief Justice’s commitment to our profession.”

Event Press Release: Here.

H/T to WGRZ-TV for the recording.

Timestamps:

00:00 Welcoming Remarks and Reflections

00:57 Reflecting on the Past: A Journey Back to Buffalo

09:26 The Art of Writing Clearly

14:07 Judicial Independence and Its Implications

25:42 The Role of the Chief Justice in Public Life

32:04 Reflections on Two Decades on the Court

38:43 The Evolution of Legal Perspectives

43:20 The Influence of Judicial Mentorship

48:35 Reflections on Clerking and the Law

Emergency Docket Order Summary: United States v. Shilling | Order Decided: 5/6/25 | Case No. 24A1030 May 06, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: United States v. Shilling | Order Decided: 5/6/25 | Case No. 24A1030

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the nationwide injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Plain English Translation: This order means that the district court’s nationwide injunction is on hold until final adjudication of the case on the merits. The district court’s nationwide injunction prohibited the Department of Defense from implementing a policy that generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for gender dysphoria.

Voting Breakdown: The Order is unsigned. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:16 Question Presented

00:28 Emergency Order Text

01:23 Voting Breakdown

01:31 Plain English Order Summary

02:07 Procedural History - Policy Adoption

02:39 Procedural History - Respondent Identities

02:52 Procedural History - District Court Orders

04:39 Procedural History - Government Appeals Denial of Stay of Nationwide Injunction to 9th Circuit; 9th Circuit Denies Appeal

05:15 Procedural History - Government Appeals Applies to Supreme Court for a Stay

05:20 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Satisfies Rational Basis Review

06:42 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Comports with the First Amendment

07:49 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Complies with the Due Process Clause and Principles of Equity

07:59 Summary of Government Application - The District Court Erred in Issuing a Nationwide Injunction

10:04 Summary of Government Application - The Remaining Factors Support the Issuance of a Stay

Opinion Summary: Feliciano v. Department of Transportation | Date Decided: 4/30/25 | Case No. 23-861 Apr 30, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Feliciano v. Department of Transportation | Date Decided: 4/30/25 | Case No. 23-861

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether 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.

Holding: A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” as described in §101(a)(13)(B) is entitled to differential pay if the reservist’s service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency without any showing that the service bears a substantive connection to a particular emergency.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

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

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt
For Respondent: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:15 Question Presented

00:23 Voting Breakdown

00:40 Justice Gorsuch Majority Opinion

08:10 Result

08:11 Justice Thomas Dissenting Opinion

14:41 Case Implications

Oral Argument: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25 Apr 30, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25 | Date Decided: 5/22/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Oklahoma Constitution requires Oklahoma to “establish[ ] and maint[ain] . . . a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control.” The Oklahoma Constitution also requires that [n]o public money . . . shall ever be appropriated . . . or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion . . . or sectarian institution.”

Consistent with these constitutional mandates, the Oklahoma Legislature established a type of public school[] established by contract called a charter school. The Oklahoma Charter School Board established a public charter school that fully incorporates Catholic teachings into every aspect of the school, including its curriculum and co-curricular activities.

Following the Board’s predecessor’s establishment of the aforementioned public charter school, the Oklahoma Attorney filed an original action with the Oklahoma Supreme Court to prevent the charter school from operating.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded education.

Questions Presented:

Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.
Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.

Holding: The entire opinion reads: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 4-4. Per Curiam Opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Host Notes: Justice Barrett did not participate in this case. Also, this case was consolidated with St. Isidore of Seville Sch. v. Drummond, Case No. 24-396.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioners in 24-394: James A. Campbell
For Petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinley
For United States, as Amicus Curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice
For Respondent: Gregory G. Garre

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction

00:08 Petitioner (in 24-394) Opening Statement Begins

2:00 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begins

11:10 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin

37:16 Petitioner Questions End, Petitioner (in 24-396) Opening Statement Begins

38:28 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin

44:57 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin

58:15, Petitioner Questions End, Government (as Amicus Curiae) Opening Statement Begins

59:13 Government Free for All Questions Begin

1:08:32 Government Sequential Questions Begin

1:17:33 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins

1:20:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin

1:48:30 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin

2:08:50 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

The High Court Report – SCOTUS Oral Arguments

In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey of Justice David Souter

Episode Overview

Key Highlights

Notable Career Milestones

Landmark Cases Discussed

Judicial Philosophy Highlights

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected