SCOTUS publiczne
[search 0]
Więcej
Download the App!
show episodes
 
Artwork

1
SCOTUS 101

The Heritage Foundation

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Miesięcznie+
 
A Heritage Foundation podcast breaking down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and more. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
  continue reading
 
Artwork

1
SCOTUScast

The Federalist Society

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Miesięcznie+
 
SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View ou ...
  continue reading
 
The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. Frequent guest host Jeff Barnum. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
  continue reading
 
Artwork

1
What SCOTUS Wrote Us

Pippah Getchell

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Co tydzień+
 
Audio 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.
  continue reading
 
Artwork

1
SCOTUStalk

SCOTUSblog

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Miesięcznie
 
SCOTUStalk is a nonpartisan podcast about the Supreme Court for lawyers and non-lawyers alike, brought to you by SCOTUSblog. SCOTUStalk is hosted by Amy Howe and produced and edited by Ellena Erskine. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
  continue reading
 
Loading …
show series
 
Connelly v. United States Michael and Thomas Connelly were the sole shareholders in Crown C Supply, a small building supply corporation. The brothers entered into an agreement to ensure that Crown would stay in the family if either brother died. Under that agreement, the surviving brother would have the option to purchase the deceased brother’s sha…
  continue reading
 
The end of the terms is a month away, and the opinions are coming fast. This week, your hosts discuss the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case, a racial redistricting case, and the National Rifle Association's free-speech victory. After that, Zack interviews John Eastman about the lawfare used against him and other lawyers who have represented…
  continue reading
 
In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court reviewed a Second Circuit decision that struck down a New York bank regulation, finding that the State's authority was preempted by federal law. The Court held that Dodd-Frank requires a nuanced analysis -- rather than a bright line test -- on the issue of federal preemption. Justice Kavanaugh, writi…
  continue reading
 
Petitioner National Rifle Association (NRA) sued respondent Maria Vullo—former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)—alleging that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated parties to punish or suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. The Second Circuit held that Vullo’s alleged actions constitut…
  continue reading
 
Thornell v. Jones Respondent Danny Lee Jones was convicted of the premeditated firstdegree murders of Robert and Tisha Weaver and the attempted premeditated murder of Robert’s grandmother Katherine Gumina. Arizona law at the time required the trial court to “impose a sentence of death” if it found “one or more” statutorily enumerated “aggravating c…
  continue reading
 
Coinbase v. Suski The dispute here involves a conflict between two contracts executed by petitioner Coinbase, Inc., operator of a cryptocurrency exchange platform, and respondents, who use Coinbase. The first contract—the Coinbase User Agreement that respondents agreed to when they created their accounts—contains an arbitration provision with a del…
  continue reading
 
These cases concern the application of the Armed Career Criminal Act to state drug convictions that occurred before recent technical amendments to the federal drug schedules. ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on defendants who are convicted for the illegal possession of a firearm and who have a criminal history thought to demonstrat…
  continue reading
 
Alexander v. NAACP The Constitution entrusts state legislatures with the primary responsibility for drawing congressional districts, and legislative redistricting is an inescapably political enterprise. Claims that a map is unconstitutional because it was drawn to achieve a partisan end are not justiciable in federal court. By contrast, if a legisl…
  continue reading
 
On March 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fikre. At issue was whether or not the government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that respondent's removal from the government’s No Fly List mooted his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. Join us to hear Joseph Davis break down the decision and discuss its pot…
  continue reading
 
On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski. At issue was whether a court or an arbitrator must decide which contract governs where parties have agreed to two contracts — one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts. …
  continue reading
 
In Harrow v. Department of Defense, Stuart Harrow appealed an adverse administrative decision after the 60-day deadline -- claiming that he was unaware of the deadline. He filed this appeal to the Federal Circuit. Because the Federal Circuit saw the mandatory "shall" language in the statute (that is, it shall be filed within 60 days), the Court den…
  continue reading
 
Smith v. Spizzirri The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) sets forth procedures for enforcing arbitration agreements in federal court. Section 3 of the FAA, entitled “Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration,” provides that when a dispute is subject to arbitration, the court “shall on application of one of the parties stay the tr…
  continue reading
 
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ET AL. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., ET AL. The Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc subject to the command that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Art. I, §9, cl. 7. For most federal agencies, Congr…
  continue reading
 
Culley v. Marshall Petitioner Halima Culley loaned her car to her son, who was later pulled over by Alabama police officers and arrested for possession of marijuana. Petitioner Lena Sutton loaned her car to a friend, who was stopped by Alabama police and arrested for trafficking methamphetamine. In both cases, petitioners’ cars were seized under an…
  continue reading
 
Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy Under the Copyright Act, a plaintiff must file suit “within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U. S. C. §507(b). On one understanding of that limitations provision, a copyright claim “accrue[s]” when “an infringing act occurs.” Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U. S. 663, 670. But under an alternative v…
  continue reading
 
On February 21, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC. At issue was whether choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law. Join us to hear Professor Andrew Hessick break down the decision and discuss its potential ramificatio…
  continue reading
 
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri. At issue was whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. Join us to hear Alis…
  continue reading
 
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC. At issue was whether a transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Join us to hear Professor Samuel Estreicher break down the decision and discuss i…
  continue reading
 
On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. United States. The Court considered whether, and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argume…
  continue reading
 
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California. At issue was whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislation. Join us…
  continue reading
 
On April 16th, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Devillier v. Texas. At issue was whether owners of property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 adversely affected by the flood evacuation barrier constructed by Texas should be permitted on remand to pursue their takings clause claims through the cause of action available under Texas law…
  continue reading
 
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow maintains that her employer, the St. Louis Police Department, transferred her from one job to another because she is a woman. From 2008 through 2017, Muldrow worked as a plainclothes officer in the Department’s specialized Intelligence Division. In 2017, the new Intelligence Division co…
  continue reading
 
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McIntosh v. United States. At issue was whether a district court’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B)’s requirement to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing bars a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to …
  continue reading
 
It's the end of oral arguments, and this week the Court heard two big ones. Your hosts discuss Grants Pass, where the Court will decide whether it's "cruel and unusual punishment" to enforce anti-camping laws, and they discuss the Trump immunity case, which has big implications not only for the presidential election but for the office of the presid…
  continue reading
 
I have something a little different for you today: since I often read documents from the Trump cases on the show, I thought my super nerds might be interested in hearing the audio from a guest lecture I gave last week summarizing the four Trump criminal cases at a Palomar College event held every semester called the Political Economy Days Lecture S…
  continue reading
 
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. At issue was whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange A…
  continue reading
 
The unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in MacQuarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al. v. Moab Partners, L.P., et al., decided April 12, 2024. The Court is asked whether the Second Circuit erred in holding-in conflict with the Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits- that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 can support a private …
  continue reading
 
Part 2 of 2 of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Pulsifer v. United States, decided March 15, 2024. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_p86a.pdf A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U. S. C. §3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three con…
  continue reading
 
McIntosh v. United States Petitioner Louis McIntosh was indicted on multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses. The indictment set forth the demand that McIntosh “shall forfeit . . . all property . . . derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of the [Hobbs Act] offenses.” The Government also later provided McIntosh with a pr…
  continue reading
 
Part 1 of 2 of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Pulsifer v. United States, decided March 15, 2024. A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief under 18 U. S. C. §3553(f)(1) only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get pod…
  continue reading
 
This week the Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging a January 6th prosecution, had a spirited debate about nationwide injunctions, and issued major opinions on property rights and employment discrimination. Your hosts discuss all those developments, and then GianCarlo interviews Professor Andre Archie about his fascinating new book The V…
  continue reading
 
Petitioner James Rudisill enlisted in the United States Army in 2000 and served a total of eight years over three separate periods of military service. He became entitled to Montgomery Bill benefits as a result of his first period of service. Rudisill earned an undergraduate degree and used 25 months and 14 days of Montgomery benefits to finance hi…
  continue reading
 
DEVILLIER v. TEXAS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Argued Jan. 16, 2024—Decided Apr. 16, 2024 Richard DeVillier and more than 120 other petitioners own property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 between Houston and Beaumont, Texas. The dispute here arose after the State of Texas took action to use portions …
  continue reading
 
George Sheetz was required by the County of El Dorado to pay $23,420 George Sheetz tried to get a residential building permit from El Dorado County. To do so, the County made him pay a $23,420 "traffic impact fee." The fee was part of the County's "General Plan" -- this plan was intended to address the impact that development has on public services…
  continue reading
 
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns a subsidiary that operates terminals to store bulk liquid commodities, including No. 6 fuel oil, which has almost 3% sulfer. The UN adopted IMO in 2016, which set in in 2020. This regulation capped the sulfur content on fuel oil used in shipping to 0.5%. Macquarie did not discuss this IMO in its public docu…
  continue reading
 
Flowers makes baked goods that are then distributed across the country. Bissonnette owned the distribution rights in a certain part of the country. Their contract subjected them to the F.A.A.. After Bissonnette sued under Labor (wage) laws, Flowers moved to compel arbitration. Bissonnette said they're exempt because the F.A.A. exempts “contracts of…
  continue reading
 
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity. The brief is 49 pages long, so I will be recording it in several segments. If you are interested in listening to…
  continue reading
 
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity. If you are interested in listening to the oral arguments in this case, they are scheduled to take place later th…
  continue reading
 
Today I'll be reading Special Counsel Jack Smith's Brief for the United States in Donald Trump v. United States (filed April 8, 2024) - the Supreme Court case in which Donald Trump asserts that presidents have absolute criminal immunity. The brief is 49 pages long, so I will be recording it in several segments. If you are interested in listening to…
  continue reading
 
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's April 2, 2024 filing responding to Judge Cannon's order requiring preliminary proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on counts 1-32. If you need a quick explainer on the Presidential Records Act, check out mine. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts. WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com…
  continue reading
 
Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's April 2, 2024 filing responding to Judge Cannon's order requiring preliminary proposed jury instructions and verdict forms on counts 1-32. If you need a quick explainer on the Presidential Records Act, check out mine. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts. WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.com…
  continue reading
 
When does a public official’s social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment? Listen to the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed (March 15, 2024) and find out. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get podcasts. WhatSCOTUSWroteUs.comAutor: Pippah Getchell
  continue reading
 
This week the Court heard oral arguments in the high-profile case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's expansion of access to the abortion drug mifepristone. GianCarlo discusses that case, oral arguments, and the mess of standing doctrine. After that, Zack interviews Professor John Yoo who gives his expert take on the Trump immunity case …
  continue reading
 
Loading …

Skrócona instrukcja obsługi