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 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
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
