))
Supreme Court Season episodes will include all arguments that occur from October 01st to April/May. You can listen to the sidebar version of each Supreme Court Case https://thesidebar.transistor.fm/
…
continue reading
A public good: every Supreme Court Oral Argument since 2010. Making the Highest Court more accessible for a modern audience. The DC Bar blog's piece about this podcast can be found here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotuspod. If you'd like to support the law student who created this project instead of studying you can do so here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotusguy. Thanks for listening! Patreon
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
In under 30 minutes. Do you want to understand specific cases? We are here to provide commentary on every Supreme Court case.
…
continue reading
The Supreme Court decision syllabus, read without personal commentary. See: Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) and United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337. Photo by: Davi Kelly. Founded by RJ Dieken. Now hosted by Jake Leahy. Frequent guest host Jeff Barnum. *Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
…
continue reading
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
…
continue reading
The latest news and analysis about key cases and critical arguments before the Supreme Court. (Updated periodically) PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
…
continue reading
Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada’s highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court’s website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.
…
continue reading
A chronological podcast of oral arguments with improved files and meta data. Hosted by Free Law Project through the CourtListener.com initiative. Not an official podcast.
…
continue reading
Audio from oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States (beg. Oct. 2010)
…
continue reading
In depth explanations of Supreme Court Cases New Jersey v T.L.O, Mapp v Ohio, and Miranda v Arizona.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
A podcast feed for the audio of Supreme Court oral arguments and decision announcements. Short case descriptions are reproduced from Oyez.org under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This feed is not approved, managed, or affiliated with Oyez.org. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
…
continue reading
We will dive into the astounding stories of the Supreme Court.
…
continue reading
Opinion announcements from the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Podcast by Hemant Mehta
…
continue reading
The Queens Supreme Court podcast is the hilarious spinoff of the hit online series “The Queens Supreme Court” with Ts Madison. The premise of the weekly satirical show is to discuss pop culture and all the hot social media trends, topics and gossip THEN try them as cases, render judgements and sentence the crimes accordingly to determine the ultimate fate of each celebrity!
…
continue reading
Any listeners out there...really want entertaining basketball content? Don't want to worry about the hosts - all on the show trying to force "controversial" hot takes, all in your earbuds, yelling back and forth to win an argument? Come to The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast! Check back with the SC trio; Robaire, Chris, and Henri, Wednesdays as we discuss the latest NBA headlines, news, and transactions.
…
continue reading
Throughout the years the Supreme Court has evolved much like the rest of the federal government. This would not be without landmark rulings, which will be the main focus of this podcast. Landmark rulings lay the groundwork for laws to be overturned or upheld and allow for the United States to work toward major goals. Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aaron-larson2/support
…
continue reading
This study, A Christian Response to the Supreme Court Decision, exposes the foreboding Danger that this ruling will bring upon our nation if things don’t turn around very quickly. You will also be thoroughly equipped to give a loving Biblical apologetic response to 15 different accusations made against Christians regarding this issue.
…
continue reading
1
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Labor / Overtime Wages)
6:16
6:16
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
6:16
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Decided January 15, 2025) In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court considered the standard of proof employers must meet to classify employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) overtime-pay provisions. The case arose when sales representatives sued E.M.D. Sales, alleging they were improper…
…
continue reading
1
The clock is ticking on TikTok with potential ban coming this weekend
6:02
6:02
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
6:02
The clock is ticking on a potential ban on TikTok. In April, Congress and President Biden gave the app's Beijing-based parent company 270 days to find a new owner or face a shutdown. They argued that Chinese control of the platform was a national security threat. Geoff Bennett discussed the latest developments with Carrie Cordero of the Center for …
…
continue reading
1
Mikhail Kloubakov, et al. v. His Majesty the King (Day 1/2) (41017)
3:50:00
3:50:00
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
3:50:00
(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Following their trial, the appellants, Mikhail Kloubakov and Hicham Moustaine, were convicted of obtaining a material benefit from sexual services (s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code) and of procuring, as parties (s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code). However, after entering the convictions, the trial judge determined that the …
…
continue reading
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | 01/15/25 | Docket #: 23-1122
…
continue reading
1
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, No. 23-971 [Arg: 1.14.2025]
49:01
49:01
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
49:01
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Bởi Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
2:05:32
2:05:32
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:05:32
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access should be subject to “rational basis” review or “strict scrutiny.”
