SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

• In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey of Justice David Souter

  In Memoriam: A Reflection on the Remarkable Journey of Justice David SouterEpisode OverviewIn this special memorial episode, we discuss the remarkable life and judicial career of Justice David H. Souter, a Supreme Court Justice who defied political expectations and remained committed to principled jurisprudence.Key HighlightsBorn: September 17, 1939 in Melrose, MassachusettsAppointed to Supreme Court: 1990 by President George H.W. BushRetired: 2009 (succeeded by Justice Sotomayor)Passed Away: May 8, 2025Notable Career MilestonesRhodes Scholar at Oxford UniversityNew Hampshire Attorney GeneralAssociate Justice of New Hampshire Supreme CourtJudge on the First Circuit Court of AppealsSupreme Court Justice (1990-2009)Landmark Cases Discussed1. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) (Opinion Here)Co-authored opinion affirming Roe v. WadeCrafted influential section on judicial precedent2. Bush v. Gore (2000) (Opinion Here)Demonstrated judicial independenceCritiqued recount process while questioning judicial overreachJudicial Philosophy HighlightsBelieved law should adapt to empirical realitiesAdvocated for judicial restraintSupported separation of church and stateConsistently prioritized legal principles over political expectationsThe Supreme Court issued two press releases: Here and Here.

  --------  

  3:58
• Interview: From Buffalo to the Bench, A Conversation with Chief Justice Roberts

  Episode Description:This episode features a May 7, 2025 conversation between Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo. They discuss why judicial independence matters in our democracy and how it helps balance power between different parts of government. Both judges share stories about their personal backgrounds, law school experiences, and key moments in their careers. They also talk about what makes legal writing effective and why court decisions should be written clearly so everyone can understand them. The conversation gives listeners a unique look into the thoughts of two important judges as they reflect on their shared history and how the legal world has changed over time.Background:On May 7, 2025, Chief Justice John Roberts headlined the Western District of New York 125th Anniversary Dinner Event in Buffalo, NY. As part of this event, U.S. District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo interviewed Chief Justice Roberts. From the Event's press release: “Chief Justice Roberts was born in Buffalo and spent his early childhood here, so we claim him as one of our own,” said Chief U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford. “His willingness to join us for our 125th Anniversary makes the celebration all the more special. It’s a testament to Western New York’s rich legal history and the Chief Justice’s commitment to our profession.”Event Press Release: Here.H/T to WGRZ-TV for the recording.Timestamps:00:00 Welcoming Remarks and Reflections 00:57 Reflecting on the Past: A Journey Back to Buffalo 09:26 The Art of Writing Clearly14:07 Judicial Independence and Its Implications 25:42 The Role of the Chief Justice in Public Life 32:04 Reflections on Two Decades on the Court 38:43 The Evolution of Legal Perspectives 43:20 The Influence of Judicial Mentorship 48:35 Reflections on Clerking and the Law

  --------  

  51:11
• Emergency Docket Order Summary: United States v. Shilling | Order Decided: 5/6/25 | Case No. 24A1030

  Case Info: United States v. Shilling | Order Decided: 5/6/25 | Case No. 24A1030Link to Docket: Here.Question Presented: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the nationwide injunction issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.Plain English Translation: This order means that the district court’s nationwide injunction is on hold until final adjudication of the case on the merits. The district court’s nationwide injunction prohibited the Department of Defense from implementing a policy that generally disqualifies from military service individuals who have gender dysphoria or have undergone medical interventions for gender dysphoria.Voting Breakdown: The Order is unsigned. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:16 Question Presented00:28 Emergency Order Text01:23 Voting Breakdown01:31 Plain English Order Summary02:07 Procedural History - Policy Adoption02:39 Procedural History - Respondent Identities02:52 Procedural History - District Court Orders04:39 Procedural History - Government Appeals Denial of Stay of Nationwide Injunction to 9th Circuit; 9th Circuit Denies Appeal05:15 Procedural History - Government Appeals Applies to Supreme Court for a Stay05:20 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Satisfies Rational Basis Review06:42 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Comports with the First Amendment07:49 Summary of Government Application - The Policy Complies with the Due Process Clause and Principles of Equity07:59 Summary of Government Application - The District Court Erred in Issuing a Nationwide Injunction10:04 Summary of Government Application - The Remaining Factors Support the Issuance of a Stay

  --------  

  10:34
• Opinion Summary: Feliciano v. Department of Transportation | Date Decided: 4/30/25 | Case No. 23-861

  Case Info: Feliciano v. Department of Transportation | Date Decided: 4/30/25 | Case No. 23-861Link to Docket: Here.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.Holding: A federal civilian employee called to active duty pursuant to “any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency” as described in §101(a)(13)(B) is entitled to differential pay if the reservist’s service temporally coincides with a declared national emergency without any showing that the service bears a substantive connection to a particular emergency.Result: Reversed and remanded.Voting Breakdown: Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito, Kagan and Jackson joined.Link to Opinion: Here.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt For Respondent: Nicole F. Reaves, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of JusticeWebsite Link to Oral Argument: Here.Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.Timestamps:00:00 Introduction00:15 Question Presented00:23 Voting Breakdown00:40 Justice Gorsuch Majority Opinion08:10 Result08:11 Justice Thomas Dissenting Opinion14:41 Case Implications

  --------  

  15:38
• Oral Argument: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25

  Case Info: Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond | Case No. 24-394 | Date Argued: 4/30/25Link to Docket: Here.Background: This Court has "repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits." Carson as next friend of O. C. v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). Three times, the Court has applied that principle to strike down "state efforts to withhold otherwise available public benefits from religious organizations." Id. at 778-79 (citing Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017); Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464 (2020)). Contrary to those precedents, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded education. Questions Presented:Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.Host Notes: Justice Barrett did not participate in this case. Also, this case was consolidated with St. Isidore of Seville Sch. v. Drummond, Case No. 24-396.Oral Advocates: For Petitioners in 24-394: James A. CampbellFor Petitioner in 24-396: Michael H. McGinleyFor United States, as Amicus Curiae: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of JusticeFor Respondent: Gregory G. GarreTimestamps:00:00 Introduction00:08 Petitioner (in 24-394) Opening Statement Begins2:00 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begins11:10 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin37:16 Petitioner Questions End, Petitioner (in 24-396) Opening Statement Begins38:28 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin44:57 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin58:15, Petitioner Questions End, Government (as Amicus Curiae) Opening Statement Begins59:13 Government Free for All Questions Begin1:08:32 Government Sequential Questions Begin1:17:33 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins1:20:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin1:48:30 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin2:08:50 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

  --------  

  2:11:12

More Government podcasts

Trending Government podcasts

About SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions