What SCOTUS Wrote Us

Part 1: Bittner v. United States (Feb 28, 2023) (Bank Secrecy Act, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR))

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

 

Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (Feb 28, 2023) (Escheatment, MoneyGram Official Checks)

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

Cruz v. Arizona (Feb 22, 2023) Justice Barrett, Dissenting (Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 32.1 (g), Lynch II, Capital Case Sentencing)

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

Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (2023) Justice Kavannaugh, Dissenting (FLSA, Overtime Pay, Salary Basis)

Audio of Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (2023) Justice Kavannaugh, Dissenting 

Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (2023) Justice Gorsuch, Dissenting (FLSA, Overtime Pay, Salary Basis)

Audio of Justice Gorsuch, Dissenting in Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (2023)

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

 

Cruz v. Arizona (Feb 22, 2023) (Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 32.1(g), Lynch II, Capital Case Sentencing)

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

Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (Feb 22, 2023) (FLSA, Overtime Pay, Salary Basis, Executive Standard)

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

Bartenwerfer v. Buckley (Feb 22, 2023) (Bankruptcy, Fraud Exception, Partnership)

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

Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc. (1999) (U.S. Government Contractors, Miller Act, Administrative Procedure Act

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

Denezpi v. United States (2022) Dissenting Opinion (Double Jeopardy, Court of Indian Offenses)

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

 

Denezpi v. United States (2022) (Double Jeopardy Clause, Court of Indian Offenses, Federal Prosecution)

Audio of Denezpi v. United States (2022) Majority 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

 

Louisiana v. United States (1965) Majority Opinion (Voter Suppression of African Americans)

Audio of the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States (1965)

About six months before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed, two very similar cases were argued before the Supreme Court on the same day in January - United States v. Mississippi and Louisiana v. United States - both cases were regarding state voting laws that prevented African Americans from voting. Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Louisiana v. United States in which the Attorney General of the United States sued the state of Louisiana in a federal court, claiming that the state had violated the Fifteenth Amendment of the US Constitution for denying African-Americans the right to vote through unfair voter registration requirements specifically tailored for that purpose.

When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, they held that Louisiana's bogus voter suppression laws indeed violated the Fifteenth Amendment. And, in case you were wondering, the Court issued a similar decision in the Mississippi case argued that same day.

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

 

 

Romer v. Evans (1996) (Sexual Orientation, Equal Protection, Colorado Constitutional Amendment 2)

Audio of the opinion of the Court in Romer v. Evans (1996).

In 1992, the voters of Colorado adopted Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution, which prohibited any legislative, judicial or executive action to protect individuals from discrimination that is based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Several affected citizens challenged the amendment in Court. The trial court issued a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement and, on appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Colorado violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; the Court said it did.

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Eisendtadt v. Baird (1972) (Contraceptives, Marital Status)

Audio of the 1972 opinion of the Court in Eisendtadt v. Baird (1972) 

 

After his lecture on birth control and over-population at Boston University, William Baird gave contraceptive foam to an unmarried woman. But, it was a felony to give contraceptives to unmarried people in Massachusetts in 1967, so Baird was charged with the felony crime of distributing contraceptives to unmarried men or women.

The question before the Court in this case was whether the right to privacy was violated, as in Griswold v. Connecticut. In the end, the Court held that the Massachusetts law was indeed unconstitutional, but not on privacy grounds. Instead, the law's distinction between single and married recipients did not pass the rational basis test of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

 

Dissent Part 2: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Justice Sotomayor, Dissenting (Muslim Travel Ban)

Audio of Part 2: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Justice Sotomayor, Dissenting (Muslim Travel Ban)

 

Dissent Part 1: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Justice Sotomayor, Dissenting (Muslim Travel Ban)

Audio of Part 1 of Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Majority Opinion (Muslim Travel Ban, Immigration, National Security)

Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) - also known as the Muslim Travel Ban case in which former President Donald Trump issued Proclamation No. 9645, asserting that it sought to improve the procedures used to screen the citizens of particular countries to determine whether they present “public safety threats” if permitted to enter the United States §1(a). So, the Proclamation placed entry restrictions on nationals from eight foreign countries whose systems for sharing information about those nationals were deemed inadequate by the former President.

There were several questions before the Court in this case.

First, whether the president had the statutory authority to issue the Proclamation to begin with. Also, whether the plaintiffs’ challenge to such authority was justiciable in federal court, whether the global injunction barring enforcement of certain parts of the Proclamation was impermissibly overbroad and, finally, whether the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

 

Contact Us

Part 1: Trump v. Hawaii (2018) Majority Opinion (Muslim Travel Ban, Immigration, National Security)

Today I'll be reading the opinion of the Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) - also known as the Muslim Travel Ban case

West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Majority Opinion (Minimum Wage for Women, Right to Contract)

Audio of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937) Majority Opinion (Minimum Wage for Women, Right to Contract)

In the case I'll be reading today, the Court revisited the minimum wage for women issue once again. This time, regarding a Washington state law requiring a minimum wage of $14.50 for women for a 48-hour work week. But an employee of the West Coast Hotel Company, Elsie Parrish, received less than the required wage. So, she sued her employer to recover the difference in wages owed to her under the law. Her employer argued that the minimum wage requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

This time, the Court held that a minimum wage for women did not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process clause. Citing Muller v. Oregon, the Court held that states may use their police power to restrict individual freedom to contract - overruling Adkins and marking an end to the Court's broad view of the freedom to contract during the Lochner era.

 

Contact Show

Music by Epidemic Sound

United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Justice Gorsuch, Concurring (Insular Cases)

Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Justice Gorsuch, Concurring (Insular Cases)

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Majority Opinion (Puerto Rico, SSI Benefits)

Audio of United States v. Vaello-Madero (2022) Majority Opinion (Puerto Rico, SSI Benefits)

 

Next episode, I'll be reading Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in this case. 

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment)

Audio of Part 2: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through Fourteenth Amendment)

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 1: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment)

Audio of Part 1: McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) Majority Opinion (Incorporation of Second Amendment to the states through Fourteenth Amendment)

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Dissent Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens’ Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)

Audio of Dissent Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)

 

 

Dissent Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens’ Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)

Audio of Dissent Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Justice Stevens' Dissenting Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions, Handguns)

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions; Handguns)

Audio of Part 2: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions; Handguns)

Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Firearms Restrictions; Handguns)

Audio of Part 1: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Majority Opinion (Second Amendment, Handguns)

 

 

Toth v. United States (Jan 23, 2023) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (Foreign Bank Accounts, IRS Reporting Requirements)

Audio of new opinion related to orders: Toth v. United States (Jan 23, 2023) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari.

Arellano v. McDonough (Jan 23, 2023) (Equitable Tolling, Retroactive VA Disability Benefits)

We finally have our first opinion of the Court in an argued case this term!  Listen to Audio of the opinion of the Court in Arellano v. McDonough (Jan 23, 2023).

The First Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) Dissenting Opinion (Fisher I, Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)

Audio of Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in the first Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin in 2013 known as Fisher I.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other helpful case information at Oyez.org.

 

 

 

The First Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) Majority Opinion (Fisher I, Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions)

The original Fisher v. University of Texas case from 2013 known as Fisher I.

 

Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Virginia v. Black (2003) Majority Opinion (True Threat, Virginia Anti Cross Burning Law, First Amendment, Protected Speech)

Today I’ll be reading the 2003 opinion of the Court in Virginia v. Black, a case that asked the Supreme Court whether a Virginia law prohibiting the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group violated the First Amendment.

I’m reading this opinion in light of a new case that the Court has agreed to hear later this term – Counterman v. Colorado - asking: in order to establish that a statement is a "true threat" which we already know is not protected by the First Amendment, must the government show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement; or, is it enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence?

In this opinion, the Court addresses what makes a threat a true threat - which is why I thought that those of you who are interested in the yet-to-be-scheduled Counterman v. Colorado might like to hear it.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.

