Supreme Court Opinions

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in West Virginia v B-P-JIn this case, the court considered this issue: Does Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause prohibit a state from assigning students to girls’ and boys’ sports teams based on their biological sex as determined at birth?The case was decided on June 30, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission.In this case, the court considered this issue: Do FECA limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications”?The case was decided on June 30, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Trump v Barbara.In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a presidential executive order that denies U.S. birthright citizenship to children born in the United States because their parents are unlawfully present or in the country on temporary visas consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)?The case was decided on June 30, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Trump v Slaughter.In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers?The case was decided on June 29, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Watson v Republican National Committee.In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day?The case was decided on June 29, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Trump v. Cook.In this case, the court considered this issue: Should the Court stay a district court injunction preventing the President from removing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors "for cause" based on pre-appointment conduct without prior notice or a hearing?The case was decided on June 29, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Chatrie v United States.In this case, the court considered this issue: Did the execution of the geofence warrant violate the Fourth Amendment?The case was decided on June 29, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Wolford v Lopez.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives “express authorization” violate the Second Amendment?The case was decided on June 25, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Monsanto v Durnell.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempt a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning?The case was decided on June 25, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Mullin v Doe.In this case, the court considered this issue: Did the Trump administration lawfully end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals? The case was decided on June 25, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Mullin v Al Otro Lado.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a noncitizen who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border “arrive in the United States” within the meaning of Immigration and Nationality Act?The case was decided on June 25, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Cisco Systems, Inc.v Doe.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does either the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act allow a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting?The case was decided on June 23, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Exxon Mobil Corp. v Corporación Cimex, S. A.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Helms-Burton Act abrogate foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, even if the parties do not satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?The case was decided on June 23, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Blanche v. Lau. In this case, the court considered this issue: To remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, must the government prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident’s last reentry into the United States?The case was decided on June 23, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Pung v Isabella County.In this case, the court considered these issues:1. When the government takes property for tax debt, does the Fifth Amendment require compensation based on the property’s true fair market value, or only on the lower amount it sold for at a tax foreclosure auction?2. Does the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause prohibit the government from seizing and keeping a property worth far more than the small tax debt owed on it?The case was decided on June 23, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Landor v Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety.In this case, the court considered this issue: May an individual sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (R-L-U-I-P-A)?The case was decided on June 23, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in McCarthy v Hernandez.In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the Second Circuit properly granted habeas relief under AEDPA (28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1)) by holding that the state trial court's response to a jury note on confession attenuation violated clearly established federal law from Missouri v. Seibert.The case was decided on June 22, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in United States v Hemani.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violate the respondent’s Second Amendment right to bear arms?The case was decided on June 18, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Hunter v United States. In this case, the court considered these issues 1. Does an appeal waiver bar all claims except for ineffective assistance of counsel or a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum? 2. Does such a waiver become ineffective if the sentencing judge later tells the defendant they can appeal, and the government fails to object?The case was decided on June 18, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in T-M v University of Md. Medical System Corporation.In this case, the court considered this issue: Can the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court?The case was decided on June 18, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Section 47(b) of the ICA, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), create an implied private right of action?The case was decided on June 11, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Abouammo v United States.In this case, the court considered this issue: Is venue proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there?The case was decided on June 11, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Keathley v Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.In this case, the court considered this issue: May the doctrine of judicial estoppel be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith?The case was decided on  June 11, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v Amarin Pharma, Inc.In this case, the court considered these issues.1. When a generic drug manufacturer excludes a patented use from its label, can it still be liable for inducing infringement if it calls its product a “generic version” of the brand-name drug and cites publicly available information about the brand-name drug’s sales?2. Can a patent infringement complaint survive dismissal if it does not allege that the defendant made any statement specifically instructing or encouraging the patented use?The case was decided on June 4, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in FCC v AT&T.In this case, the court considered this issue: Are provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III?The case was decided on June 4, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Sripetch v SEC.In this case, the court considered this issue: May the SEC seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm? The case was decided on June 4, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Allen v Milligan.In Allen v Milligan, the Supreme Court considered whether Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black Alabamians.The case was decided on June 2, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Whitton v Dixon.In this case, the court considered whether the Eleventh Circuit erred by relying on post-trial DNA evidence (discovered years after the original trial) when evaluating whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that a Giglio error was harmless and that the evidence against Whitton was overwhelming.The case was decided on June 1, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Rutherford v United States.In this case, the court considered this issue: May a district court, when evaluating a motion for compassionate release under 18 U-S-C § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), consider as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” the fact that a defendant is serving a sentence substantially longer than what would be imposed today due to the First Step Act’s prospective changes to mandatory minimum penalties, particularly where the disparity amounts to decades of additional imprisonment?The case was decided on May 28, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Fernandez v United States.In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a federal prisoner use the compassionate release law to get their sentence reduced based on claims that they might be innocent or that their sentence is unfair, even though these same claims would normally have to be raised through habeas corpus?The case was decided on May 28, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Pitchford v Cain.In this case, the court considered this issue: Did the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably decide—under the standards set by federal habeas law—that Terry Pitchford gave up his right to argue that the prosecutor’s explanations for striking four Black jurors were false or racially biased?The case was decided on May 28, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock. In this case, the court considered this issue: Are workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce—but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders—“transportation workers” “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act?The case was decided on May 28, 2026The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges. In this case, the court considered this issue: whether the Fourth Circuit violated the principle of party presentation by vacating and remanding the case on a novel jurisdictional issue regarding the Civil Service Reform Act’s functioning that the parties had not raised or briefed.The case was decided on May 26, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the legal right to sue under Title 3 of the LIBERTAD Act tied to the confiscated property claim or the hypothetical, unexpired duration of the original property interest?The case was decided on May 21, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Hamm v. Smith.In this case, the court considered this issue: When a capital defendant has taken multiple IQ tests with varying results, how should courts evaluate the cumulative effect of those scores to determine whether the defendant has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning under Atkins v. Virginia?The case was decided on May 21, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension.In this case, the court considered this issue: When a pension plan calculates how much a departing employer owes “as of the end of the plan year,” must the plan use the financial assumptions it had already adopted by that date, or can it use new assumptions created after that date if they are based on information that was available at year-end?The case was decided on May 21, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintain jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking?The case was decided on May 14, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Montgomery  v Caribe Transport II, LLC. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) preempt a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver?The case was decided on May 14, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Louisiana v. Callais. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?The case was decided on April 29, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport.In this case, the court considered this issue: When the recipient of a state investigatory subpoena demonstrates an objectively reasonable chill of its First Amendment rights, does a federal court lack jurisdiction to hear the case because those constitutional claims must first be resolved in state court?The case was decided on April 29, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel. In this case, the court considered this issue: Do district courts have the authority to excuse the thirty-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 USC § 1446(b)(1)?The case was decided on April 22, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Hencely v. Fluor Corp.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, extend to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?The case was decided on April 22, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in District of Columbia v. R-WThe central issue in District of Columbia v. R-W was whether the Fourth Amendment’s "totality of the circumstances" standard allows a court to ignore specific suspicious factors, such as the unprovoked flight of a driver's companions, when determining if an officer had reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop.The case was decided on April 20, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish.In this case, the court considered this issue: Can an oil company being sued in state court for its World War II-era oil production move its case to federal court simply because the oil was produced to meet federal government contracts for wartime fuel—even if the contract did not specifically direct how to produce the oil?The case was decided on April 17, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Chiles v Salazar.In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?The case was decided on March 31, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Rico v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the fugitive-tolling doctrine apply in the context of supervised release?The case was decided on March 25, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Cox Communications, Inc. v Sony Music Entertainment. In this case, the court considered this issue: Can an internet service provider be held liable, and found to have acted willfully, for copyright infringement just because it knew users were infringing and did not terminate their access?The case was decided on March 25, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Olivier v. City of Brandon. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Heck v. Humphrey bar Section 1983 claims for purely prospective relief when the plaintiff has already been punished under the challenged law, and does that bar apply even if the plaintiff lacked access to federal habeas relief?The case was decided on March 20, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Urias-Orellana v Bondi.In this case, the court considered this issue: Must a federal court of appeals defer to the BIA’s judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)?The case was decided on March 4, 2026.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Galette v New Jersey Transit Corp.In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the New Jersey Transit Corporation an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes?The case was decided on March 4, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.