Stay ConnectedAudio of Supreme Court opinions. Finally.
Listen to full-length readings of the most current opinions as they are issued by the Court. Or, browse through a library containing dozens of landmark opinions from the past. Either way, it’s free! A rare find for SCOTUS nerds.
Copyright: © Copyright 2022 All rights reserved.
I hope you will follow me to my Youtube channel where I will continue to offer free access to all 350+ past episodes and audio of future high-profile Supreme Court opinions.
Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC., decided April 12, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre, decided March 19, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
The unanimous opinion of the Court in DeVillier v. Texas, decided April 16, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
I have something a little different for you today: since I often read documents from the Trump cases on the show, I thought my super nerds might be interested in hearing the audio from a guest lecture I gave last week summarizing the four Trump criminal cases at a Palomar College event held every semester called the Political Economy Days Lecture Series.
If you would like to watch a video version, click here.
The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in MacQuarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al., decided April 12, 2024.
The Court is asked whether the Second Circuit erred in holding-in conflict with the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits- that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 can support a private claim under Section l0(b), even in the absence of an otherwise- misleading statement.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Part 2 of 2 of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Pulsifer v. United States, decided March 15, 2024.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_p86a.pdf
A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U. S. C. §3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Part 1 of 2 of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Pulsifer v. United States, decided March 15, 2024.
A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U. S. C. §3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity. The brief is 49 pages long, so I will be recording it in several segments.
If you are interested in listening to the oral arguments in this case, they are scheduled to take place later this month on April 25th at 10 am eastern time. You can listen to the oral arguments as they happen on the Supreme Court website supremecourt.gov.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity.
If you are interested in listening to the oral arguments in this case, they are scheduled to take place later this month on April 25th at 10 am eastern time. You can listen to the oral arguments as they happen on the Supreme Court website supremecourt.gov.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity. The brief is 49 pages long, so I will be recording it in several segments.
If you are interested in listening to the oral arguments in this case, they are scheduled to take place later this month on April 25th at 10 am Eastern time. You can listen to the oral arguments as they happen on the supreme court website supremecourt.gov
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's April 2, 2024 filing responding to Judge Cannon's order requiring preliminary proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on counts 1-32.
If you need a quick explainer on the Presidential Records Act, check out mine.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's April 2, 2024 filing responding to Judge Cannon's order requiring preliminary proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on counts 1-32.
If you need a quick explainer on the Presidential Records Act, check out mine.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
When does a public official’s social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment? Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed (March 15, 2024) and find out.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Today I'll be reading both concurring opinions (which read like dissents) in Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson et al., decided March 4, 2024.
Today I'll be reading the per curiam opinion of the Court in Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson et al., decided March 4, 2024.
Alito, joined by Thomas, dissenting from denial of certiorari in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, decided Feb 20, 2024.
An update with critical commentary regarding today's order granting certiorari in Trump v. United States (from a very unhappy host).
Today I'll be reading the unanimous opinion of the Court in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC, decided Feb 21, 2024.
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in McElrath v. Georgia (Feb 21, 2024)
"Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government," wrote Justice Alito, in his statement explaining why he concurred in the denial of certiorari in Missouri Dept. of Corrections v. Finney (February 20, 2024).
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting from the denial of application for stay and denial of certiorari in Smith v. Hamm (January 25, 2024).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts
The brand-new, unanimous opinion of the Court in Dept. of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, decided February 8, 2024.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts
Today I'll be reading the brand-new, unanimous opinion of the Court in Murray v. USB Securities (Feb 8, 2024) regarding the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts
Final episode for this opinion.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Next episode will be the last for this opinion.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S. v. Trump (the Jan 6th case), as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Note: These episodes may be a little shorter than usual, as I want to get them up ASAP.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the eagerly anticipated D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Trump Jan 6th case, as I promised early last month when I read Judge Tanya Chutkin's memorandum opinion denying Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the case, claiming that presidents have blanket criminal immunity.
Keep your eye out today for Part One!
Listen to the landmark Supreme Court opinion Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) (Free Speech, KKK, Imminent Lawless Action Test)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
Access this opinion and other helpful case information here.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Over the next two episodes, I'll be reading two past opinions that will help us better understand two cases currently before the Court.
The past opinions are Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) and Packingham v. North Carolina (2017). The two cases currently before the Court are Lindke v. Freed and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier; these two similar cases were granted cert on the same day and their oral arguments were both given on the same day - October 31, 2023.
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
Access this opinion and other helpful case information here.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
This is not the yet-to-be-issued D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion regarding the Jan 6th criminal case against Donald Trump (although, I plan to read that opinion as soon as it is issued). Rather, it is in response to a claim of immunity made by Donald Trump in response to several civil suits brought against him for actions surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, consolidated as Blassingame v. Trump (Dec 1, 2023). This important circuit court opinion follows last week's reading of Nixon v. Fitzgerald perfectly; it provides a more thorough background on presidential immunity - a topic that is particularly relevant to current events.
As soon as the Circuit Court issues an opinion on Judge Chutkin's ruling in the Jan 6th case, I will begin reading it for you. However, if the Court issues a new SCOTUS opinion in a case argued this term, it will take priority over reading any Circuit Court rulings issued at or around the same time.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading two very brief opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Tingley v. Ferguson, issued back on December 11th, 2023. The first dissent is from Justice Thomas and is only around 4 pages long; the second is Justice Alito's dissent, which is only a few paragraphs long and is written as if it were meant to be read at the end of Thomas' dissent - so, that's what I'm going to do.
Enjoy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-942_kh6o.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts, or stream directly from your browser at whatscotuswroteus.com
Listen to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Access the text of the opinion and other essential case information here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/79-1738
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts or stream directly from your browser at whatscotuswroteus.com
Listen to the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982)
Access the text of the opinion and other essential case information here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/79-1738
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts or stream directly from your browser at https://www.whatscotuswroteus.com
Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?
Listen to the full opinion of the Supreme Court in Nixon v. United States (1974).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Listen to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
Criminal Action No. 23-257
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Listen to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
Criminal Action No. 23-257
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/115576644.html
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Criminal Action No. 23-257
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan's Memorandum Opinion in response to Donald Trump's motions to dismiss the charges against him based on Presidential immunity and constitutional grounds. Decided Dec 1, 2023. This is the ruling that is currently being considered by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Criminal Action No. 23-257
Access audio and transcript of arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in this week's hearing (Jan 9, 2024) here:
The Chief Justice's 2023 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary
If you would like to listen to this report from last year and the year before, you can find them in the show catalog by scrolling back to December 2022.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts, or at
Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al., filed January 4, 2023.
