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

01:12:11

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. | Case...

The High Court Report ·

2025/03/19

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. | Case No. 22-1079 | Date Argued: 3/19/24 | Date Decided: 6/6/24 Link to Docket: Here.Background: Asbestos claims in state court have been plagued by rampant fraud, with claimants seeking inflated recoveries against some asbestos defendants by suppressing evidence of claims against other asbestos defendants. For nearly a decade, bankruptcy courts have sought to protect debtors and their insurers by requiring fraud-prevention measures-like ensuring access

en

12:04

Opinion Summary: Bufkin v. Collins | Date Decided:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/03/05

The question presented in this case is: Must the Veterans Court ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the Veterans Court to "take due account" of VA's application of that rule?The Supreme Court held: The VA’s determination that the evidence regarding a service-related disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error.

en

01:35:50

NRC v. Texas | Case No. 23-1300 | Date Argued: 3/5/25

The High Court Report ·

2025/03/05

1. Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq., which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority. 2. Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities

en

01:31:09

Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/03/04

The Mexican Government has sued leading members of the American firearms industry, seeking to hold them liable for harms inflicted by Mexican drug cartels. According to Mexico, America's firearms companies have engaged in a series of business practices for decades-from selling semi-automatic rifles, to making magazines that hold over ten rounds, to failing to impose various sales restrictions-that have created a supply of firearms later smuggled across the border and ultimately used by the

en

13:56

Opinion Summary: City and County of San Francisco v....

The High Court Report ·

2025/03/04

The question presented in this case is: Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that subject permit holders to enforcement forexceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.The Supreme Court held: Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include “end result” provisions in NPDES permits. Determining

en

49:24

CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | Case No. 23-1201...

The High Court Report ·

2025/03/03

Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.The question presented in Antrix Corp. Ltd. is: Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, "[p]ersonal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist as to every claim for relief over which the district courts have jurisdiction under subsection (a) where service has been made under section 1608 of this title." 28 U.S.C. §

en

52:42

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman | Case No. 23-1259 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/03/03

For more than 70 years, this Court has "required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6)" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to show 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). This Court has also stressed that a movant must be "faultless" to obtain relief. Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). "This very

en

06:27

Opinion Summary: Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/26

The question presented in this case is: Whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under Rule 60(b).The Supreme Court held: A case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a) counts as a “final proceeding” under Rule 60(b).

en

54:56

Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services | Case No. 23-1039...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/26

Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." App. 5a.

en

10:21

Opinion Summary: Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/26

The question presented in this case is: Whether an award of the "defendant's profits" under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.The Supreme Court held: In awarding the “defendant’s profits” to the prevailing plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, §1117(a), a court can award only profits ascribable to the “defendant” itself. And the term “defendant”

en

01:16:16

Perttu v. Richards | Case No. 23-1324 | Date Argued:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/25

In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?

en

01:15:29

Esteras v. United States | Case No. 23-7483 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/25

The supervised-release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), lists factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for a court to consider when sentencing a person for violating a supervised release condition. In that list, Congress omitted the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(2)(A)-the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense. The question presented is: Even though Congress excluded section 3553(a)(2)(A) from

en

11:21

Opinion Summary: Lackey v. Stinnie | Date Decided:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/25

The questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 2. Whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties' legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.The Supreme Court held: The plaintiff drivers here—who gained

en

23:27

Opinion Summary: Glossip v. Oklahoma | Date Decided:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/25

The questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's falsetestimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. 2. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady andNapue claims. 3. Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected

en

01:34:30

Gutierrez v. Saenz | Case No. 23-7809 | Date Argued:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/24

In Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 234 (2023), this Court held that Rodney Reed has standing to pursue a declaratory judgment that Texas's post-conviction DNA statute was unconstitutional because ''Reed suffered an injury in fact," the named defendant "caused Reed's injury," and if a federal court concludes that Texas's statute violates due process, it is "substantially likely that the state prosecutor would abide by such a court order." In this case, a divided panel of the United States Court of

en

07:35

Opinion Summary: Williams v. Reed | Date Decided:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/21

The question presented in this case is: Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.The Supreme Court held: Where a state court’s application of a state exhaustion requirement in effect immunizes state officials from §1983 claims challenging delays in the administrative process, state courts may not deny those §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds.

en

10:08

Opinion Summary: Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/21

The question presented in this case is: Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program are "claims" under the False Claims Act.The Supreme Court held: The E-Rate reimbursement requests at issue are “claims” under the False Claims Act because the Government “provided” (at a minimum) a “portion” of the money applied for by transferring more than $100 million from the Treasury into the Fund.

en

11:42

Opinion Summary: Hungary v. Simon | Date Decided:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/02/21

The questions presented in this case are: (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. (2) Whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies at the pleading stage, rather than merelyraising a plausible inference.(3) Whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden

en

01:15:57

Barnes v. Felix | Case No. 23-1239 | Date Argued:...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/22

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 Amendment violation occurred under the "moment of the threat doctrine," which evaluates the reasonableness of an officer's

en

01:30:44

Cunningham v. Cornell University | Case No. 23-1007 |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/22

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1) (C), prohibits a plan fiduciary from "engag[ing] in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest." The statute elsewhere defines "party in interest" broadly to include a variety of parties that may contract with or provide services to a plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14)(B).

en

413 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