…
continue reading
1
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, No. 23-997 [Arg: 1.13.2025]
18:38
18:38
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
18:38
The Supreme Court case, Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida. The central question is whether a former employee, who alleges disability discrimination regarding post-employment benefits, can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) even if the alleged discrimination occurred before the employee's retirement. The arguments presented by bot…
…
continue reading
This week's episode, which covers the oral argument in Tiktok v. Garland, is just Brett and no Nazim. We ask that you see past this fatal flaw and still enjoy discussion on why TikTok may not be a First Amendment case, what kind of First Amendment case it could be, and whether it would fail a strict scrutiny analysis. Law starts from the beginning.…
…
continue reading
1
Royal Canin USA Inc. v. Wullschleger (Federal Jurisdiction)
10:19
10:19
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
10:19
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (Decided January 15, 2025) In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court addressed whether a federal court retains supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 when a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims after a case is removed to federal court. The case arose aft…
…
continue reading
1
Pawel Kosicki, et al. v. City of Toronto, Formerly the Corporation of the Borough of York (40908)
2:48:15
2:48:15
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:48:15
The appellants are owners of a residential property in the City of Toronto. They sought an order for adverse possession of a parcel of City parkland that their predecessors in title had fenced off with a chain link fence and enclosed into their backyard. The City acknowledged that the appellants’ evidence satisfied the traditional test for adverse …
…
continue reading
1
Lundin Mining Corporation, et al. v. Dov Markowich (40853)
2:43:40
2:43:40
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:43:40
The respondent, Dov Markowich, is a shareholder of the appellant, Lundin Mining Corporation (“Lundin”). He sought leave under s. 138.8 of Ontario’s Securities Act, to bring a statutory cause of action against Lundin and its officers and directors for Lundin’s alleged failure to make timely disclosure of pit wall instability and a subsequent rocksli…
…
continue reading
1
Thompson v. U.S., No. 23-1095 [Arg: 1.14.2025]
1:17:03
1:17:03
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:17:03
QUESTION PRESENTED 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. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Bởi Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
His Majesty the King v. Paul Eric Wilson (40990)
2:36:23
2:36:23
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:36:23
Section 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, provides that no person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of the offence of simple possession of a controlled substance if the evidence in su…
…
continue reading
1
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
1:47:48
1:47:48
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:47:48
Free Speech Coalition v. PaxtonBởi Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-971
…
continue reading
Thompson v. United States | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-1095
…
continue reading
1
Hewitt v. U.S., No. 23-1002 [Arg: 1.13.2025]
16:11
16:11
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
16:11
The Supreme Court case, Hewitt v. United States. The case centers on whether the Act applies to resentencings following vacated sentences, a point of contention regarding the interpretation of the phrase "a sentence for the offense has not been imposed." The justices debated the statutory language's ambiguity, considering the present-perfect tense …
…
continue reading
1
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, No. 23-997 [Arg: 1.13.2025]
1:18:04
1:18:04
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:18:04
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
…
continue reading
1
Hewitt v. U.S., No. 23-1002 [Arg: 1.13.2025]
1:30:43
1:30:43
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:30:43
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
…
continue reading
1
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
49:00
49:00
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
49:00
A case in which the Court will decide whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide 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.
…
continue reading
Thompson v. United StatesBởi Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
1
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services
42:05
42:05
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
42:05
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy ServicesBởi Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Stanley v. City of Sanford | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-997
…
continue reading
Hewitt v. United States | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-1002
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.
…
continue reading
1
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida
1:18:04
1:18:04
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:18:04
A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.…
…
continue reading
Hewitt v. United StatesBởi Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Stanley v. City of SanfordBởi Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
1
TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656 [Arg: 1.10.2025]
11:17
11:17
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
11:17
The Supreme Court case, TikTok, Inc., et al. v. Merrick B. Garland, and a consolidated case. The arguments center on the constitutionality of a law mandating TikTok's divestiture from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, due to national security concerns. The petitioners argue the law violates TikTok's First Amendment rights, while the respondent…
…
continue reading
1
TikTok v. Garland, No. 24-656 [Arg: 1.10.2025]
2:28:50
2:28:50
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:28:50
QUESTION PRESENTED: - Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Bởi Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
TikTok's future in hands of Supreme Court as justices hear arguments against ban
7:01
7:01
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
7:01
In a matter of days, one of the most popular social media apps in the country could pull the plug if the Supreme Court doesn't grant it a legal reprieve. Concerns about TikTok's Chinese ownership led Congress to pass a law that would ban it in the United States unless its parent company sells it. John Yang discussed more with PBS News Supreme Court…
…
continue reading
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen. | 01/10/25 | Docket #: 24-656
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violates the First Amendment.
…
continue reading
1
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen.
2:07:48
2:07:48
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:07:48
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen.Bởi Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
1
J.W. v. His Majesty the King (40956)
2:33:34
2:33:34
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:33:34
(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) The appellant, an Indigenous man with significant cognitive difficulties, repeatedly sexually assaulted a worker at the group home where he resided. He remained in custody pending trial, including a period of detention in a psychiatric facility while temporarily unfit to stand trial. After resiling from three agreements to…
…
continue reading
1
Tammy Marion Bouvette v. His Majesty the King (40780)
2:33:34
2:33:34
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:33:34
(SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC) The appellant, Tammy Marion Bouvette, was babysitting a 19-month old baby who died while having a bath. An autopsy was conducted by Dr. Evan Matshes. The appellant was charged with second degree murder. The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death. The British Co…
…
continue reading
1
Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. Attorney General of Québec, et al. (40786)
2:39:12
2:39:12
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:39:12
The appellant, Opsis Airport Services Inc., is a federal company that operates the emergency call dispatch centre at Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport. The respondent the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions charged Opsis with operating an enterprise that carried on private security activities without holding an agency licence of t…
…
continue reading
1
Dustin Kinamore v. His Majesty the King (40964)
2:42:11
2:42:11
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
2:42:11
(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Mr. Kinamore, when he was 22-years old, and the complainant, when she was 16-years old, met at a motorcycle shop and they exchanged messages for a few months. They met for dinner and a movie at Mr. Kinmore’s apartment. Afterwards, Mr. Kinamore was charged with sexual assault. Both the complainant and Mr. Kinamore testified…
…
continue reading
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Decided December 10, 2024) In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the revocation of a previously approved visa petition under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, whose petition for her noncitizen spouse was revoked …
…
continue reading
1
Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, No. 23-900 [Arg: 12.11.2024]
12:33
12:33
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
12:33
The Supreme Court case, Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers. The core dispute centers on the calculation of disgorgement of profits under the Lanham Act, specifically whether a defendant's profits can include those of legally distinct affiliates. The petitioner argues that corporate separateness should be respected and that the lower courts erred …
…
continue reading
1
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975 [Arg: 12.10.2024]
11:18
11:18
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
11:18
The Supreme Court case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al., v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The central issue concerns the scope of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for infrastructure projects. The justices debate the appropriate standard for determining which environmental impacts an agency must …
…
continue reading
1
Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, No. 23-861 [Arg: 12.9.2024]
9:53
9:53
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
9:53
The Supreme Court case, Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. This concerns the interpretation of a statute determining differential pay for reservists called to active duty during a national emergency. The petitioner argues that "during" implies a purely temporal connection, while the respondent contends it requires a substantive connection t…
…
continue reading
1
Kousisis v. U.S., No. 23-909 [Arg: 12.9.2024]
1:26:52
1:26:52
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:26:52
The Supreme Court case, Kousisis v. U.S. The central issue is the interpretation of federal fraud statutes, specifically whether a property interest must be harmed to constitute property fraud. Petitioners argue that only cases involving actual economic loss qualify, while the government contends that any material misrepresentation resulting in the…
…
continue reading
1
Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, No. 23-900 [Arg: 12.11.2024]
1:10:58
1:10:58
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:10:58
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Bởi Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, No. 23-975 [Arg: 12.10.2024]
1:50:37
1:50:37
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:50:37
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Bởi Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, No. 23-861 [Arg: 12.9.2024]
1:13:34
1:13:34
Nghe Sau
Nghe Sau
Danh sách
Thích
Đã thích
1:13:34
QUESTION PRESENTED: 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. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Bởi Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
