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 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.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
