The latest news and analysis about key cases and critical arguments before the Supreme Court. (Updated periodically) PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
…
continue reading
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Fur ...
…
continue reading
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
…
continue reading
A public good: every Supreme Court Oral Argument since 2010. Making the Highest Court more accessible for a modern audience. The DC Bar blog's piece about this podcast can be found here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotuspod. If you'd like to support the law student who created this project instead of studying you can do so here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotusguy. Thanks for listening! Patreon
…
continue reading
Supreme Court Season episodes will include all arguments that occur from October 01st to April/May. You can listen to the sidebar version of each Supreme Court Case https://thesidebar.transistor.fm/
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada’s highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court’s website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.
…
continue reading
Looking for entertaining basketball content without the drama? Check out The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast! Join Robaire, Chris, and Henri every Wednesday for the latest NBA headlines, news, and transactions.
…
continue reading
Audio from oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States (beg. Oct. 2010)
…
continue reading
In depth explanations of Supreme Court Cases New Jersey v T.L.O, Mapp v Ohio, and Miranda v Arizona.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Opinion announcements from the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
A chronological podcast of oral arguments with improved files and meta data. Hosted by Free Law Project through the CourtListener.com initiative. Not an official podcast.
…
continue reading
A podcast feed for the audio of Supreme Court oral arguments and decision announcements. Short case descriptions are reproduced from Oyez.org under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This feed is not approved, managed, or affiliated with Oyez.org. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
…
continue reading
We will dive into the astounding stories of the Supreme Court.
…
continue reading
Podcast by Hemant Mehta
…
continue reading
In under 30 minutes. Do you want to understand specific cases? We are here to provide commentary on every Supreme Court case.
…
continue reading
The Queens Supreme Court podcast is the hilarious spinoff of the hit online series “The Queens Supreme Court” with Ts Madison. The premise of the weekly satirical show is to discuss pop culture and all the hot social media trends, topics and gossip THEN try them as cases, render judgements and sentence the crimes accordingly to determine the ultimate fate of each celebrity!
…
continue reading
Throughout the years the Supreme Court has evolved much like the rest of the federal government. This would not be without landmark rulings, which will be the main focus of this podcast. Landmark rulings lay the groundwork for laws to be overturned or upheld and allow for the United States to work toward major goals. Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aaron-larson2/support
…
continue reading
This study, A Christian Response to the Supreme Court Decision, exposes the foreboding Danger that this ruling will bring upon our nation if things don’t turn around very quickly. You will also be thoroughly equipped to give a loving Biblical apologetic response to 15 different accusations made against Christians regarding this issue.
…
continue reading

1
Goldey v. Field (Bivens / Excessive Force)
5:31
5:31
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
5:31Send us a text Goldey v. Fields PER CURIAM. In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), this Court recognized an implied cause of action for damages against federal officers for certain alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. The Court subsequently recognized two additional contexts where implied Bivens causes of actio…
…
continue reading

1
Birthright Citizenship and Skrmetti
54:09
54:09
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
54:09The Supreme Court's term is over so it's time to panic. This week's episode covers Trump v. CASA, which doesn't really talk about birthright citizenship, but maybe does something even worse. This episode also covers Skrmetti v. US, which is maybe not as bad as it could have been. It's a mixed bag, folks. Law starts at (07:14).…
…
continue reading

1
How the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions affects presidential powers
10:12
10:12
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
10:12The Supreme Court delivered a major decision Friday that limits federal judges’ power to block the president’s agenda nationwide. Stemming from a case over Trump’s order on birthright citizenship, the ruling says that individual judges cannot grant nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe and law professo…
…
continue reading

1
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (Universal Injunction / Birthright Citizenship)
14:21
14:21
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
14:21Send us a text Trump v. CASA, Inc. Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each …
…
continue reading

1
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. (Appointments Clause)
13:58
13:58
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
13:58Send us a text Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. In 1984, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) created the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force, a body that formulates evidence-based recommendations regarding preventive healthcare services. Congress codified the Task Force’s role in 1999, establishing it as an entity within the Age…
…
continue reading

1
FCC v. Consumer Research (Nondelegation Doctrine)
15:53
15:53
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
15:53Send us a text FCC v. Consumers’ Research The Communications Act of 1934 established the FCC and instructed it to make available to “all the people of the United States,” reliable communications services “at reasonable charges.” 47 U. S. C. §151. That objective is today known as “universal service.” The universal-service project arose from the conc…
…
continue reading

1
Mahmoud v. Taylor (LGBTQ+ Books / Parental Opt-Out)
14:35
14:35
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
14:35Send us a text Held: Parents challenging the Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, are entitled to a preliminary injunction. Read by Jeff Barnum.De către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (Texas Pornography Regulation)
9:35
9:35
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
9:35Send us a text Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Texas, like many States, prohibits distributing sexually explicit content to children. In 2023, Texas enacted H. B. 1181, requiring certain commercial websites publishing sexually explicit content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older. Knowing violations subject covere…
…
continue reading
Send us a text Hewitt v. United States Before the First Step Act was enacted in 2018, federal judges were required to sentence first-time offenders convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. §924(c)—a law that criminalizes possessing a firearm while committing other crimes—to “stacked” 25-year periods of incarceration. The First Step Act eliminated this ha…
…
continue reading

1
Medina v. Planned Parenthood (Medicaid Funding)
11:23
11:23
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
11:23Send us a text Median v. Planned Parenthood Held: Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under §1983.De către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
Riley v. Bondi (Immigration Removal)
9:08
9:08
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
9:08Send us a text Riley v. Bondi The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to remove Pierre Riley, a citizen of Jamaica, from the United States under expedited procedures for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. On January 26, 2021, the DHS issued a “final administrative review order” (FARO) directing Riley’s removal to Jamaica. Under 8 U. …
…
continue reading
Send us a text Stanley v. City of Sanford Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, starting in 1999. When Ms. Stanley was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees: those with 25 years of service and those who retired earlier due to disability. In 2003, the City changed its p…
…
continue reading

1
Fuld v. Palestinian Liberation Organization (Due Process)
9:24
9:24
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
9:24Send us a text Held: The PSJVTA’s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Re…
…
continue reading

1
Supreme Court clears way for states to deny Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood
6:01
6:01
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
6:01The Supreme Court sided with South Carolina, ruling Planned Parenthood and one of its patients could not sue over that state’s effort to deny it Medicaid funds. The 6-3 decision was split along ideological lines and paves the way for other states to cut funding to abortion-care providers. Geoff Bennett breaks down the case and its implications with…
…
continue reading

1
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA (ARTICLE 3 STANDING, ADMIN LAW)
9:31
9:31
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
9:31Send us a text https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-7_8m58.pdfDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
ESTERAS v. UNITED STATES (Revocation of Supervised release/factors courts may and may not consider)
10:51
10:51
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
10:51Send us a textDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
United States v. Skrmetti (Transgender Treatment)
12:06
12:06
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
12:06Send us a text In 2023, Tennessee joined the growing number of States restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, Senate Bill 1 (SB1). SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones t…
…
continue reading

1
Rivers v. Guerrero (Habeus Petition)
7:05
7:05
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
7:05Send us a text Rivers v. Guerrero Petitioner Danny Rivers was convicted in Texas state court of continuous sexual abuse of a child and related charges. After unsuccessfully seeking direct appeal and state habeas relief, Rivers filed his first federal habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. §2254 in August 2017, asserting claims of prosecutorial misconduc…
…
continue reading

1
Commissioner v. Zuch (Tax Court Jurisdiction)
7:34
7:34
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
7:34Send us a text Commissioner v. Zuch This case involves the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court over appeals from collection due process hearings when there is no longer an ongoing levy. The dispute here began in 2012, when Jennifer Zuch and her then-husband Patrick Gennardo each filed an untimely 2010 federal tax return. Gennardo subsequent…
…
continue reading

1
Parrish v. United States (Appellate Procedure)
6:44
6:44
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
6:44Send us a text Parrish v. United States Federal inmate Donte Parrish alleges that he was placed in restrictive segregated confinement for 23 months based on his suspected involvement in another inmate’s death. After a hearing officer cleared him of wrongdoing, Parrish filed suit in Federal District Court seeking damages for his time in segregated c…
…
continue reading

1
Soto v. United States (VA Benefits)
5:43
5:43
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
5:43Send us a text Soto v. United States The Barring Act, 31 U. S. C. §3702, establishes default settlement procedures for claims against the Government and subjects most claims to a 6-year limitations period. However, the Act includes an exception: If “another law” confers authority to settle a claim against the Government, that law displaces the Barr…
…
continue reading

1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY v. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFINING, L.L.C (VENUE FOR CLEAN AIR ACT CASES)
10:50
10:50
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
10:50Send us a textDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
PERTTU v. RICHARD (Prison Littigation Reform Act Exhaustion & Jury Trial Right)
10:55
10:55
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
10:55Send us a textDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
AJT v. Osseo Area Schools (Education / Disability)
9:08
9:08
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
9:08Send us a text AJT v. Osseo Area Schools Held: Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opin…
…
continue reading

1
Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin (First Amendment)
5:55
5:55
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
5:55Send us a text Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Wisconsin law exempts certain religious organizations from paying unemployment compensation taxes. The relevant statute exempts nonprofit organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes” and “operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of…
…
continue reading

1
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. (Jurisdiction / Foreign Immunity)
6:14
6:14
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
6:14Send us a text Held: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. Read by Jeff Barnum. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a…
…
continue reading

1
Blom Bank v. Honickman (Civil Procedure)
6:37
6:37
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
6:37Send us a text Held: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.De către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
Seven County Infrastructure v. Eagle County
7:40
7:40
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
7:40Send us a text Held: The D. C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway. Pp. 6–22. Read by Jeff Barnum.…
…
continue reading

