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:

Oral Argument: Lackey v. Stinnie | Case No. 23-621 | Date Argued: 10/8/24 Oct 08, 2024

Show notes

Case Info: Lackey v. Stinnie | Case No. 23-621 | Date Argued: 10/8/24 | Date Decided: 2/25/25

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 Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Oral Argument: Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger | Case No. 23-677 | Date Argued: 10/7/24 Oct 07, 2024

Show notes

Case Info: Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger | Case No. 23-677 | Date Argued: 10/7/24 | Date Decided: 1/15/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Holding: When a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal to federal court, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case must be remanded to state court.

Result: Affirmed.

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

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioners: Katherine B. Wellington, Boston, Mass.
For respondents: Ashley C. Keller, Chicago, Ill.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Oral Argument: Williams v. Washington | Case No. 23-191 | Date Argued: 10/7/24 Oct 07, 2024

Show notes

Case Info: Williams v. Washington | Case No. 23-191 | Date Argued: 10/7/24 | Date Decided: 2/21/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

Holding: Where a state court’s application of a state exhaustion requirement in effect immunizes state officials from §1983 claims challenging delays in the administrative process, state courts may not deny those §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

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

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For petitioners: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C.
For respondent: Edmund G. LaCour, Jr., Solicitor General, Montgomery, Ala.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Opinion Summary: Trump v. United States | Date Decided: 7/1/24 | Case No. 23-939 Jul 01, 2024

Show notes

The question presented in this case is: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

The Supreme Court held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00 Introduction

00:14 Question Presented

00:30 Voting Breakdown

01:10 Chief Justice Roberts Majority Opinion

02:08 Holding

21:32 Justice Thomas Concurring Opinion

23:48 Justice Barrett Opinion Concurring in Part

28:59 Justice Sotomayor Dissenting Opinion

38:40 Justice Jackson Dissenting Opinion

Trump v. United States | Case No. 23-939 | Date Argued: 04/25/24 Apr 25, 2024

Show notes

The Question Presented is: Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

Argued:

For Petitioner: D. John Sauer; For Respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Counselor to the Special Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

TIMESTAMPS:

00:00 Introduction

00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins

1:58 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin

27:18 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin

57:34 Petitioner Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins

59:27 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin

128:11 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin

2:39:15 Respondent Questions End, Rebuttal (D. John Sauer said he had nothing further)

Oral Argument: Moyle v. United States | Case No. 23-726 | Date Argued: 4/24/24 | Date Decided: 6/27/24 Apr 24, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: Moyle v. United States | Case No. 23-726 | Date Argued: 4/24/24 | Date Decided: 6/27/24

Case consolidated with Idaho v. United States, Case No. 23-727.

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether EMTALA preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions, like Idaho's Defense of Life Act.

Holding: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Result: Dismissed.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Per curiam opinion. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and in which Justice Jackson joined as to Part II. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined, and Justice Gorsuch joined as to Parts I and II.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Joshua N. Turner, Chief of Constitutional Litigation and Policy, Boise, Idaho.
For Respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. VIDED.

Oral Argument: Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney | Case No. 23-367 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/13/24 Apr 23, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney | Case No. 23-367 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/13/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Under the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issues, prosecutes, and adjudicates complaints alleging that employers committed unfair labor practices. 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Section 10(j) of the Act authorizes federal district courts, while the NLRB adjudication remains pending, to grant preliminary injunctive relief at the NLRB's request "as [the court] deems just and proper." Id. § 160(j).

Question Presented: Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB's requests for section 10(j) injunctions under the traditional, stringent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under some other more lenient standard.

Holding: When considering the National Labor Relations Board's request for a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, district courts must apply the traditional four factors articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 8-1. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: Department of State v. Muñoz | Case No. 23-334 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24 Apr 23, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: Department of State v. Muñoz | Case No. 23-334 | Date Argued: 4/23/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., the decision to grant or deny a visa application rests with a consular officer in the Department of State. Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), any noncitizen whom a consular officer "knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in* * * unlawful activity" is ineligible to receive a visa or be admitted to the United States.

Question Presented:

Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen.
Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.

Holding: A U.S. citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondents: Eric T. Lee, Southfeld, Mich.

Oral Argument: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson | Case No. 23-175 | Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24 Apr 22, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson | Case No. 23-175 | Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 6/28/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

In Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prevents cities from enforcing criminal restrictions on public camping unless the person has "access to adequate temporary shelter." Id. at 617 & n.8. In this case, the Ninth Circuit extended Martin to a classwide injunction prohibiting the City of Grants Pass from enforcing its public-camping ordinance even though civil citations. That decision cemented a conflict with the California Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, which have upheld similar ordinances, and entrenched a broader split on the application of the Eighth Amendment to purportedly involuntary conduct. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless denied rehearing en banc by a 14-to-13 vote.

Question Presented: Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

Holding: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Theane D. Evangelis, Los Angeles, Cal.
For United States, as Amicus Curiae: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: Smith v. Spizzirri | Case No. 22-1218 Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 5/16/24 Apr 22, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: Smith v. Spizzirri | Case No. 22-1218 Date Argued: 4/22/24 | Date Decided: 5/16/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

This case presents a clear and intractable conflict regarding an important statutory question under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.1-16. The FAA establishes procedures for enforcing arbitration agreements in federal court. Under Section 3 of the Act, when a court finds a dispute subject to arbitration, the court "shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until [the] arbitration" has concluded. 9 U.S.C. 3 (emphasis added). While six circuits read Section 3's plain text as mandating a stay, four other circuits have carved out an atextual "exception" to Section 3's stay requirement-granting district courts discretion to dismiss (not stay) if the entire dispute is subject to arbitration. In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit declared itself bound by circuit precedent to affirm the district court's "discretion to dismiss," despite "the plain text of the FAA appear[ing] to mandate a stay." The panel candidly acknowledged the 6-4 circuit conflict, and a two-judge concurrence emphasized "the courts of appeals are divided," asserted the Ninth Circuit's position is wrong, and urged "the Supreme Court to take up this question"-an issue this Court has twice confronted but reserved in the past.

Question Presented: Whether Section 3 of the FAA requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.

Holding: When a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks discretion to dismiss the suit.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

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

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex.
For Respondents: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.

Related Podcasts