Music by Epidemic Sound

San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1959) Majority Opinion (Labor Unions, Federal Preemption, National Labor Relations Board)

Audio of the Supreme Court case San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon (1959) Majority Opinion (Labor Unions, Federal Preemption, National Labor Relations Board)

In light of last week's oral arguments in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, today I'll be reading San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, the 1959 Supreme Court Case that first established the Garmon preemption; in other words, when state court action is preempted by federal labor law.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information at Oyez.org.

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

 

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) Majority Opinion (EEOC Guidelines, Religious Accommodations in Employment, Undue Hardship)

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) Majority Opinion (EEOC Guidelines, Religious Accommodations in Employment, Undue Hardship)

In the 1960s, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission created Guidelines that required employers to make reasonable accommodations for the religious practices of employees - as long as those accommodations do not place undue hardship on the employer. In 1977, the Supreme Court further defined "undue hardship" as anything greater than a trivial cost to the employer in  Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Last week, the Court agreed to hear a similar case this term that asks them to reconsider that precedent. The new case is Groff v. DeJoy and it is the fourth case to ask the Court to overturn the Trans World case in recent years - which is why I decided to read the Trans World case today.

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2: Justice Alito Dissenting in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) (Race, Affirmative Action in University Admissions)

Part 2 of the audio in Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas.

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.

 

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 1: Justices Alito and Thomas Dissenting in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) (Race, Affirmative Action in University Admissions)

Audio of Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas. I read the majority opinion in this case in a November 7th episode.

This episode includes the separate one-page opinion written by Justice Thomas at the beginning of this episode.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (Jan 11, 2023) Justice Alito on Denial of Application for Stay (New York Gun Law, Second Amendment, Second Circuit)

Audio of new opinion relating to orders in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli (Jan 11, 2023) Justice Alito on Denial of Application for Stay (New York Gun Law, Second Amendment, Second Circuit)

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org

 

Stanton v. Stanton (1975) Majority Opinion (Utah; Age of legal adulthood determined by an individual’s sex)

Audio of Stanton v. Stanton (1975) Majority Opinion (Utah; Age of legal adulthood determined by an individual's sex).

 

What if the age of adulthood in your state was determined by an individual's sex? In Utah circa 1975, that meant 18 years old if you're a female and 21 if you're a male.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org

 

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based Discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)

Audio of Part 2: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)

This episode concludes with Part IV of the opinion.

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 1: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)

Audio of Part 1: United States v. Virginia (1996) Majority Opinion (Sex-based discrimination, College Admissions, Virginia Military Institute)

This episode includes parts I - III of the opinion. Next episode will begin with part IV of the opinion.

 

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Dunn v. Ray (2019) Dissenting and Dunn v. Smith (2021) Concurring (Applications to Vacate Stay/Injunction; Inmate Execution; Religious Freedom)

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

 

Chief Justice’s 2022 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary (Dec. 31, 2022)

Chief Justice’s 2022 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary (Dec. 31, 2022)

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014) Plurality Opinion (Affirmative Action, Michigan Constitutional Amendment)

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

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) Majority Opinion (Foster Care, Same-sex Couples, Catholic Social Services)

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

Arizona v. Mayorkas (Dec. 27, 2022) Justices Gorsuch and Jackson Dissenting to Stay (Title 42 Orders)

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)

 

 

Chief Justice’s 2021 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary (Dec. 31, 2021)

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: Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. (2021) Majority Opinion (API Copyright, Fair Use, Java)

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

Part 1: Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. (2021) Majority Opinion (API Copyright, Fair Use, Java)

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

Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Majority Opinion (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII; Sexual Orientation)

Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

 

Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) Majority Opinion (Electoral College, State laws against faithless electors)

Audio of Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) Majority Opinion (State laws against faithless electors, Electoral College vote)

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Dissent Part 2: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014) Ginsburg Dissenting Opinion (Contraceptives, Employee Health Care Plan, Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

We continue reading the second half of the 2014 primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - written by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join as to all but Part III–Section C–1, which we finished reading just before concluding last episode. We continue with Part III, Section C-2

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Dissent Part 1: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Ginsburg Dissenting Opinion (Contraceptives, Employee Health Care Plan, Religious Freedom Restoration Act)

Audio of Part 1 of the primary dissenting opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) - written by Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join as to all but Part III–Section C–1.