Today I'll be reading Donald Trump's petition for writ of certiorari regarding the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to exclude him from the Colorado primary election ballot - a petition that the Court recently granted. I know I still owe you all a second half to the Nixon opinion, but I've had a lot of listeners requesting to hear these documents, so I've made an executive decision to read them first.
Donald J. Trump v. Norma Anderson, et al., filed January 4, 2023.
Just a one-minute update regarding some technical difficulties…
Brief in opposition to Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for writ of certiorari before judgment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, filed December 20, 2023.
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Brief in opposition to Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for writ of certiorari before judgment in United States v. Donald J. Trump, filed December 20, 2023.
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Brief of respondent, United States, in opposition (filed October 13, 2023) to petition for a writ of certiorari in Fischer v. United States.
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Brief of respondent, United States, in opposition (filed October 13, 2023) to petition for a writ of certiorari in Fischer v. United States.
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Fischer v. United States petition for writ of certiorari filed September 11, 2023; granted on December 13, 2023
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Fischer v. United States petition for writ of certiorari filed September 11, 2023; granted by the Supreme Court December 13, 2023
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Motion of the United States to expedite briefing on the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and for expedited merits briefing if the Court grants the petition in:
United States of America, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (filed Dec 11, 2023).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Listen to the second half of Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (December 11, 2023).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (December 11, 2023).
Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
In Memoriam: Retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
The Supreme Court has issued the first opinion in an argued case this term: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (Dec 5, 2023)
Access additional resources about this case on oyez.org
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-429
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Justice Thomas, dissenting from the Court's denial of certiorari in E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Abbott (November 20, 2023), a case in which DuPont asked the Court to review the District Court's application of collateral estoppel.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-13_d18e.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Justice Jackson, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissenting from the denial of certiorari in a case involving an Eighth Amendment challenge to a prisoner's conditions of confinement: Johnson v. Prentice (2023).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-693_21p3.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Today I'll be reading the statement of Justice Kavanaugh regarding the denial of application for stay in Griffin v. HM Florida-Orl, LLC; Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted it.
Issued November 16, 2023
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a366_i42k.pdf
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court was asked whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 violated the First Amendment. Listen to audio of the majority opinion now.
Access a pdf copy of the opinion here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/11-210/case.pdf
Access additional resources about the case on oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-210
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court was asked whether the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Listen to audio of the majority opinion now.
Access additional resources about the case on oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-210
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
The Court's official commentary accompanying the recently issued Code of Conduct for Justices. Commentary begins on page ten of the linked document.
Audio of the newly-issued Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, dated November 13, 2023.
Access the original document here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_11-13-23
A new case before SCOTUS this term, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, threatens to overturn the landmark decision of the case I'll be reading today: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you listen to podcasts.
A new case before SCOTUS this term, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, threatens to overturn the landmark decision in the case I'll be reading today: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you listen to podcasts.
A preview of the Supreme Court term ahead and the podcast's third season.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you listen to podcasts or at www.whatscotuswroteus.com.
May a federal inmate who did not challenge their conviction on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity subsequently apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court retroactively invalidates the circuit precedent on which the inmate relied in not challenging their conviction?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jones v. Hendrix (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-857
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
May a federal inmate who did not challenge their conviction on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity subsequently apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court retroactively invalidates the circuit precedent on which the inmate relied in not challenging their conviction?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Jones v. Hendrix (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-857
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does the government have the authority to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by an individual on behalf of the government if it initially declined to take over the case, and if so, what standard applies?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1052
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does the government have the authority to dismiss a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by an individual on behalf of the government if it initially declined to take over the case, and if so, what standard applies?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1052
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-227
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to the opinion of the Court in Smith v. United States (June 2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1576
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to the opinion of the Court in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin (June 2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-381
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Justice Thomas delivers the unanimous opinion of the Court in United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc. (2023).
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1326
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Justice Thomas delivers a unanimous opinion of the Court in United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc.(2023).
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1326
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
An update about the weeks ahead.
2023 Term Supreme Court Calendar
October Session Oral Arguments:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalOctober2023.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalNovember2023.pdf
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-806
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski (2023)
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-806
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion of the Supreme Court in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int'l, Inc. (2023) in which the Court was asked whether the Lanham Act permits the owner of a U.S.-registered trademark to recover damages for the use of that trademark when the infringement occurred outside the United States and is not likely to cause confusion in the United States.
Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-1043
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment?
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Samia v. United States (2023)
Access additional resources about this case on oyez.org:
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does the Securities Act of 1933 require plaintiffs to plead and prove that they bought shares registered under the registration statement they claim is misleading?
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani (2023)
Access additional resources about this here case on oyez.org.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (2023) Majority Opinion
Access additional resources for this case on oyez.org.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
An update on the show as we say goodbye to summer and look forward to a new term next month.
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dubin v. United States (2023)
Visit oyez.org for additional case resources here.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Dubin v. United States (2023)
Is the mention of someone's name during the commission of a predicate offence considered aggravated identity theft?
Visit oyez.org for additional case resources here.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Navajo Nation (2023)
The Court was asked whether the 1868 Treaty between the Navajo Nation and the United States imposes an affirmative duty on the United States to secure water for the tribe.
Visit oyez.org for additional case resources here.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy (June 29, 2023)
In this case, the Court was asked whether inconvenience to coworkers is an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing accommodations for religious exercise as requested by employees.
Find additional resources about this case here on Oyez.org
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy (June 29, 2023)
In this case, the Court was asked whether inconvenience to coworkers is an “undue burden” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such that it excuses an employer from providing accommodations for religious exercise as requested by employees.
Find additional resources about this case here on Oyez.org
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
The State of Georgia v. Donald John Trump et al., filed August 14, 2023 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Access original charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/08/CRIMINAL-INDICTMENT-Trump-Fulton-County-GA.pdf
Final episode of United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case).
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case). Covers pages 21 - 31 of the 45 page indictment.
