x

75% of people globally want unbiased news (Pew Research) but are concerned they're not getting that.

Get balanced coverage with Symby. See how stories are covered across diverse outlets and spot when one side covers a story the other skips.

PODCAST

The High Court Report

SCOTUS Oral Arguments

The High Court Report makes Supreme Court decisions accessible to everyone. We deliver comprehensive SCOTUS coverage without the legal jargon or partisan spin—just clear analysis that explains how these cases affect your life, business, and community. What you get: Case previews and breakdowns, raw oral argument audio, curated key exchanges, detailed opinion analysis, and expert commentary from a practicing attorney who"s spent 12 years in courtrooms arguing the same types of cases the Supreme

government

All Episodes

02:15:45

Oral Argument: Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc....

The High Court Report ·

2025/05/16

Case Info: Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc. | Case No. 24A884 | Date Argued: 5/15/25Consolidation Note: The following cases were consolidated: (1) Trump, President of U.S. v. CASA, Inc., Case No. 24A884; (2) Trump, President of U.S. v. Washington, Case No. 24A885; and (3) Trump, President of U.S. v. New Jersey, Case No. 24A886.Parties: Applicants: United States and Federal OfficialsRespondents: (1) States and cities such as New Jersey, California, Delaware, Massachusetts, and the City and

en

11:27

Opinion Summary: Barnes v. Felix | Case No. 23-1239 |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/05/15

Case Info: Barnes v. Felix | Case No. 23-1239 | Date Argued: 1/22/25 | Date Decided: 5/15/25Link to Docket: Here.Background:The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from using "unreasonable" force. U.S. Const. amend. IV. In Graham v. Connor, this Court held that reasonableness depends on "the totality of the circumstances." 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (quotation marks omitted). But four circuits-the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth-cabin Graham. Those circuits evaluate whether a Fourth

en

03:58

In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey...

The High Court Report ·

2025/05/09

In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey of Justice David SouterEpisode OverviewIn this special memorial episode, we discuss the remarkable life and judicial career of Justice David H. Souter, a Supreme Court Justice who defied political expectations and remained committed to principled jurisprudence.Key HighlightsBorn: September 17, 1939 in Melrose, MassachusettsAppointed to Supreme Court: 1990 by President George H.W. BushRetired: 2009 (succeeded by Justice Sotomayor)Passed Away: May 8,

en

51:11

Interview: From Buffalo to the Bench, A Conversation...

The High Court Report ·

2025/05/08

Episode Description:This episode features a May 7, 2025 conversation between Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo. They discuss why judicial independence matters in our democracy and how it helps balance power between different parts of government. Both judges share stories about their personal backgrounds, law school experiences, and key moments in their careers. They also talk about what makes legal writing effective and why court decisions should be

en

10:34

Emergency Docket Order Summary: United States v....

The High Court Report ·

2025/05/07

Case Info: United States v. Shilling | Order Decided: 5/6/25 | Case No. 24A1030Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the nationwide injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.Plain English Translation: This order means that the district court’s nationwide injunction is on hold until final adjudication of the case on the merits. The district court’s nationwide injunction prohibited the Department of Defense

en

15:38

Opinion Summary: Feliciano v. Department of...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/30

The question presented is: Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.The Supreme Court held: A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” as described in §101(a)(13)(B) is entitled to differential pay if the reservist’s service temporally

en

02:11:12

Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/30

This Court has "repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits." Carson as next friend of O. C. v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). Three times, the Court has applied that principle to strike down "state efforts to withhold otherwise available public benefits from religious organizations." Id. at 778-79 (citing Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017); Espinoza v

en

52:23

Martin v. United States | Case No. 24-362 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/29

Petitioners are the innocent victims of a wrong-house raid conducted by an FBI SWAT team in Atlanta, Georgia. Seeking a remedy for torts committed against them, Petitioners brought a cause of action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In its opinion below, the Eleventh Circuit held that all of Petitioners' FTCA claims are barred by sovereign immunity supplied either through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause or the FTCA's discretionary-function exception. In one or

en

02:15:20

Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | Case No....

