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 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 Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (2023) Justice Kavannaugh, Dissenting
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
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