In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.

When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of certain contraceptives -  based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.

 

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Contraceptives, Employee Health Care Plan, Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Part 2: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion

In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.

When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives -  based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.

Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 1: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Contraceptives, Employee Health Care Plan, Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Audio of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) Majority Opinion Parts I and II 

In 2012, the nation-wide arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that the Affordable Care Act's requirement that employment-based health care plans cover certain contraceptive methods, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that requiring them to provide the means by which their employees could obtain contraceptive methods that they consider to be seriously immoral, forced them to choose between exercising their religious beliefs and avoiding severe financial penalties.

When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, the question was whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permitted a for-profit company - like Hobby Lobby - to deny its employees health care coverage of commonly-used contraceptives -  based on the religious beliefs of the company's owners.

 

Access this SCOTUS opinion along with other essential case information on Oyez.

Music by Epidemic Sound

United States v. Lee (1982) Religious Objection to Social Security Tax, Amish, Free Exercise Clause

Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in United States v. Lee (1982)

Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985) Copyright Infringement, Fair Use

Audio of the Opinion of the Supreme Court in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises (1985).

 

Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984) Copyright, Contributory Infringement, Betamax, Recording Broadcast TV

Audio of the 1984 opinion of the Supreme Court in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (Copyright, Contributory Infringement, Betamax, Recording Broadcast TV)

 

 

Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank (2015) Trademark Tacking

Audio of the 2015 opinion of the Court in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank.

 

 

Smiley v. Holm (1932) Elections Clause, State Legislatures, Governor Veto of State Redistricting Plan

Audio of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Smiley v. Holm (1932)

 

Part 2: Cooper v. Harris (2017) Racial Gerrymandering; Voting Rights Act, Section 2; North Carolina

Audio of Parts IV and V of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017)

 

Part 1: Cooper v. Harris (2017) Racial Gerrymandering; Voting Rights Act, Section 2; North Carolina

Audio of Parts I, II, and III of the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017)

 

Johnson v. Missouri (Nov 30, 2022) Justice Jackson Dissenting from Denial of Application for Stay

Audio of Johnson v. Missouri (Nov 30, 2022) Justice Jackson Dissenting from Denial of Application for Stay.

Part 2: Skilling v. United States (2010) Honest Services Fraud, Enron

Audio of Part 2: Skilling v. United States (2010) Majority Opinion 

 

Part 1: Skilling v. United States (2010) Jury Bias, Pretrial Publicity, Enron

Audio of parts II and III of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States (2010)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) Religious Use of Controlled Substance, Peyote, Native American Church

Audio of the 1990 opinion of the Court in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.

 

Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) Purcell Principle, Imminent Elections, Changes in Election Laws

Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) Per Curiam Opinion (Purcell Principle, Imminent Elections, Changes in Election Laws)

 

Dissent Part 2: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) Dissenting Opinion (Arizona; Voting Rights Act, Section 2)

Audio of Part 2 of 2: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) 

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Dissent Part 1: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) Dissenting Opinion (Arizona; Voting Rights Act, Section 2)

Audio of Part 1 of 2: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) Dissenting Opinion (Arizona; Voting Rights Act, Section 2)

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) Voting Rights Act, Section 2; Arizona

Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021)

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Shoop v. Cunningham (2022) Justice Thomas Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari

Audio of Shoop v. Cunningham (Nov 14 2022) Justice Thomas Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

McDonnell v. United States (2016) Honest-services Fraud, Bribery

Audio of the Unanimous opinion of the Court in McDonnell v. United States (2016)

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Free Exercise, Free Speech, Same-Sex Marriage

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.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Buffington v. McDonough (Nov 7, 2022) Gorsuch, Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (V.A. Benefits, Chevron Deference)

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.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Anthony v. Louisiana (Nov 7, 2022) Justice Sotomayor Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (Harmless-error, Structural-error, Prosecutor Testimony)

Audio of Anthony v. Louisiana (Nov 7, 2022) Justice Sotomayor Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (Harmless-error, Structural-error, Prosecutor Testimony).

Clendening v. United States (Nov 7, 2022) Justice Thomas Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari (Injured Military Personnel, Federal Tort Claims Act)

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.

 

Contact the Show

Music and Sound Effects by Epidemic Sound

 

Khorrami v. Arizona (Nov 7, 2022) Justice Gorsuch Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari (12 Member Jury, Right to Impartial Jury)

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.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Chinn v. Shoop (Nov 7, 2022) Justice Jackson Dissenting to Denial of Certiorari

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.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Part 2: Baker v. Carr (1962) Majority Opinion (Political Question Doctrine; Apportionment; One Person, One Vote Cases)

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

Part 1: Baker v. Carr (1962) Majority Opinion (Apportionment; Political Gerrymandering; One Person, One Vote Cases)

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

Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) Affirmative Action, Race, University Admissions

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.

 

Morton v. Mancari (1974) Bureau of Indian Affairs, Employment Discrimination, Indian Reorganization Act

Audio of the Supreme Court opinion in Morton v. Mancari (1974)

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) Parody, Copyright, Fair Use, Pretty Woman

Audio of the 1994 opinion of the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Thomas v. Lumpkin (2022) Dissenting from Denial of Certiorari (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Juror Bias, Impartial Jury)

Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Thomas v. Lumpkin, decided October 11, 2022.

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com

 

Rucho v. Common Cause, Dissenting Opinion (2019) Partisan Gerrymandering

Audio of Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) Partisan Gerrymandering

Audio of the 2019 opinion of the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause.

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2022) Voter ID, Voting Rights Act

Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2022)

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Part 2: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) Majority Opinion (Campaign Finance, Fundraising, Federal Elections)

Part 2 of Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Part 1: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) Majority Opinion (Campaign Finance, Fundraising, Federal Elections)

Audio of the 2010 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Part 2: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Affirmative Action, Race

This episode, we continue reading the 2003 opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger, starting with Part III.

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Part 1: Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Affirmative Action, Race

Audio of the opinion of the Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003).

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015) elections clause, redistricting, gerrymandering, independent state legislature theory)

Audio of the 2015 opinion of the Court in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988) Parody, Public Figures, Free Speech

Audio of the 1988 unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Fun Case: District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018) Probable Cause, Qualified Immunity

Audio of the opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018). Possibly the most entertaining opinion I've ever read. 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Bush v. Gore (2000) Rehnquist, Concurring (Origin of Independent Legislature Theory)

Audio of Chief Justice Rehnquist's concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore (2000)

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Bush v. Gore (2000) 2000 Presidential Election, Recounts, Florida

Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000).

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) Voting Rights Act, Section 2, Gingles Test

Audio of the 1986 opinion of the Supreme Court in Thornburg v. Gingles.

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Merrill v. Milligan: Kavanaugh, Concurring with Court’s Grant of Application for Stay (February 7, 2022)

Audio of Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence from the Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022)

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Merrill v. Milligan: Roberts, Dissenting from Court’s Grant of Stay (February 7, 2022)

Audio of Chief Justice Roberts' dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022).

 

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Merrill v. Milligan: Kagan, Dissenting from Court’s Grant of Stay (2022)

Audio of Justice Kagan's dissent from Court's grant of application for stay in Merrill v. Milligan (February 7, 2022)

Access this SCOTUS dissent with full citations on Oyez

Access Supreme Court Calendar, October Term 2022

Access SCOTUSblog 2022 Term Case List

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.

 

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Affirmative Action

Audio of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Judgement of the Court.

Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts.