SCOTUS nyilvános
[search 0]
Több
Download the App!
show episodes
 
Artwork

1
SCOTUS 101

The Heritage Foundation

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Havi+
 
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
 
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
SCOTUScast

The Federalist Society

Unsubscribe
Unsubscribe
Havi+
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.comPippah Getchell által
  continue reading
 
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Pulsifer v. United States. The Supreme Court considered an Eighth Circuit case that raised the question: "Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?" At issue was the meaning of the word…
  continue reading
 
This term is shaping up to be a big one for free speech cases. The Court heard arguments in three such cases this week and handed down decisions in other cases involving public officials blocking people on social media, the FBI's No-Fly-List, and the meaning of the word "and." Your hosts discuss those cases, and then GianCarlo interviews Robert McN…
  continue reading
 
Respondent Yonas Fikre, a U. S. citizen and Sudanese emigree, brought suit alleging that the government placed him on the No Fly List unlawfully. In his complaint, Mr. Fikre alleged that he traveled from his home in Portland, Oregon to Sudan in 2009 to pursue business opportunities there. At a visit to the U. S. embassy, two FBI agents informed Mr.…
  continue reading
 
Wilkinson v. Garland Congress gives immigration judges discretionary power to cancel the removal of a noncitizen and instead permit the noncitizen to remain in the country lawfully. 8 U. S. C. §§1229b(a)–(b). An IJ faced with an application for cancellation of removal proceeds in two steps: The IJ must decide first whether the noncitizen is eligibl…
  continue reading
 
On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Garland v. Cargill. The Court considered whether bump stocks are considered "machineguns" as defined by Title 26 of the United States Code. Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Stephen Halbrook, Senior Fellow, Independent Instit…
  continue reading
 
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. Anderson. At issue was whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot; the Court held that Colorado did err in excluding Trump from the ballot. Join us to hear Professor Muller break down the decis…
  continue reading
 
O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier In 2014, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T. J. Zane created public Facebook pages to promote their campaigns for election to the Poway Unified School District (PUSD) Board of Trustees. While O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane (whom we will call the Trustees) both had personal Facebook pages that they shared with friends and fami…
  continue reading
 
James Freed, like countless other Americans, created a private Facebook profile sometime before 2008. He eventually converted his profile to a public “page,” meaning that anyone could see and comment on his posts. In 2014, Freed updated his Facebook page to reflect that he was appointed city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, describing himself as “D…
  continue reading
 
PULSIFER v. UNITED STATES No. 22–340. Argued October 2, 2023—Decided March 15, 2024 After pleading guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, petitioner Mark Pulsifer faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. At sentencing, he sought to take advantage of the “safety valve” provision of federal sentencing law, which…
  continue reading
 
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with Kansas Supreme Court Justice Caleb Stegall. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org. Don…
  continue reading
 
This was a big week for former president Trump who prevailed in Trump v. Anderson against an attempt to remove him from the ballot in Colorado. Your hosts dive deep into that decision unpacking the majority opinion, the debate among the concurring justices, and the case's short- and long-term implications. After that, GianCarlo interviews Ninth Cir…
  continue reading
 
Trump v. Anderson A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the …
  continue reading
 
Trump v. Anderson DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO [March 4, 2024] JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. Th…
  continue reading
 
Trump v. Anderson JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring in the judgment. "“If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of j…
  continue reading
 
This week brings the Court another Trump-related lawsuit and a bevy of high-profile oral arguments. Among those, the NetChoice cases, which will decide to what extent states can stop social media companies from censoring users because of their political views. Your hosts discuss those cases and a handful of others that challenge the powers of admin…
  continue reading
 
"Americans who do not hide their adherence to traditional religious beliefs about homosexual conduct will be 'labeled as bigots and treated as such' by the government," wrote Justice Alito, in his statement explaining why he concurred in the denial of certiorari in Missouri Dept. of Corrections v. Finney (February 20, 2024).…
  continue reading
 
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with Judge Paul Kelly, Jr.. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org. Don't forget to leave a …
  continue reading
 
MCELRATH v. GEORGIA Damian McElrath was charged with malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault -- all related to the death of his mother. A jury returned a split verdict. For the malice-murder charge, finding him “not guilty by reason of insanity” and “guilty but mentally ill” to the other counts. The Georgia Supreme Court stated that be…
  continue reading
 
Great Lakes v. Raiders Great Lakes Insurance (organized in Germany and HQ in UK) entered into a maritime insurance contract with Raiders Retreat Realty Company (HQ in PA). The contract included a provision to apply New York law. A Raiders vessel had an incident in Florida, Raiders then filed a claim. Great Lakes filed for declaratory judgment in a …
  continue reading
 
In this Rehearings episode, we replay our interview with the Judge John Nalbandian. Rehearings airs our favorite old interviews on weeks when things are otherwise quiet at the Supreme Court. Follow us on Twitter @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org. Don't forget to leav…
  continue reading
 
The brand-new, unanimous opinion of the Court in Dept. of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, decided February 8, 2024. Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcastsPippah Getchell által
  continue reading
 
This week brings us the biggest oral argument of the term: Trump v. Anderson, which will decide whether states can disqualify President Trump from the ballot. Your hosts recap the complicated legal issues and explore oral arguments. Zack and GianCarlo also discuss the two opinions released this week, which involve whistleblower protections and suin…
  continue reading
 
TREVOR MURRAY, PETITIONER v. UBS SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL. As part of Trevor Murray's job at UBS, he had to file reports to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). In these reports, he had to certify that the reports reflected his personal and independent views. Despite physical separation from the rest of the unit, Murray claimed that he was recei…
  continue reading
 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT RURAL HOUSING SERVICE v. KIRTZ Reginald Kirtz obtained a loan from the Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service. According to Kirtz, the USDA later told one of the major credit agencies (TransUnion) that Kirtz was behind on his payments. Kirtz says this was false and these false s…
  continue reading
 
Loading …

Gyors referencia kézikönyv