U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court held that law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or faces imminent serious injury.

A case in which the Court held that the statutory bar in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) that prohibits certiorari review of court of appeals decisions on second or successive habeas applications does not apply to federal prisoners, and § 2244(b)(1)’s bar on claims previously presented does not apply to federal prisoners’ motions under § 2255(h).

A case in which the Court held that criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

The Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception — which bars lawsuits against the government for claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter" — shields the United States from liability even when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver mail.

Mr. Clement, an experienced appellate litigator, represents the petitioners arguing that federal candidates should have standing to challenge state election laws impacting mail-in ballots. He discusses how extended counting periods lead to vote dilution and increased campaign costs. Mr. Talent defends a narrower view of standing, suggesting it should only apply when ballots could genuinely affect outcomes. Meanwhile, Ms. Oates argues for traditional standing rules, critiquing claims of speculative harm. The debate raises questions about candidate rights and practical implications for electoral integrity.

In this riveting discussion, Mr. Larson, a veteran appellate counsel, argues that 18 U.S.C. §924(c) should be viewed as a lesser-included offense of §924(j), challenging the double jeopardy implications. Ms. Brown, representing the DOJ, counters that the statutes allow for separate punishments and explores their textual interplay. Mr. McLeod, as amicus counsel, reinforces the argument for cumulative punishments based on statutory design. The interplay between conviction, sentencing, and legislative intent shines through in their engaging legal debate.

A case in which the Court held that a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In this conversation, Mr. Banner, appellate counsel for Villarreal, emphasizes the critical Sixth Amendment right to discuss ongoing testimony with counsel during overnight recesses. Mr. Worthen, representing Texas, defends limited discussion rules to maintain trial integrity, while Mr. Parber, from the Solicitor General's office, advocates for broader prohibitions on testimony discussions. They tackle the fine line between permissible counseling and coaching, explore the implications of overnight recesses, and debate various legal precedents that could impact trial practices.

A case in which the Court held that a Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit conflicts with a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and thus does not apply in a federal court sitting in diversity.

In this discussion, General Sauer, representing President Trump, dives into the 14th Amendment's original meaning and challenges around judicial power with universal injunctions. Mr. Feigenbaum, advocating for CASA Inc., contrasts states' injuries with the breadth of typical injunctions. Lastly, Ms. Corcoran emphasizes the significance of universal injunctions in defending against executive actions. Together, they navigate complex legal terrains regarding citizenship rights, historical precedents, and the evolving role of district courts in addressing these crucial constitutional debates.