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.
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
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
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
