SCOTUScast

On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 5-3 opinion in Glossip v. Oklahoma. The Court held that the prosecution violated its constitutional obligation to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. and the Court has the jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Zack Smith, Legal Fellow and Manager, Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program, The Heritage Foundation

On February 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in Williams v. Reed. The Court held that state courts may not deny those claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds when a state court’s application of a state exhaustion requirement in effect immunizes state officials from 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims challenging delays in the administrative process.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Prof. Tyler Lindley, Associate Professor of Law, Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School

On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. The Court held that in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act the court, when awarding the "defendant’s profits" to the prevailing plaintiff, can award only profits ascribable to the "defendant" itself.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Prof. Jake Linford, Loula Fuller & Dan Myers Professor and Associate Dean for Research, Florida State University College of Law

On February 21, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath. 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, the E-Rate reimbursement requests in this case are "claims" under the False Claims Act. Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications. Featuring: John Masslon, Counsel, Keller Postman LLC

On January 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 9-0 opinion in TikTok, Inc. v. Garland. The Court held that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act's provisions challenged by the petitioners do not violate the First Amendment rights of those petitioners.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Darpana Sheth Nunziata, Public Interest Litigator

On February 25, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 7-2 opinion in Lackey v. Stinnie. The Court held that a party that receives a preliminary injunction but does not obtain a final judgment on the merits before a case becomes moot is not a "prevailing party" eligible for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b)Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:William Maurer, Managing Attorney of the Washington Office, Institute for Justice

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their 6-3 opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued their opinion in Murthy v. Missouri. Originally filed as Missouri v. Biden, this case concerns whether federal government officials violated five individuals’ freedom of speech by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote particular content from their platforms.Experts discuss and react to this 6-3 ruling.Featuring: Moderator: Brent Skorup, Legal Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Insitute Speakers: Corbin K. Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel and Director of Appellate LitigationJosh Divine, Solicitor General, Missouri Attorney General's OfficeJenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory actions regarding mifepristone.Join us to hear our panel break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications. Featuring:Adam Unikowsky, Partner, Jenner & Block LLPMegan M. Wold, Partner, Cooper & Kirk(Moderator) Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, Professor and Director, Prolife Center, University of St. Thomas School of Law

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its 6-2 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and its 6-3 decision in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These decisions overturning Chevron v. NRDC (1984) may notably change the nature of the administrative state and the role of judges in reviewing agency actions moving forward.Join us as we will discuss and break down the decision and the potential future impacts of this sea change in administrative law.Featuring:Prof. Ronald M. Levin, William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis School of LawJohn J. Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance(Moderator) Prof. Kristin E. Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School

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 potential ramifications.Featuring:Mr. Joseph Davis, Legal Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

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. Join us to hear Professor Tamar Meshel break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications Featuring: Prof. Tamar Meshel, Associate Professor, University of Alberta Faculty of Law

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 ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Andrew Hessick, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Strategy & Planning, University of North Carolina School of Law

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 Alison Somin break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications. Featuring: Mrs. Alison Somin, Legal Fellow, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation

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 its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Samuel Estreicher, Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law and Director, Center for Labor, New York University School of Law

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 argument went before the Court. Featuring:Mr. Steven Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

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 to hear Nancie Marzulla and Jayson Parsons break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Ms. Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla LawMr. Jayson Parsons, Associate, Rutan & Tucker LLP

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.Join us to hear Prof. Ilya Somin break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

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 harmless-error principles on appellate review.Join us to hear Stefan Cassella break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Mr. Stefan Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC

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 Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.Join us to hear Prof. Adam Pritchard break down the decision and its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Adam Pritchard, Frances and George Skestos Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

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 "and" in the statute, and whether text and context required "and" in this case be read as "and" to mean "or". Join us to hear Vikrant Reddy break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling. Featuring: Mr. Vikrant Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

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 Institute(Moderator) Robert Leider, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School

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 decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling. Featuring: Prof. Derek Muller, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School

On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, CA. The Court considered 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 legislationPlease join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:David Lanferman, Partner, Rutan & Tucker LLPNancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla Law

On January 17, 2024 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. The Court considered whether it should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. The Court considered 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 Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement. Featuring: Professor Adam Pritchard, Frances and George Skestos Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

On November 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Court considered three questions – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. United States. The Court considered whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Professor David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics, Columbia University Law School

On December 4, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The Court considered whether as part of a plan of reorganization under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, if the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Professor Anthony Casey, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics and Faculty Director at The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School

On November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Rahimi. The Court considered whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violated the Second Amendment on its face Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Professor Mark W. Smith, Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College

On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley. At issue was whether a debtor is liable for a debt incurred by her partner’s fraud and if she can discharge that debt in bankruptcy, regardless of her own culpability; the Court held that she could not discharge that debt. Join us to hear Prof. Plank break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling.Featuring:Thomas Plank, Professor Emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Law

On April 25, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin. At issue is whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property.Join us to hear Prof. Aaron Simowitz break down the background of the case and oral argument.Featuring:Aaron Simowitz, Associate Professor of Law, Willamette University College of Law

On April 18, the Court heard oral argument in Groff v. Dejoy and is set to address two issues concerning the protections provided employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. The Court is considering whether to overrule the “more-than-de-minimis-cost” test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Also at issue is whether burdens on employees are sufficient to constitute “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” for the employer under Title VII.Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. Although his sabbath-taking was not a problem at the beginning of his tenure with the USPS, following a 2013 agreement with Amazon, USPS began to provide service on Sundays and holidays. This meant that postal workers now had to work Sundays. Initially, Groff was able to avoid working Sundays by trading shifts with co-workers, but that eventually became untenable as co-workers were not willing or available to trade, resulting in Groff being scheduled for Sunday shifts he could not work due to his convictions. Following disciplinary action for missed shifts, and facing termination, Groff chose to resign. He sued USPS for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices as required by Title VII. The Third Circuit, following Hardison, ruled in favor of USPS, citing as sufficient to constitute the “undue hardship” test the burden placed on Groff’s coworkers who had to take more Sunday shifts and lessened workplace morale. Join us to hear a breakdown of the oral argument! Featuring:Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

