U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Ms. Wong, respondent counsel defending broad birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. General Sauer, senior government advocate arguing for a narrower, domicile-based reading. They spar over whether citizenship hinges on territorial birth or parental allegiance, the role of Wong Kim Ark, historical sources about temporary sojourners, and how statutes should align with constitutional meaning.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to the respondent.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the legal right to sue under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act is tied to the confiscated property claim or the hypothetical, unexpired duration of the original property interest.

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.

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.

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 held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.

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.

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.