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/29

The question presented is: Whether a federal court may certify a class action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.00:00 Introduction00:06 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins02:16 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin21:22 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin1:09:22 Petitioner Questions End, Government Opening Statement Begins1:10:41 Government Free for All Questions Begin1:20:15 Government Sequential Questions Begin1:36:29 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement

en

21:12

Opinion Summary: Advocate Christ Medical Center v....

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/29

The question presented in this case is: Does the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, mean the same thing for Medicare part A and supplementary security income (SSI), such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.The Supreme Court held: In calculating the Medicare fraction, an individual is “entitled to[SSI] benefits” for purposes of the Medicare fraction when she is eligible to

en

01:26:03

A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Case No. 24-249 |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/28

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) require public entities and organizations that receive federal funding to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. In the decision below, the Eighth Circuit held that, for discrimination claims "based on educational services" brought by children with disabilities, these statutes are violated only if school officials acted with ''bad faith or gross

en

01:02:50

Soto v. United States | Case No. 24-320 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/28

This case determines whether thousands of medically retired combat veterans should receive all the combat related special compensation (CRSC) that Congress specifically authorized for combat veterans. The government has elected to calculate the period of retroactive compensation due using the procedure in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702) instead of the one in the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)-a maneuver that allows the government to apply the Barring Act's six- year limitations period in

en

01:04:53

Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | Case No....

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/23

Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act generally preempts States from adopting emission standards for new motor vehicles. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(a). But under Section 209(b) of that Act, EPA may grant California and only California-a waiver from federal preemption to set its own vehicle-emission standards. Before granting a preemption waiver, EPA must find that California "need[s]" its own emission standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." Id. § 7543(b)(1)(B). In 2022, EPA granted

en

47:33

CIR v. Zuch | Case No. 24-416 | Date Argued: 4/22/25

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/22

Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.

en

02:29:20

Mahmoud v. Taylor | Case No. 24-297 | Date Argued:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/22

Respondent Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read their students storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance. The storybooks were chosen to disrupt "cisnormativity" and "either/or thinking" among students. The Board's own principals objected that the curriculum was "not appropriate for the intended age group," presented gender ideology as "fact," "sham[ed]" students with contrary opinions, and was

en

14:09

Opinion Summary: Velazquez v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/22

The question presented is: When a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure todepart?The Supreme Court held: Under §1229c(b)(2), a voluntary-departure deadline that falls on a weekend or legal holiday extends to the next business day.Please note that the opinion date is April 22, 2025.

en

53:56

Parrish v. United States | Case No. 24-275 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/21

Ordinarily, litigants must file a notice of appeal within 30 or 60 days of an adverse judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), however, district courts can reopen an expired appeal period when a party did not receive timely notice of the judgment. The Courts of Appeals have divided about whether a notice of appeal filed after the expiration of the ordinary appeal period but before the appeal period is reopened becomes effective once reopening is

en

01:26:12

Kennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. | Case...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/21

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), which sits within the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issues clinical recommendations for preventive medical services, such as screenings and medications to prevent serious diseases. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111 -148, 124 Stat. 119, health insurance issuers and group health plans must cover certain preventive services recommended by the Task Force without

en

11:02

Opinion Summary: Cunningham v. Cornell University |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/17

The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision's text.The Supreme Court held: To state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements

en

18:22

Opinion Summary: FDA v. Wages and White Lion...

The High Court Report ·

2025/04/02

The question presented in this case is: Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside FDA's denial orders as arbitrary and capricious.The Supreme Court held: The Fifth Circuit’s conclusion that the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its adjudication of manufacturers’ premarket tobacco product applications is vacated because the FDA’s denial orders were sufficiently consistent with its predecisional guidance—as to scientific evidence, comparative efficacy, and device type—and thus did

en

407 results

Similar Podcasts

The Fly

Georgetown"s Institute of Politics and...

THE CONSTITUTION STUDY

Paul Engel

The DSR Daily

The DSR Network

The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Institute

Fora do Baralho

Rádio Observador