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case)
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
pages 9-21 of the indictment
United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case)
Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC
Held: A district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing.
Majority opinion in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (June 23, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: An offense may "relate to" obstruction of justice under the Immigration & Nationality Act's definition of an "aggravated felony," even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.
Listen to the majority opinion in Pugin v. Garland (June 22, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to Justice Thomas, concurring in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023) (Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in Counterman v. Colorado (2023)
*Warning: This episode includes a quote containing an "f bomb" precisely at the 3-minute mark, which is why it has been labeled explicit.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
I apologize for the delay in posting this final segment of this opinion; I'm in the middle of a move. Thanks for your patience!
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023). Next episode, I'll be reading the final 19 pages.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: Race-based admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does Colorado's public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation violate the First Amendment?
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does Colorado's public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation violate the First Amendment?
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to part 2 of Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does Colorado's public accommodations law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation violate the First Amendment?
Listen to Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the HEROES Act (2003) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
Audio of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Biden v. Nebraska (2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the HEROES Act (2003) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
Audio of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Biden v. Nebraska (2023). Part 1 of 2.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a web designer to create expressive designs that speak messages with which the designer disagrees.
Majority opinion in Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a web designer to create expressive designs that speak messages with which the designer disagrees.
Majority opinion in Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a web designer to create expressive designs that speak messages with which the designer disagrees.
Majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (June 30, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions.
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions.
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (June 29, 2023)
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions.
Majority Opinion in Moore v. Harper (June 27, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority Opinion in Moore v. Harper (June 27, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority Opinion in Moore v. Harper (June 27, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
The opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Lora v. United States (June 16, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in United States v. Hansen (June 23, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in United States v. Hansen (June 23, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in United States v. Texas (June 23, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment?
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023)
Does the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) preference for Native over non-Native homes when placing Native American foster children violate the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment?
The majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Haaland v. Brackeen (June 15, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Listen to audio of the full federal indictment of Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta issued June 8, 2023 by the U.S. Department of Justice in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Access the full charging document here:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Opinion of the Supreme Court in Dupree v. Younger (May 25, 2023)
A party need not reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment in order to preserve it for appeal.
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (June 8, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (June 8, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in Allen v. Milligan (2023), formerly Merrill v. Milligan.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority opinion in Allen v. Milligan (2023), formerly Merrill v. Milligan.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.
Majority opinion in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters (June 1, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound.
The opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota (May 25, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Per Curiam Opinion of the Supreme Court in Calcutt v. FDIC (May 22, 2023)
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (May 25, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (May 25, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (May 18, 2023) Majority Opinion
Music by Epidemic Sound
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (May 18, 2023) Majority Opinion
Music by Epidemic Sound
Does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 empower the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of state militias?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Ohio Adjutant General's Dept. v. FLRA (2023)
Does Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider?
Audio of Gonzalez v. Google, Inc. (May 18, 2023)
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (May 18, 2023) Unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court.
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (May 18, 2023) Unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court.
Polselli v. IRS (May 18, 2023) unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court.
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (May 11, 2023)
What is the proper test is for determining whether a work is “transformative” under the first factor of the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith(May 18, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
What is the proper test is for determining whether a work is “transformative” under the first factor of the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine?
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Lynn Goldsmith (May 18, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution?
Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Does a California law requiring pork sold in-state to come from animals raised with certain confinement standards violate the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the Constitution?
Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in National Pork Producer's Council v. Ross (May 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (May 11, 2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Percoco v. United States (May 11, 2023).
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Ciminelli v. United States (2023)
Audio of the 1970 opinion of the Supreme Court in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970)
Read in anticipation of the Court’s decision in National Pork Producers v. Ross argued earlier this term.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 2004 opinion of the Supreme Court in KP Permanent Makeup v. Lasting Impression (2004)
Music by Epidemic Sound
If you are interested in learning more about the Supreme Court, there's really no better way to do that than to read the opinions the Justices write. But, if you're a little new to reading SCOTUS opinions, the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court provides the public with helpful, general information contained within the about the court tab of the Court's official website supremecourt.gov.
I'll be reading some of that information in a series of four bonus episodes: The Supreme Court at Work; The Justices; History and Traditions; and an entire episode dedicated to the most helpful frequently asked questions answered on the website. In today's episode, the third in the series, I'll be reading about the history and traditions of the Supreme Court and its iconic building- links to the text have been included in the episode description. Enjoy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/historyandtraditions.aspx
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtbuilding.aspx
Music by Epidemic Sound.
Audio of Justice White's 1993 dissenting opinion in Shaw v. Reno.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of brief readings about the nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, as provided by the Public Information Office.
Episode 2 in a series of four bonus episodes.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Shaw v. Reno (1993) Majority Opinion
Music by Epidemic Sound
About the Court, Part I: The Supreme Court at Work
If you are interested in learning more about the Supreme Court, there's really no better way than to read the opinions the Justices write. But, if you're a little new to reading SCOTUS opinions, the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court provides the public with helpful, general information contained within the about the court tab of the Court's official website supremecourt.gov. In the weeks ahead, I'll be reading some of that information in a series of four bonus episodes: The Supreme Court at Work; The Justices; History and Traditions; and an entire episode dedicated to the most helpful frequently asked questions answered on the website. In today's episode, the first in the series, I'll be reading The Supreme Court at Work - a link to which is included in the episode description. Enjoy.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtatwork.aspx
Audio of Justice Sotomayor's dissent from denial of certiorari in Burns v. Mays (April 24, 2023)
Audio of Justice Jackson's April 3, 2023 dissent from denial of certiorari in Brown v. Louisiana
Audio of Donziger v. United States (March 27, 2023) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari.
Audio of Part 2: MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (April 19, 2023)
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court.
The unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (April 19, 2023) written by Justice Jackson. Next episode will begin with part III of the opinion.
Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Turkiye Halk Bankasi a.k.a. Halkbank v. United States (April 19, 2023) Majority Opinion
Audio of Justice Alito dissenting from grant of application for stay in Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (April 21, 2023)
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Reed v. Goertz (April 19, 2023)
Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in New York v. New Jersey (April 18, 2023)
Audio of Part 2 of the opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (April 14, 2023).
Audio of the opinion of a unanimous Supreme Court in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC (April 14, 2023).
Audio of West Virginia v. B.P.J. (Apr 6, 2023) Justice Alito Dissenting from Denial to Vacate Injunction (Title IX, Transgender Athletes)
Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wilkins v. United States (March 28, 2023)
Audio of Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (March 21, 2023) Majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Audio of Chapman v. Doe (March 20, 2023) Justice Jackson, Dissenting to Grant for Certiorari (Abortion, Munsingwear Vacatur, Dobbs v. Jackson, Mootness)
Audio of Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019) Majority Opinion (States are immune from suit in the courts of other states)
Back in 1993, Gilbert Hyatt was an inventor, raking-in loads of cash from a patent he owned. When an auditor with the Franchise Tax Board of California learned about Hyatt's success, he decided to look into it. As you may have already guessed, the auditor found some discrepancies in Mr. Hyatt's accounting - so, he opened an audit on Hyatt's 1991 state tax return, finding even more discrepancies related to Hyatt's recent move from California to Nevada - so, he extended the audit to include California tax returns from 1992. As a result, the Franchise Tax Board of California found that Hyatt owed the state $1.8 million unpaid taxes, $1.4 million in penalties, and $1.2 million in interest for a total of $4.5 million for 1991. But, wait, there's more. The tax board also found Hyatt owed more than $6 million in taxes and interest for 1992, not including penalties.
Of course, Hyatt challenged the results of the audit - first with the Franchise Tax Board of California (without any luck) and then in California courts. In 1998, he sued the tax board for damages in Nevada state court.
Last episode, I read Nevada v. Hall (1979) a case in which the Court held that sovereign states can be sued in another state's courts without the first state's consent.
So, when Hyatt's case finally worked its way before the Supreme Court, the Franchise Tax Board of California asked the Court to reconsider Nevada v. Hall. In doing so, the Court determined that states are indeed immune from suit in the courts of other states, overruling the Court's forty-year-old precedent in Nevada v. Hall.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Nevada v. Hall (1979) Majority Opinion (State immunity from suit in the courts of another state)
Today I'll be reading the 1979 opinion of the Court in Nevada v. Hall in which respondents, residents of California, sued the State of Nevada for injuries that they sustained on a California highway when a Nevada-owned vehicle on official business collided with a vehicle occupied by the California respondents - killing the Nevada driver.
The question before the Court in this case was whether a state is constitutionally immune from suit in the courts of another state. And, in a 6-3 decision, the Court they are not- permitting sovereign states to be haled into another state's courts without the first state's consent.
Forty years later, in 2019, in a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, the Court overturned Nevada v. Hall in a case I'll be reading next episode - Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which held that that states are indeed immune from suit in the courts of other states.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the dissenting opinion in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)
Music by Epidemic Sound
We continue with the opinion of the Court in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)
Audio of Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) Majority Opinion
In federal court and 48 states, all it takes is one juror to prevent a guilty verdict at trial. Only two states do not abide by this rule; they are Oregon and Louisiana, which require a 10-2 jury verdict.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated to the states the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a unanimous verdict.
The Court said yes, incorporating the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to the states while overturning their 1972 decision in Apodaca v. Oregon, holding that a unanimous verdict is indeed required to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Thomas, Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari in City of Ocala v. Art Rojas (Mar 6, 2023)
Audio of Justice Gorsuch's statement regarding denial of certiorari in City of Ocala v. Art Rojas (March 6, 2023)
Audio of Davis v. United States (Feb 21, 2023) Justice Jackson Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari
This episode, I will be reading Justice Jackson's dissent to the denial of cert in Davis v. United States, decided Feb 21, 2023. Enjoy.
Audio of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Dissenting Opinion
U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR.
Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point.
Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation.
In this case, the Court was asked…
Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?
The Court sided with Bittner in a surprising 5-4 split. Today I'll be reading Justice Barrett's dissenting opinion, in which she is joined by an unlikely collection of colleagues.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2 of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion
U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR.
Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point.
Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation.
In this case, the Court was asked…
Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion
U.S. persons with foreign bank accounts are required to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, commonly known as an FBAR.
Alexandru Bittner, a dual citizen of the U.S. and Romania, failed to report his interests in his foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA). So, the United States government fined him 10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011 - for a grand total of $2.72 million. You might say Mr. Bittner was FUBAR over his FBARS at this point.
Of course, Bittner challenged the fines. The district court held that a $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each account to be reported on the FBAR, so it reduced Bittner's fines to $50,000 total. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that each account he failed to report indeed counted as separate reporting violation.
In this case, the Court was asked…
Is a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or is there a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported?
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (Feb 28, 2023) Majority Opinion (Escheatment, MoneyGram Official Checks)
When property is abandoned and unclaimed, it often ends up becoming the property of the state where it's located - a legal principle called escheatment. But, when such property isn't tangible like, say, real estate - when it's something intangible, like an uncashed money order- figuring out who is entitled to that money can get a little messy.
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There were three questions before the Court in this case regarding uncashed MoneyGram Official Checks - and the answers may determine who gets hundreds of millions of dollars in unclaimed money.
First, what exactly is a MoneyGram Official Check? Is it a traveler’s check, a money order, or some other similar written instrument (other than a third-party bank check) on which a financial organization, business association, or bank is directly liable under federal law.
Second, whether Pennsylvania and Wisconsin may claim any abandoned and unclaimed property associated with MoneyGram Official Checks.
Third, whether all future sums payable on abandoned MoneyGram Official Checks should be paid to Delaware.
Why is this such a big deal to Delaware? Well, for its compact size and population, a disproportionate percentage of American companies are incorporated there to benefit from business-friendly laws. In fact, there are so many businesses in Delaware that deal with unclaimed funds, the state ends up receiving a sizable chunk of revenue each year. In 2021, for example, eight percent of Delaware's state revenue came from unclaimed property - including uncashed moneygram checks. That's because one of those Delaware businesses happens to be - you guessed it - Moneygram.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Barrett's dissenting opinion in Cruz v. Arizona (Feb 22, 2023)
In 2005, John Montenegro Cruz was sentenced to death after a jury convicted him of first-degree murder for killing a Tucson police officer in 2003. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2012, the state court dismissed Cruz’s petition for post-conviction relief and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review.
