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:

Opinion Summary: San Francisco v. EPA | Date Decided: 3/4/25 | Case No. 23-753 Mar 04, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: San Francisco v. EPA | Date Decided: 3/4/25 | Case No. 23-753

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that subject permit holders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

Holding: Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include “end result” provisions in NPDES permits. Determining what steps a permittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are met is the EPA’s responsibility, and Congress has given it the tools needed to make that determination.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Gorsuch joined as to all but Part II. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson joined as to Part II. Justice Barrett filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner: Tara M. Steeley, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco, Cal.
For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Oral Argument: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos | Case No. 23-1141 | Date Argued: 3/4/25 Mar 04, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos | Case No. 23-1141 | Date Argued: 3/4/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Mexican Government sued leading members of the American firearms industry, seeking to hold them liable for harms inflicted by Mexican drug cartels. According to Mexico, America's firearms companies have engaged in a series of business practices for decades-from selling semi-automatic rifles, to making magazines that hold over ten rounds, to failing to impose various sales restrictions-that have created a supply of firearms later smuggled across the border and ultimately used by the cartels to commit crimes. Mexico asks for billions of dollars in damages, plus extensive injunctive relief imposing new gun-control measures in the United States. The district court dismissed the case under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars suits against firearms companies based on criminals misusing their products. But the First Circuit reversed. It held that PLCAA does not bar this suit because Mexico stated a claim that defendants' business practices have aided and abetted firearms trafficking to the cartels, proximately harming the Mexican government.

Questions Presented:

Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the "proximate cause" of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to "aiding and abetting" illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.

Holding: Because Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant gun manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers, PLCAA bars the lawsuit.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas and Justice Jackson each filed concurring opinions.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioners: Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D.C.
For respondent: Catherine E. Stetson, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman | Case No. 23-1259 | Date Argued: 3/3/25 Mar 03, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman | Case No. 23-1259 | Date Argued: 3/3/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

For more than 70 years, this Court has "required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6)" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to show 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). This Court has also stressed that a movant must be "faultless" to obtain relief. Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). "This very strict interpretation of Rule 60(b) is essential if the finality of judgments is to be preserved." Gonzalez, 545 U.S. at 535 (cleaned up).

In this case, Respondents declined multiple invitations and opportunities to amend their complaint. The District Court then dismissed their complaint with prejudice, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Only then did Respondents move to vacate the judgment so they could file an amended complaint.

The District Court denied the motion under Rule 60(b)(6)'s well-settled standard. But the Second Circuit reversed, based on an unprecedented "balanc[ing]" test that requires district courts to consider Rule 15(a)'s "liberal pleading principles" when addressing a Rule 60 (b)(6) motion to reopen a judgment for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

Question Presented: Whether Rule 60(b)(6)'s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

Holding: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Robers and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined and in which Justice Jackson joined in all parts but Part III. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judg¬ment.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D. C.
For respondents: Michael J. Radine, Hackensack, N.J.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Oral Argument: CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | Case No. 23-1201 | Date Argued: 3/3/25 Mar 03, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | Case No. 23-1201 | Date Argued: 3/3/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The question presented in Antrix Corp. Ltd. is: Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, "[p]ersonal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).

Holding: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner in 24-17: Aaron Streett, Houston, Tex.
For petitioners in 23-1201: Matthew D. McGill, Washington, D.C.
For United States, as amicus curiae supporting petitioners: Sarah M. Harris, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
For respondents: Carter G. Phillips, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Opinion Summary: Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Date Decided: 2/26/25 | Case No. 23-971 Feb 26, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. | Date Decided: 2/26/25 | Case No. 23-971

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under Rule 60(b).

Holding: A case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a) counts as a “final proceeding” under Rule 60(b).

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. No justice filed a concurring or dissenting opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner: Vincent Levy, New York, N. Y.
For respondent: Matthew D. McGill, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. | Date Decided: 2/26/25 | Case No. 23-900 Feb 26, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. | Date Decided: 2/26/25 | Case No. 23-900

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether an award of the "defendant's profits" under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Holding: In awarding the “defendant’s profits” to the prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, §1117(a), a court can award only profits ascribable to the “defendant” itself. And the term “defendant” bears its usual legal meaning: the party against whom relief or recovery is sought—here, Dewberry Group. The Engineers chose not to add the Group’s affiliates as defendants. Accordingly, the affiliates’ profits are not the (statutorily disgorgable) “defendant’s profits” as ordinarily understood.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner: Thomas G. Hungar, Washington, D. C.
For United States, as amicus curiae: Nicholas S. Crown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
For respondent: Elbert Lin, Richmond, Va.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Oral Argument: Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services | Case No. 23-1039 | Date Argued: 2/26/25 Feb 26, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services | Case No. 23-1039 | Date Argued: 2/26/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority."

Holding: The Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule—which requires members of a majority group to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard to prevail on a Title VII claim—cannot be squared with the text of Title VII or the Court’s precedents.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner: Xiao Wang, Charlottesville, Va.; and Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
For respondent: T. Elliot Gaiser, Solicitor General, Columbus, Ohio.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Opinion Summary: Lackey v. Stinnie | Date Decided: 2/25/25 | Case No. 23-621 Feb 25, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Lackey v. Stinnie | Date Decided: 2/25/25 | Case No. 23-621

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties' legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Holding: The plaintiff drivers here—who gained only preliminary injunctive relief before this action became moot—do not qualify as “prevailing part[ies]” eligible for attorney’s fees under §1988(b) because no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief on the merits that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

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

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner: Erika L. Maley, Solicitor General, Richmond, Va.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
For respondents: Brian D. Schmalzbach, Richmond, Va.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Oral Argument: Esteras v. United States | Case No. 23-7483 | Date Argued: 2/25/25 Feb 25, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Esteras v. United States | Case No. 23-7483 | Date Argued: 2/25/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The supervised-release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), lists factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for a court to consider when sentencing a person for violating a supervised release condition. In that list, Congress omitted the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(2)(A)-the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.

Question Presented: Even though Congress excluded section 3553(a)(2)(A) from section 3583(e)'s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, may a district court rely on the section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release?

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioners: Christian J. Grostic, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Cleveland, Ohio.
For Respondent: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: Perttu v. Richards | Case No. 23-1324 | Date Argued: 2/25/25 Feb 25, 2025

Show notes

Case Info: Perttu v. Richards | Case No. 23-1324 | Date Argued: 2/25/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?

Oral Advocates:

For petitioner: Ann M. Sherman, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich.
For respondent: Lori Alvino McGill, Charlottesville, Va.

Related Podcasts