SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

• Opinion Summary: Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy | Date Decided: 4/29/25 | Case No. 23-715

  The question presented in this case is: Does the phrase "entitled ... tobenefits," used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, mean the same thing for Medicare part A and supplementary security income (SSI), such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.The Supreme Court held: In calculating the Medicare fraction, an individual is “entitled to[SSI] benefits” for purposes of the Medicare fraction when she is eligi­ble to receive an SSI cash payment during the month of her hospitali­zation.

  --------  

  21:12
• Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | Case No. 24-304 | Date Argued: 4/29/25

  The question presented is: Whether a federal court may certify a class action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.00:00 Introduction00:06 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins02:16 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin21:22 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin1:09:22 Petitioner Questions End, Government Opening Statement Begins1:10:41 Government Free for All Questions Begin1:20:15 Government Sequential Questions Begin1:36:29 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins1:38:22 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin2:08:44 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin2:12:05 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

  --------  

  2:15:20
• Martin v. United States | Case No. 24-362 | Date Argued: 4/29/25

  Petitioners are the innocent victims of a wrong-house raid conducted by an FBI SWAT team in Atlanta, Georgia. Seeking a remedy for torts committed against them, Petitioners brought a cause of action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In its opinion below, the Eleventh Circuit held that all of Petitioners' FTCA claims are barred by sovereign immunity supplied either through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause or the FTCA's discretionary-function exception. In one or more ways, the opinion below conflicts with decisions from every other circuit. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Constitution's Supremacy Clause bars claims under the FTCA-a federal statute enacted by Congress-when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees "have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law." Pet. App. 17a (quotation omitted). 2. Whether the FTCA's discretionary-function exception bars claims for torts arising from wrong-house raids and similar negligent or wrongful acts by federal employees.TIMESTAMP00:00 Introduction00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins02:11 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin21:58 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin22:06 Petitioner Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins23:53 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin37:10 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin39:31 Respondent Questions End, Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Opening Statement Begins40:33 Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions Begin46:45 Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Sequential Questions Begin46:51 Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

  --------  

  52:23
• Soto v. United States | Case No. 24-320 | Date Argued: 4/28/25

  This case determines whether thousands of medically retired combat veterans should receive all the combat related special compensation (CRSC) that Congress specifically authorized for combat veterans. The government has elected to calculate the period of retroactive compensation due using the procedure in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702) instead of the one in the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)-a maneuver that allows the government to apply the Barring Act's six- year limitations period in order to pay the veterans less. But the Barring Act is a default provision and does not apply where "another law" provides a procedure for calculating the amount due-that is, for "settling" a demand for payment. Although this Court's precedent defines "settlement" of demands for payment from the federal government as "the administrative determination of the amount due," it has not decided the test for whether a statute provides a settlement procedure that should apply in place of the Barring Act. And agency practice more broadly-which aligns with the test the District Court articulated and is consistent with this Court's definition of "settlement"-is irreconcilable with the novel test that the Federal Circuit applied, although both tests claim reliance on this Court's definition of "settlement." The question presented is: When a person makes a demand for money from the federal government pursuant to federal statute, what test should courts and agencies use to determine whether that statute includes a settlement procedure that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702)?Timestamp:00:00 Introduction00:05 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins2:07 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin25:24 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin30:00 Petitioner Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins32:01 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin57:40 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin57:46 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Rebuttal Begins

  --------  

  1:02:50
• A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools | Case No. 24-249 | Date Argued: 4/28/25

  Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) require public entities and organizations that receive federal funding to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. In the decision below, the Eighth Circuit held that, for discrimination claims "based on educational services" brought by children with disabilities, these statutes are violated only if school officials acted with ''bad faith or gross misjudgment." App.3a. That test squarely implicates an entrenched and acknowledged 5-2 circuit split over the standard governing such claims. It is also plainly mistaken on the merits: As the Eighth Circuit itself acknowledged, the test lacks "any anchor in statutory text," App.5a n.2, and it arbitrarily departs from the more lenient standards that all courts-including the Eighth Circuit-apply to ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims brought by plaintiffs outside the school setting. The question presented is: Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Host Note: This is probably the sauciest oral argument I've heard this term. Respondent's counsel accuses Petitioner of lying and of asking the Court to consider "uniquely stupid standards." Respondent's counsel also accused the Supreme Court of routinely remanding cases without setting the law. All of these statements clearly made the justices uncomfortable. I included timestamps for these exchanges. Timestamp:00:00 Introduction00:07 Petitioner Opening Statement Begins2:04 Petitioner Free for All Questions Begin18:06 Petitioner Sequential Questions Begin23:04 Petitioner Questions End, Government Opening Statement Begins24:29 Government Free for All Questions Begin33:42 Government Sequential Questions Begin45:17 Government Questions End, Respondent Opening Statement Begins47:16 Respondent Free for All Questions Begin50:26 Respondent alleges that Petitioner lied and made inaccurate statements about Respondent’s position50:55 Justice Gorsuch tells Respondent to be more careful with her words with respect to alleging that Petitioner lied 52:03 Respondent states that Petitioner asks the court to adopt “uniquely stupid standards.”1:03:17 Justice Jackson and Respondent debate whether 504 and Title II require reasonable accommodations1:04:31 Respondent admonishes the Supreme Court for sometimes “just remand[ing] and saying we just remand” and for not “set[ting] the law.”1:05:01 Justice Gorsuch tells Respondent that he’s troubled by Respondent’s “suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied[]” and asks Respondent “to reconsider that phrase.” Respondent backtracks and says that Petitioner is incorrect.1:07:24 Justice Gorsuch asks Respondent to withdraw her accusation that Petitioner lied. Respondent obliges.1:16:23 Respondent Sequential Questions Begin1:22:38 Respondent Questions End, Petitioner Reply Begins

  --------  

  1:26:03

More Government podcasts

Trending Government podcasts

About SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions