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

FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. | Case No. 23-1187 |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/21

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, Div. A, 123 Stat. 1776, requires a person to obtain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before introducing a new tobacco product into interstate commerce. If FDA denies an application for authorization, "any person adversely affected by such * * * denial may file a petition for judicial review of such * * * denial with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or for the

en

01:13:53

McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp. |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/21

Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

en

16:38

Opinion Summary: TikTok Inc. v. Garland | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/17

The question presented in this case is: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to Petitioners, violates the First Amendment.The Supreme Court held: The challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.

en

05:42

Opinion Summary: E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/15

The question presented in this case is: Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of an FLSA exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence-as six circuits hold-or clear and convincing evidence, as the Fourth Circuit alone holds.The Supreme Court held: The preponderance of the evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA.

en

02:05:32

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | Case No. 23-1122 |...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/15

This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review-rather than strict scrutiny-to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected

en

09:30

Opinion Summary: Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/15

The questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction. 2. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.The Supreme Court held: When a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal to federal court, leaving only

en

01:17:02

Thompson v. United States | Case No. 23-1095 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/14

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a "false statement" for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.

en

49:00

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services | Case No....

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) empowers district courts, on just terms and under circumstances specified in that Rule, to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding."The question presented, which has divided the courts of appeals, is whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under Rule 60(b).

en

01:18:04

Stanley v. City of Sanford | Case No. 23-997 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/13

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee-who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed-lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?

en

01:30:42

Hewitt v. United States | Case No. 23-1002 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/13

The First Step Act (FSA) significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for several federal drug and firearm offenses. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115- 391, §§ 401, 403, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220-5222. Sections 401 and 403 apply to offenses committed after the FSA's enactment on December 21, 2018, and to "any offense that was committed before the date of enactment * * * if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment." FSA§§ 401(c), 403(b). There is

en

02:28:49

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | Case No. 24-656...

The High Court Report ·

2025/01/10

Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to Petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Consolidated with: Firebaugh v. Garland, Case No. 24-657.

en

01:10:57

Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. |...

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/11

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.

en

01:50:36

Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County | Case No....

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/10

In Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004), this Court held that when an agency cannot prevent an environmental effect "due to its limited statutory authority over the relevant actions," the National Environmental Policy Act does not require it to study that effect. This holding has divided the courts of appeals. Five circuits read Public Citizen to mean that an agency's environmental review can stop where its regulatory authority stops. Two circuits disagree

en

07:19

Opinion Summary: Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | Date Decided:...

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/10

The question presented in this case is: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.The Supreme Court held: Revocation of an approved visa petition under § 1155 based on a sham-marriage determination by the Secretary is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the purview of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review certain actions “in the discretion of ” the

en

01:13:33

Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation | Case No....

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/09

This case presents a question of critical importance to hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve their country both as federal civilian employees and members of the Armed Services' reserve components. Congress enacted the differential pay statute, 5 U.S.C. § 5538, to eliminate the financial burden that reservists face when called to active duty at pay rates below their federal civilian salaries. To ensure that these reservists suffer no financial penalty for active-duty service, the

en

01:26:52

Kousisis v. United States | Case No. 23-909 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/09

The circuits are split 6-5 on the validity of the fraudulent inducement theory of mail and wire fraud. The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme. Whether a sovereign's statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services. 2. Whether all contract

en

02:21:10

United States v. Skrmetti | Case No. 23-477 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/04

Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistentwith the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

en

01:24:01

Hungary v. Simon | Case No. 23-867 | Date Argued:...

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/03

A foreign sovereign is generally immune from suit in domestic courts, subject to the specific exceptions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Under the expropriation exception, claims involving rights in property taken in violation of international law may be heard if "property or any property exchanged for such property" has a commercial nexus with the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3). Specifically, the property or its proceeds must be either "present in the United States in

en

53:38

United States v. Miller | Case No. 23-824 | Date...

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/02

The Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy trustee to avoid any prepetition transfer of the debtor's property that would be voidable "under applicable law" outside bankruptcy by an actual unsecured creditor of the estate. 11 U.S.C. 544(b)(1). The applicable law may be state law. Elsewhere, the Code abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governmental units "to the extent set forth in this section with respect to" various sections of the Code, including Section 544. 11 U.S.C. 106(a)(l). The court

en

01:20:05

FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC | Case...

The High Court Report ·

2024/12/02

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, Div. A, 123 Stat. 1776, requires a person to obtain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before introducing a new tobacco product into interstate commerce. The agency may grant such authorization only if the applicant shows, among other things, that the marketing of the product would be "appropriate for the protection of the public health." 21 U.S.C. 387j(c)(2)(A). In this case, the agency denied

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