In 2014, Cruz initiated federal habeas proceedings, which were still ongoing when SCOTUS decided Lynch v. Arizona (Lynch II) in 2016, which held that the Arizona Supreme Court had misapplied precedent. Now, normally, it would have been hopeless for Cruz to file a second petition for post-conviction relief, but for an exception in Arizona law that a “significant change in the law” could intervene in his favor. So, Cruz filed that second petition, arguing that the Lynch II decision was indeed a significant change in the law, that it was retroactive, and that it just might overturn his sentence.
The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Lynch II was not a significant change in the law under Arizona’s rules of criminal procedure Rule 32.1(g) is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Gorsuch, Dissenting in Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (2023)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of NEW OPINION: Cruz v. Arizona (Feb 22, 2023)
In 2005, John Montenegro Cruz was sentenced to death after a jury convicted him of first-degree murder for killing a Tucson police officer in 2003. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. In 2012, the state court dismissed Cruz’s petition for post-conviction relief and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review.
In 2014, Cruz initiated federal habeas proceedings, which were still ongoing when SCOTUS decided Lynch v. Arizona (Lynch II) in 2016, which held that the Arizona Supreme Court had misapplied precedent. Now, normally, it would have been hopeless for Cruz to file a second petition for post-conviction relief, but for an exception in Arizona law that a “significant change in the law” could intervene in his favor. So, Cruz filed that second petition, arguing that the Lynch II decision was indeed a significant change in the law, that it was retroactive, and that it just might overturn his sentence.
The Arizona Supreme Court disagreed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Lynch II was not a significant change in the law under Arizona’s rules of criminal procedure Rule 32.1(g) is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (Feb 22, 2023) Majority Opinion
Michael Hewitt was paid a set, daily rate for his job working as a supervisor on an offshore oil rig, but he frequently had to work far more than the usual 40-hour work week - only without the benefit of overtime. So, Hewitt sued his employer, Helix Energy Solutions, to get the overtime pay that Hewitt argued was owed to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In response, Helix argued that they didn't have to pay overtime to "highly-compensated employee[s]" like Hewitt. But, Hewitt claimed that his set, daily rate technically wasn't even considered a "salary basis" anyway – which, again, meant that he qualified for overtime.
Helix ended up winning in District Court, then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed before the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a
supervisor making over $200,000 a year with a daily rate is entitled to overtime, despite an existing regulation carving out an exception for highly paid executives.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (2023) Majority Opinion - Unanimous
Before David and Kate Bartenwerfer were even married, they bought a house together and decided to join the house-flipping bandwagon. So, they bought a home in San Francisco and renovated it - a project the couple claimed was mostly David's thing - Kate was largely uninvolved in that process. Soon, the Bartenwerfer's flipped the home, selling it to Kieran Buckley. But, what Buckley didn't know was that the home was riddled with significant defects that David knowingly withheld from him. Buckley sued and a jury awarded damages. But, the Bartenwerfer's, now married and deeply in debt, had become insolvent and filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
The bankruptcy court found that the debt could not be discharged in bankruptcy because it had been obtained fraudulently - finding that the couple had intended to deceive Buckley and, specifically, that David knew he was lying about the condition of the house during the sale - and even if Kate didn't know about the fraudulent scheme, she could still be held accountable for the debt because of their partnership relationship.
By the time this case found its way before the Court, the question was whether a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for someone else's fraud, even if they didn't know anything about the fraud when it was committed.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc. (1999) Majority Opinion
Can subcontractors on federal projects force the government to pay when prime contractors don't?
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Dissenting Opinion
The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Majority Opinion
The Court of Indian Offenses is a trial court with jurisdiction over Native Americans where there are no tribal courts. Six months after Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo tribe, pleaded guilty to an assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses, a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual assault for the exact same event that led to his assault charge in the Court of Indian Offenses - and was subsequently found guilty. He challenged his prosecution in federal court, arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution; the Court of Indian Offenses is, after all, a federal agency. The district court ruled against Denezpi, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether a prosecution in the Court of Indian Offenses triggers the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Court said no, it did not.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States (1965)
About six months before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, two very similar cases were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day in January - United States v. Mississippi and Louisiana v. United States - both cases were regarding state voting laws that prevented African Americans from voting. Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States in which the Attorney General of the United States sued the state of Louisiana in a federal court, claiming that the state had violated the Fifteenth Amendment of the US Constitution for denying African-Americans the right to vote through unfair voter registration requirements specifically tailored for that purpose.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, they held that Louisiana's bogus voter suppression laws indeed violated the Fifteenth Amendment. And, in case you were wondering, the Court issued a similar decision in the Mississippi case argued that same day.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Romer v. Evans (1996).
In 1992, the voters of Colorado adopted Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution, which prohibited any legislative, judicial or executive action to protect individuals from discrimination that is based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Several affected citizens challenged the amendment in Court. The trial court issued a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement and, on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Colorado violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; the Court said it did.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1972 opinion of the Court in Eisendtadt v. Baird (1972)
After his lecture on birth control and over-population at Boston University, William Baird gave contraceptive foam to an unmarried woman. But, it was a felony to give contraceptives to unmarried people in Massachusetts in 1967, so Baird was charged with the felony crime of distributing contraceptives to unmarried men or women.
The question before the Court in this case was whether the right to privacy was violated, as in Griswold v. Connecticut. In the end, the Court held that the Massachusetts law was indeed unconstitutional, but not on privacy grounds. Instead, the law's distinction between single and married recipients did not pass the rational basis test of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Justice Sotomayor, Dissenting (Muslim Travel Ban)
Audio of Part 1 of Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in Trump v. Hawaii (2018)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) - also known as the Muslim Travel Ban case in which former President Donald Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645, asserting that it sought to improve the procedures used to screen the citizens of particular countries to determine whether they present “public safety threats” if permitted to enter the United States §1(a). So, the Proclamation placed entry restrictions on nationals from eight foreign countries whose systems for sharing information about those nationals were deemed inadequate by the former President.
There were several questions before the Court in this case.
First, whether the president had the statutory authority to issue the Proclamation to begin with. Also, whether the plaintiffs’ challenge to such authority was justiciable in federal court, whether the global injunction barring enforcement of certain parts of the Proclamation was impermissibly overbroad and, finally, whether the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) - also known as the Muslim Travel Ban case
Audio of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Majority Opinion (Minimum Wage for Women, Right to Contract)
In the case I'll be reading today, the Court revisited the minimum wage for women issue once again. This time, regarding a Washington state law requiring a minimum wage of $14.50 for women for a 48-hour work week. But an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, Elsie Parrish, received less than the required wage. So, she sued her employer to recover the difference in wages owed to her under the law. Her employer argued that the minimum wage requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
This time, the Court held that a minimum wage for women did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. Citing Muller v. Oregon, the Court held that states may use their police power to restrict individual freedom to contract - overruling Adkins and marking an end to the Court's broad view of the freedom to contract during the Lochner era.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Justice Gorsuch, Concurring (Insular Cases)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Majority Opinion (Puerto Rico, SSI Benefits)
Next episode, I'll be reading Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in this case.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through Fourteenth Amendment)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 1: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through Fourteenth Amendment)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Dissent Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)
Audio of Dissent Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions; Handguns)
Audio of Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Handguns)
Audio of new opinion related to orders: Toth v. United States (Jan 23, 2023) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari.
We finally have our first opinion of the Court in an argued case this term! Listen to Audio of the opinion of the Court in Arellano v. McDonough (Jan 23, 2023).
Audio of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in the first Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin in 2013 known as Fisher I.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other helpful case information at Oyez.org.
The original Fisher v. University of Texas case from 2013 known as Fisher I.
Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Today I’ll be reading the 2003 opinion of the Court in Virginia v. Black, a case that asked the Supreme Court whether a Virginia law prohibiting the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group violated the First Amendment.
I’m reading this opinion in light of a new case that the Court has agreed to hear later this term – Counterman v. Colorado - asking: in order to establish that a statement is a "true threat" which we already know is not protected by the First Amendment, must the government show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement; or, is it enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence?
In this opinion, the Court addresses what makes a threat a true threat - which is why I thought that those of you who are interested in the yet-to-be-scheduled Counterman v. Colorado might like to hear it.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the Supreme Court case San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1959) Majority Opinion (Labor Unions, Federal Preemption, National Labor Relations Board)
In light of last week's oral arguments in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, today I'll be reading San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the 1959 Supreme Court Case that first established the Garmon preemption; in other words, when state court action is preempted by federal labor law.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information at Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) Majority Opinion (EEOC Guidelines, Religious Accommodations in Employment, Undue Hardship)
In the 1960s, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created Guidelines that required employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious practices of employees - as long as those accommodations do not place undue hardship on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court further defined "undue hardship" as anything greater than a trivial cost to the employer in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Last week, the Court agreed to hear a similar case this term that asks them to reconsider that precedent. The new case is Groff v. DeJoy and it is the fourth case to ask the Court to overturn the Trans World case in recent years - which is why I decided to read the Trans World case today.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Part 2 of the audio in Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas. I read the majority opinion in this case in a November 7th episode.
This episode includes the separate one-page opinion written by Justice Thomas at the beginning of this episode.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of new opinion relating to orders in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (Jan 11, 2023) Justice Alito on Denial of Application for Stay (New York Gun Law, Second Amendment, Second Circuit)
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org
Audio of Stanton v. Stanton (1975) Majority Opinion (Utah; Age of legal adulthood determined by an individual's sex).
What if the age of adulthood in your state was determined by an individual's sex? In Utah circa 1975, that meant 18 years old if you're a female and 21 if you're a male.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 2: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)
This episode concludes with Part IV of the opinion.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 1: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)
This episode includes parts I - III of the opinion. Next episode will begin with part IV of the opinion.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Dunn v. Ray (2019) Dissenting; Dunn v. Smith (2021) Concurring (Applications to Vacate Stay/Injunction; Inmate Execution; Religious Freedom)
Tip: Dunn v. Smith (2021) begins around minute 10:06, after the reading of Dunn v. Ray (2019)
In 2019, Alabama had a policy holding that only their approved Christian chaplain was permitted to enter the execution chamber during execution - regardless of the inmate's religious beliefs. When Dominique Ray, a Muslim man, requested that his imam be present instead, Alabama refused - eventually changing their policy to exclude all clergy in the execution chamber. When the Supreme Court was asked to intervene, the application for stay was denied, with only the Court's four liberal justices voting for Ray.
About a month later, a Buddhist inmate asked the Court to intervene in Texas when they wouldn't allow his spiritual advisor into the execution chamber and the Court intervened to allow it - with Justices Kavanaugh and Robert's added vote. Somehow, these two conservative justices had a change of heart in this case.
But, when a third almost-identical case from Alabama appeared before the Court in 2021, Kavanaugh and Roberts once again had another change of heart, only back in the opposite direction, dissenting. In that case, when Willie Smith, a Christian man, asked the Court to intervene after Alabama denied his request for a Christian pastor to enter the execution chamber with him, the Court intervened to allow it. Again, two conservatives voted with the liberal justices; but, this time, they were the newly-seated Justice Barrett and one "mystery" Justice that could have only been Justice Alito or Justice Gorsuch since Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas dissented.
These three cases had nearly identical circumstances. What would have made Kavanaugh and Roberts vote so differently for the Buddhist man, Patrick Murphy? After all, Kavanaugh and Roberts are both Christians who have been accused in the past of being unjustly preferential to the freedom of Christian's first amendment rights over other religions. But, Smith, the third prisoner was the only Christian out of the three. Other than the prisoner's religion and the states they were from, the facts of the three cases were nearly identical save for one other major factor: Patrick Murphy, the Buddhist inmate, was white.
Because the Court did not issue an opinion in Patrick Murphy's case, the only two opinions I can read for you today are those of the two black inmates whom Justices Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas, and one other conservative justice voted against both times: Dunn v. Ray (2019) and Dunn v. Smith (2021). These two opinions are very brief, so I will be reading them both this episode.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) Plurality Opinion (Affirmative Action, Michigan Constitutional Amendment)
In today's opinion of the Court, we go back to Michigan once again for another Affirmative Action case; but, in this 2006 case, Michigan voters passed a proposition to amend the state constitution to prohibit "all sex-and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting." The very next day, a Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action formed to sue the governor and administrators from several state universities, arguing that the proposition and constitutional amendment violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the proposition was unconstitutional.
The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether an amendment to a state's constitution to prohibit both race-and sex-based discrimination and preferential treatment in public university admission decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Court said No.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here on Oyez.org.
Music by Epidemic sound
Audio of Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) Majority Opinion (Foster Care, Same-sex Couples, Catholic Social Services)
Because Philadelphia Catholic Social Services (CSS) had a policy against licensing same-sex couples to be foster parents, the City of Philadelphia pulled the organization's license to place children in foster homes in March 2018. So, CSS sued the City of Philadelphia. In asking the court to order Philadelphia to renew their contract, CSS argued that its right to free exercise of religion and free speech entitled it to reject qualified same-sex couples based solely on the fact the couples were gay.
Three questions before the Court in this case were:
1. To succeed on their free exercise claim, must plaintiffs prove that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views, or only provide sufficient evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable?
2. Should the Court revisit its decision in Employment Division v. Smith?
3. Does the government violate the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?
In a unanimous decision, the Court sided with Fulton, holding that the refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123
We have another opinion related to orders for 2022:
Audio of Arizona v. Mayorkas (Dec. 27, 2022) Justices Gorsuch and Jackson Dissenting to Stay (Title 42 Orders)
Audio of the Chief Justice's 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary
Happy New Year!
At 6pm this New Year's Eve, the Supreme Court will release the Chief Justice's annual report. The Year-end Report on the Federal Judiciary is simply an opportunity for the Chief Justice to reflect on the year that has passed and share thoughts on the year ahead - not only as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but as the head of the Federal Judicial Branch. I'll be reading this year's report as soon as it's released - and I'll have it published long before it's time to toast to the new year on the West Coast!
But, before I do that, I thought it might be a good idea to read for you the annual report that was issued last New Year's Eve (2021) so you can judge for yourself how well it stacks-up to the year that actually unfolded.
Access past Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/year-endreports.aspx
Music and Sound Effects by Epidemic Sound
Part 2: Audio of parts IV - VI of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. (2021).
Google created the programming language for its Android Operating System based on Java, an Application Programming Interface (API) owned by Oracle. So, Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement. A federal district judge held that programming languages are so essential to the progress of science and useful arts that APIs are not subject to copyright law because, if they were, it would stifle innovation and collaboration, which are both essential to the very purpose of copyright. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that district court ruling, holding that APIs are copyrightable, but it stopped short of determining whether Google's use of was fair use. Upon remand back to the district court, a jury found that Google's use of the Java API was fair use. Oracle appealed, and the Federal Circuit again reversed the lower court. The Federal Circuit held that Google's use was not fair as a matter of law.
Today I'll be reading Google v. Oracle - a case in which the Supreme Court was asked whether copyright protection extends to a software interface and, if it does, whether the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the creation of a computer program constitutes fair use.
In order to decide as little as possible in the resolution of this case, the Court declined to answer the first question and, instead, proceeded under the assumption that software code is subject to copyright protection. In a 6-2 opinion, the Court decided that Google’s limited copying of the Java SE API indeed qualified as a fair use under copyright law.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on here on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of parts I, II, and III of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. (2021).
Google created the programming language for its Android Operating System based on Java, an Application Programming Interface (API) owned by Oracle. So, Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement. A federal district judge held that programming languages are so essential to the progress of science and useful arts that APIs are not subject to copyright law because, if they were, it would stifle innovation and collaboration, which are both essential to the very purpose of copyright. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that district court ruling, holding that APIs are copyrightable, but it stopped short of determining whether Google's use of was fair use. Upon remand back to the district court, a jury found that Google's use of the Java API was fair use. Oracle appealed, and the Federal Circuit again reversed the lower court. The Federal Circuit held that Google's use was not fair as a matter of law.
Today I'll be reading Google v. Oracle - a case in which the Supreme Court was asked whether copyright protection extends to a software interface and, if it does, whether the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the creation of a computer program constitutes fair use.
In order to decide as little as possible in the resolution of this case, the Court declined to answer the first question and, instead, proceeded under the assumption that software code is subject to copyright protection. In a 6-2 opinion, the Court decided that Google’s limited copying of the Java SE API indeed qualified as a fair use under copyright law.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on here on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).
Audio of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) Majority Opinion (State laws against faithless electors, Electoral College vote)
Music by Epidemic Sound
We continue reading the second half of the 2014 primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - written by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join as to all but Part III–Section C–1, which we finished reading just before concluding last episode. We continue with Part III, Section C-2
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Part 1 of the primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) - written by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join as to all but Part III–Section C–1.
In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of certain contraceptives - based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Part 2: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion
In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives - based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion Parts I and II
In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.
When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives - based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.
Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. Lee (1982)
Audio of the Opinion of the Supreme Court in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985).
Audio of the 1984 opinion of the Supreme Court in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (Copyright, Contributory Infringement, Betamax, Recording Broadcast TV)
Audio of the 2015 opinion of the Court in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank.
Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Smiley v. Holm (1932)
Audio of Parts IV and V of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017)
Audio of Parts I, II, and III of the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017)
Audio of Part 2: Skilling v. United States (2010) Majority Opinion
Audio of parts II and III of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States (2010)
Audio of the 1990 opinion of the Court in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.
Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) Per Curiam Opinion (Purcell Principle, Imminent Elections, Changes in Election Laws)
Audio of Part 2 of 2: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Part 1 of 2: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) Dissenting Opinion (Arizona; Voting Rights Act, Section 2)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Shoop v. Cunningham (Nov 14 2022) Justice Thomas Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the Unanimous opinion of the Court in McDonnell v. United States (2016)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 2018 Opinion of the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Buffington v. McDonough (Nov 7, 2022) Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (V.A. Benefits, Chevron Deference)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Anthony v. Louisiana (Nov 7, 2022) Justice Sotomayor Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (Harmless-error, Structural-error, Prosecutor Testimony).
Justice Thomas Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari in Clendening v. United States (Nov 7, 2022)
Case Keywords: Injured Military Personnel, Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), Feres v. United States (1950), Feres doctrine, injury incident to military service, Camp Lejeune, U.S. Sovereign Immunity.
Music and Sound Effects by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Gorsuch Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari in Khorrami v. Arizona (November 7, 2022
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Justice Jackson's dissent to denial of certiorari in Chinn v. Shoop (2022)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
We continue reading Baker v. Carr (1962) beginning with Part IV: Justiciability.
Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Last week, in episodes 74 and 75, I read the majority and dissenting opinions in the case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The majority held that political gerrymandering of congressional districts, as opposed to racial gerrymandering which is prohibited by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, is a political question and thereby "nonjusticiable," or beyond the Court's power to resolve. But, the dissent argued that the Court had already held apportionment cases were indeed reviewable by federal courts in Baker v. Carr and twice upheld in Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims - both decided in 1964. Collectively, these three cases are known as the "One person, One Vote" cases because they were concerned with ensuring substantial equality of voting districts when compared to the actual population. In other words, if a quarter of a state identifies with party A and there are four districts, party A should have one district, not three or four.
The Court in Rucho ignored the precedents established fifty years earlier in the Marshall Court's "one person, one vote" cases - in favor of reviving the even older precedents of non-justiciability under the Frankfurter Court. Chief Justice Marshall thought today's case so important that, when he was later asked which case he was most proud of during his tenure on the Court, he did not say Brown v. Board of Education - he said this one, Baker v. Carr was. Because no kind of equality will last for long if it doesn't extend to the ballot box.
I'm still reading and recording this case right now, but I'm so excited for you all to hear it that I thought I would tell you about it now, before election day is over, so you'll be sure to come back and listen by the time I get it published.
Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the Supreme Court opinion in Morton v. Mancari (1974)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1994 opinion of the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Thomas v. Lumpkin, decided October 11, 2022.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 2019 opinion of the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2022)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Part 2 of Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 2010 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
This episode, we continue reading the 2003 opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, starting with Part III.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 2015 opinion of the Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1988 unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018). Possibly the most entertaining opinion I've ever read.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (2000)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1986 opinion of the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence from the Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022)
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Chief Justice Roberts' dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Justice Kagan's dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022)
Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations on Oyez
Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022
Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Judgement of the Court.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1962 opinion of the Court in Engel v. Vitale.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) Dissenting Opinion, Part I, Sections A and B.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1971 Opinion of the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1969 opinion of the Court in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Learn a little about Pippah and the podcast that is entirely dedicated to reading you the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get podcasts or visit whatscotuswroteus.com.
Audio of the 1824 opinion of the Court in Gibbons v. Ogden
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1967 opinion of the Court in Katz v. United States
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1927 opinion of the Court in Buck v. Bell.
The question before the Court in this case was whether a 1924 Virginia sterilization law denied Carrie Buck the right to due process of the law and the equal protection of the law provided by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1964 opinion of the Court in New York Times Company v. Sullivan.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1905 opinion of the Court in Lochner v. New York.
*The decision in Lochner v. New York was overturned in 1937 in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1986 opinion of the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1973 opinion of the Court in Frontiero v. Richardson.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the SCOTUS opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Gitlow v. New York (1925).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore (1833).
The question before the Court in this case was whether the Fifth Amendment denies the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property owner (a.k.a. the taking clause).
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the 1958 unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1958 unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1966 per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court in Parker v. Gladden
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the 1963 opinion of the Court in Gideon v. Wainwright.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1932 opinion of the court in Powell v. Alabama
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
We continue reading the third and final segment of the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here:
We continue reading the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford where we left off in Part 1 .
I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here:
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Audio of the 1857 opinion of the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. For the next several episodes, I'll be reading an opinion from 1857 that has long since been overturned and relegated to the trash heap of bad Supreme Court decisions - Dred Scott v. Sandford. In the Dred Scott decision, the Taney Court held that African Americans, slave or free, were not citizens of the United States. I've decided to read this opinion over several episodes for two reasons: one is that it is incredibly lengthy and the other is that its contents shock the conscience. By this, I mean that its contents are so racist and offensive that both the listener and the reader are likely to need a little time to recover in-between each segment. I do want to warn those listening, especially those listening with African ancestry, that this opinion is incredibly insulting and no longer has any place in United States constitutional law save for its historical evidence of the stain of slavery.
I omit citations to provide a better listening experience. Find the full opinion here:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1803 opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madision.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of Justice Hugo Black's famous dissenting opinion in Adamson V. California (1947).
This audio includes the primary text of Justice Hugo Black's dissenting opinion
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the 1947 opinion of the Court in Adamson v California.
The question before the Supreme Court of the United States was whether a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination applied to state courts through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court found that it did not - and it would not apply to the states until 1964 in Malloy v. Hogan.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the 1937 opinion of the Court in Palko v. Connecticut.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the 1966 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court opinion Mapp v. Ohio.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the unanimous decision of the Court in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Audio of the 1896 opinion of the Supreme Court s in Plessy v. Ferguson.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to audio of full episodes of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us - anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. O'Brien (1968).
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Music by Epidemic Sound
Audio of the 1971 per curiam opinion of the Court in New York Times Company v. United States
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Schenck v. United States (1919).
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Court in Reed v. Reed (1971).
The question in this case was whether an Idaho Probate Code stating that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous decision, the Court said it did.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts.
Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Carson v. Makin (2022).
The constitutional question before the Court was: does a Maine state law prohibiting students from choosing to use otherwise generally available student-aid to attend schools that provide religious instruction violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.
Audio of the Opinion of the Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967). The question before the Court was whether a Virginia law prohibiting interracial marriage violated the fourteenth amendment's equal protection and due process clauses; the Court said it did.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) which struck down the oversight provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) which struck down the oversight provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The question before the Court was whether the Constitution protects the right of married couples to be counseled on the use of contraceptives.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
A reading of Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022)
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Majority Opinion
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973).
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? The Supreme Court of the United States said, "yes" in its 7 - 2 decision in Roe v. Wade. Nearly 50 years later, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022). In this special listener's library two-episode series, I read the original case: Roe v. Wade (1973).
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). This decision established that the U.S. Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry one another.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). This decision established that the U.S. Constitution grants same-sex couples the right to marry one another.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the historic June 24, 2022 dissenting opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022) - the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and gave states the right to prohibit abortions regardless of the stage or circumstances of the pregnancy.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
A reading of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022).
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (June 23, 2022). The constitutional question addressed in this case is whether New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrates a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Audio of the opinon of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (June 24, 2022). This decision overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and gave states the right to prohibit abortions regardless of the stage or circumstances of the pregnancy.
*Note: The audio quality of the earliest episodes (like this one) is not the best. Sorry. Don't worry, the quality gets better in the episodes ahead as I learn the new skillset required.
Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
