U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Patrick S. Clement, lead counsel for Governor Cook, defends statutory and constitutional limits on removals. General Jennifer A. Sauer, experienced federal advocate, argues for presidential removal authority and emergency relief. They debate whether the Fed is an executive agency, what counts as deceit or gross negligence, the role of hearings and process protections, and potential remedies and market effects.

Mr. Cothiel, additional counsel arguing states may set property-consent defaults. Ms. Harris, counsel defending Hawaii’s presumptive-consent rule as historically consistent. Mr. Beck, lead counsel challenging the law as a presumptive ban on public carry. They debate property-defaults vs constitutional carry, historical analogs under Bruen, and whether presumptive consent is a permissible state regulation.

A case in which the Court will decide whether pension plans calculating an employer's withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” must use the financial assumptions that existed at year-end, or whether they can use different assumptions adopted after year-end as long as those assumptions are based on information available at the time.

A case in which the Court held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.

Ms. Hartnett, advocate for Lindsay Hecox who argues Idaho’s ban ignores mitigated sex-based advantages. Mr. Mupan/Muthan, opposing counsel pressing limits on as-applied relief and Title IX interpretation. Mr. Hurst, Idaho appellate counsel defending sex-based sports classifications for fairness and safety. They debate whether categorical rules or individual exceptions should govern sports, how to define sex, and the scope of equal protection review.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students’ biological sex as determined at birth.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an oil company that produced crude oil during World War II to fulfill federal contracts for refining that oil into fuel can have its case heard in federal court, even though the specific contracts did not explicitly direct how the oil should be produced.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action.

In this discussion, lead petitioner counsel Mr. Overing presents arguments on how multiple IQ scores should be evaluated in Atkins claims. Respondent counsel Mr. Graver defends Alabama's law, emphasizing state discretion in defining intellectual disability, while Mr. Waxman advocates for a holistic analysis of evidence beyond just IQ scores. The interplay of IQ results and adaptive functioning evidence takes center stage, as the justices probe the implications of federal standards versus state-defined criteria for the Eighth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 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.”