U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

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.

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 Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action.

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.”

Mr. Huggaball / Mr. Agrawal, counsel defending FTC independence and precedent like Humphrey’s Executor. General Sauer, government counsel pressing for broader presidential removal power and overruling Humphrey’s Executor. They debate removal protections, scope of presidential authority, severability, historical practice, classification of mixed-function agencies, and risks to agency independence and constitutional structure.

A case in which the Court held that its decision in Heck v. Humphrey does not bar claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a First Amendment challenge to a state investigatory subpoena when the subject of the subpoena has demonstrated an objectively reasonable chilling effect on its constitutional rights, or whether such claims must instead first be adjudicated in state court.

A case in which the Court held that a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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).

A case in which the Court will decide whether an internet service provider can be held liable for copyright infringement simply for knowing about ongoing infringement by users and not terminating their accounts, and whether such knowledge alone is enough to find willful infringement under the Copyright Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether district courts may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act’s nonretroactive reduction of mandatory minimum penalties—which can result in defendants serving sentences decades longer than those imposed for identical conduct today—when determining whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).