1
A. J. T. v. OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS (Public School Disability Accommodations)
9:35
9:35
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
9:35Send us a textDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
Martin v United States (FTCA & Immunity)
10:55
10:55
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
10:55Send us a textDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
AMES v. OHIO DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVICES
5:26
5:26
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
5:26Send us a textDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC., ET AL. v. ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS
12:18
12:18
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
12:18Send us a textDe către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
His Majesty the King, et al. v. B.F., et al. (41420)
2:27:30
2:27:30
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
2:27:30B.F., a surgical nurse, has a child, E. B.F. and E.’s father are separated and, in 2019, were engaged in litigation about parenting rights. An interim ruling in that case in early June 2019 granted E.’s father supervised access, which B.F. resisted. At this time, B.F. was residing with her mother, I.F.On June 12, 2019, after the interim ruling, a n…
…
continue reading

1
His Majesty the King v. David Carignan (41186)
2:16:19
2:16:19
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
2:16:19The respondent was arrested without warrant by the police 11 days after the date of an alleged crime. At his trial, he brought a motion in which he claimed that his arrest and his detention following his arrest were unlawful pursuant to s. 495(2)(b), (d) and (e) of the Criminal Code and s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He argued…
…
continue reading
Send us a text Kousisis v. Trump Held: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. Read by Jeff Barnum.De către Jake Leahy
…
continue reading

1
AARP v. Trump (Alien Enemies Act)
17:07
17:07
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
17:07Send us a text AARP v. Trump PER CURIAM. The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants are two detainees ident…
…
continue reading

1
Barnes v. Felix (Fourth Amendment)
5:04
5:04
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
5:04Send us a text Barnes v. Felix Held: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Read by Jeff Barnum.…
…
continue reading

1
S.A. v. His Majesty the King (41569)
39:35
39:35
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
39:35On December 6, 2021, S.A. was charged with assault and sexual assault. He elected to be tried by judge and jury. A trial date of April 17, 2023 was set but, on April 17, 2023, the trial could not commence because no judge was available. A trial date was set for February 12, 2024. Forestell J. held that delay of 6 to 10 months was unreasonable and b…
…
continue reading

1
Frank Dorsey and Ghassan Salah v. Attorney General of Canada (41132)
3:11:18
3:11:18
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
3:11:18In 2019, Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Salah both applied for transfer to a minimum security institution. At the time, Mr. Dorsey, a dangerous offender, was incarcerated at a medium security facility; Mr. Salah was sentenced to concurrent life sentences and is incarcerated at a different medium security facility. Mr. Dorsey’s case management team, his Manager…
…
continue reading

1
NBA Royalty Dethroned: Why LA and Boston Collapsed
1:32:11
1:32:11
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
1:32:11Send us a text We dive deep into the unceremonious playoff exits of basketball royalty as both the Lakers and Celtics fall short despite high expectations. The dramatic shift in the NBA landscape signals a changing of the guard as younger teams seize their opportunity. • Lakers' collapse exposed major flaws: lack of rim protection, insufficient you…
…
continue reading

1
His Majesty the King v. Sharon Fox (41215)
1:37:45
1:37:45
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
1:37:45The respondent is a criminal defence lawyer whose client was the subject of a wiretap authorization under the Criminal Code. The authorization did not permit live monitoring of phone calls with a lawyer; such calls could be recorded, but a judge’s order was required to access them. During the surveillance operation, the respondent called her client…
…
continue reading

1
Attorney General of Quebec v. Bijou Cibuabua Kanyinda (Day 2/2) (41210)
2:40:06
2:40:06
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
2:40:06The respondent Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda entered Quebec on or about October 9, 2018, via Roxham Road following a stay in the United States. Originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda made a claim for refugee protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, when she arrived. She has three childr…
…
continue reading

1
Attorney General of Quebec v. Bijou Cibuabua Kanyinda (Day 1/2) (41210)
1:57:29
1:57:29
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
1:57:29The respondent Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda entered Quebec on or about October 9, 2018, via Roxham Road following a stay in the United States. Originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda made a claim for refugee protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, when she arrived. She has three childr…
…
continue reading
Trump v. CASA, Inc. | 05/15/25 | Docket #: 24A884
…
continue reading

1
Supreme Court hears Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship and judicial constraints
8:40
8:40
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
8:40The Supreme Court heard arguments in one of the most consequential cases of the year. It involves the ability for President Trump to carry out his executive order ending birthright citizenship and the power allowing a federal judge to issue a nationwide block on those orders. Geoff Bennett discussed the arguments with law professor Amanda Frost and…
…
continue reading

1
Trump v. CASA, Inc. [Arg: 05.15.2025 ]
2:15:42
2:15:42
Redă mai târziu
Redă mai târziu
Liste
Like
Plăcut
2:15:42QUESTION PRESENTED: On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. This order reflects the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors. ★ Support this podcast on …
…
continue reading