On May 11, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Percoco v. United States. Justice Scalia once commented “[t]hough it consists of only 28 words, the [honest services] statute has been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.” In this case, the Court is asked to decide if a private citizen who holds no elective office or government employment owes a fiduciary duty to the general public sufficient to be convicted of honest-services fraud if they have informal “influence” over government decisions. Join us to hear from Gary Lawkowski, who is counsel of record for an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and the Presidential Coalition in Percoco v. United States, and who will break down the decision's reasoning and implications. Featuring: Gary Lawkowski, Counsel at Dhillon Law Group

On March 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. The Court considered whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On March 27, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Hansen. At issue in Hansen is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), a federal criminal statute that prohibits encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial or financial benefit sometimes termed “the encouragement provision,” violates the First Amendment.Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts. Hansen follows on the heels of another case with similar questions. Back in 2020, in United States v. Sinening-Smith, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that attempted to strike down the encouragement provision on the grounds the decision attempted to address an issue that was outside of the issue before the court. Hansen now brings those same constitutional issues to the fore. Please join us to hear the oral argument broken down and analysed. Featuring:Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the Supreme Court is considering "Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act."IP expert Adam Mathews joined us to break down the case and oral argument.Featuring:Adam Mathews, State Representative, Ohio, and Attorney, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge

On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service. At issue was how much authority the IRS has (balanced against privacy rights) to seek records from third-party recordkeepers when it thinks such documents would help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s payment.Join us to hear a discussion of the decision's reasoning and implications.Featuring:David Schizer, Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics and Dean Emeritus, Columbia Law School

On November 4, 2022, the Supreme Court granted cert in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, a patent infringement case that involves the application of the statutory enablement requirement of Section 112 of the patent laws to what is referred to as a "genus claim" as it applies in the context of pharmaceutical applications. The two patents in dispute relate to antibody drugs that reduce low-density lipoprotein (“LDL”) cholesterol.The Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 27. Specifically at issue is "whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specifications teach those skilled in the art to 'make and use' the claimed invention, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art 'to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments' without undue experimentation—i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial 'time and effort.'"Robert Rando, an intellectual property attorney who filed an amicus brief in the case, joined us to break down the arguments.Featuring:Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP

On April 14, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. At issue was whether Congress stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the FTC by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction over FTC cease-and-desist orders. Join us to hear Ronald Cass and Henry Su unpack the decision's reasoning and discuss its impacts going forward. Featuring: Ronald Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC Henry Su, trial lawyer specializing in antitrust (worked for the FTC from 2011-2017)

On February 28, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The issue at hand was a dispute over whether uncashed MoneyGrams qualify as “a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable,” pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2503, and therefore whether they should be escheated to the debtor's or creditor's state.Join us to hear Prof. Adam MacLeod unpack the decision's reasoning and discuss its jurisprudential impacts going forward.Featuring:Adam Macleod, Professor of Law, Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law

On April 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in New York v. New Jersey. The issue at hand is New Jersey's right to withdraw unilaterally from the 1953 Waterfront Commission Compact (with New York), in the face of opposition from New York. Tune in to hear Prof. Daniel Barnhizer, a contracts scholar and professor at Michigan State University College of Law, break down the background of the case, the reasoning behind the 9-0 vote, and the decision's implications.

On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wilkins v. United States. The issue at hand is the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and property law from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the vote and the decision's implications.

On April 24, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin. At issue is whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates tribal sovereign immunity. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

On March 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service. At issue is how much authority the IRS has (balanced against privacy rights) to seek records from third-party recordkeepers when it thinks such documents would help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s payment.Join us to hear from Prof. David Schizer as he breaks down the case, argument, and potential implications.

On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. At issue is a circuit split over the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue: acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, or allowing the government to re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue.Join us to hear from Prof. Brian Kalt as he breaks down the case and argument.

On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. At issue is district court jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal (of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration) in arbitration cases under the Federal Arbitration Act.Join us to hear from Dr. Tamar Meshel as she breaks down the case and argument.

On March 20, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolodated cases of Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Dep. of Interior v. Navajo Nation. At issue is whether the federal government has an affirmative duty to the Navajo Nation to assess and provide for the Nation's water needs from particular sources, given that such a duty was not expressly established in past treaties between the federal government and the Nation. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

On February 28, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases challenging the Biden Administration's student loans forgiveness program: Board of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska. In August 2022, the Biden Administration's Department of Education announced plans to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans for borrowers who qualified. In order to do this, the DOE relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the government to modify student loans, among other things, during a national emergency.Both cases challenge this action. Biden v. Nebraska involves a challenge to the Executive action from six states who contend they will suffer direct harm based on a loss of tax revenue. In Department of Education v. Brown, two individual borrowers, one of whom has loans that are fully intelligible for forgiveness under the program, and one of whose loans only qualify for part of the maximum relief possible, also challenge the legitimacy of the program. The Court is faced with two questions in both cases: first, do the challengers, whether they be the states or the individual borrowers, have standing to sue? The Biden administration contends neither of the respondents possess standing. Second, assuming the Court decides there is standing to sue, the Court will face the question “Does the plan exceed the statutory authority available to the Secretary of Education, and adopted in a procedurally proper manner?”We will break down and analyze how oral argument went in both cases in this program.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On February 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dubin v. United States. At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding