Oral Argument: Trump Tariff Cases | A Constitutional Clash: Trump's Tariffs and the Separation of Powers
Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. | Oral Argument: November 5, 2025 | Case No. 25-250 | Docket Link: HereConsolidated with: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump | Case No. 24-1287 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Trump Tariff cases—Trump versus V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources versus Trump—a constitutional clash over tariffs and separation of powers. President Trump put sweeping tariffs on trillions of dollars in imports using a 1977 emergency law that says he can "regulate" trade—but the law never mentions tariffs, duties, or taxes, and the Constitution gives only Congress the power to tax. Background:Question Presented:Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Federal Parties): D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For Respondent (Private Parties): Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D.C. For Respondent (State Parties): Benjamin N. Gutman, Solicitor General, Salem, OregonLink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:44] Argument Begins[00:00:56] Federal Parties Opening Statement[00:02:53] Federal Parties Free for All Questions[00:36:05] Federal Parties Sequential Questions[01:15:56] Private Parties Opening Statement[01:18:27] Private Parties Free for All Questions[01:36:30] Private Parties Sequential Questions[02:12:28] State Parties Opening Statement[02:13:28] State Parties Free for All Questions[02:33:00] State Parties Sequential Questions[02:35:40] Federal Parties Rebuttal
--------
2:39:46
--------
2:39:46
Oral Argument: Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Forum Fight
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Case No. 24-724 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group versus Palmquist, a forum fight about when courts keep cases they never should have had. A Texas family sued two companies over their child's heavy metal poisoning from baby food—but after a federal court wrongly kicked out one defendant and ran a two-week trial, an appeals court said the case never belonged in federal court, forcing everyone back to square one. Questions Presented:Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Hain and Whole Foods): Sarah E. Harrington, Washington, D.C. For Respondent (Palmquist): Russell S. Post, Houston, TexasLink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:42] Argument Begins[00:00:50] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:08] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:26:21] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:26:24] Respondent Opening Statement[00:28:31] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:40:05] Petitioner Rebuttal
--------
42:24
--------
42:24
Oral Argument: Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Time Trap Tangle
Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | Case No. 24-808 | Oral Argument Date: 11/5/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts versus Burton, a time trap tangle examining when void verdicts gain validity. Coney Island's bank account gets frozen for nearly $100,000 based on a 2015 Tennessee judgment they claim they never knew about. When Coney finally fights back seven years later, the Sixth Circuit dismisses the case, saying that you waited too long to challenge the judgment Coney didn’t even know about. "If something never existed in the first place, does waiting too long to challenge it make it real? Question Presented: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Coney): Daniel Ginzburg, Freehold, N.J. For Respondent (Burton): Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Preview[00:00:58] Argument Begins[00:01:07] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:17] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:19:12] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:19:15] Respondent Opening Statement[00:20:33] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:34:10] Petitioner Rebuttal
--------
36:40
--------
36:40
Oral Argument: Hencely v. Fluor | Battlefield Immunity Battle
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Case No. 24-724 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewA father seeks justice after his son, Army Staff Sergeant Ryan Hencely, was killed in a 2016 terrorist attack at Bagram Airfield. The Army's own investigation found contractor Fluor failed to supervise the Afghan worker who carried out the attack, calling it the "primary contributing factor." Yet Fluor claims federal law shields them from any state tort liability. Question Presented: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Hencely): Frank H. Chang, Arlington, Virginia argues for Petitioner Hencely. For Respondent (Fluor): Mark W. Mosier, Washington, D.C.For United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:48] Argument Begins[00:00:55] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:32] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:26:18] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:33:50] Respondent Opening Statement[00:36:12] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:54:59] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:07:11] United States Opening Statement[01:08:25] United States Free for All Questions[01:18:13] United States Sequential Questions[01:28:31] Petitioner Rebuttal
--------
1:30:47
--------
1:30:47
Oral Argument: Rico v. United States | Disappearing Defendant Dilemma
Rico v. United States | Case No. 24-1234 | Oral Argument Date: 11/3/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Rico versus United States, the disappearing defendant dilemma examining when sentence clocks stop ticking. Isabel Rico went on the run during her 42-month release term. The government says her time on the run doesn't count toward her sentence. Question Presented: Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Joshua K. Handell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:37] Argument Begins[00:00:45] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:30] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:24:20] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:24:35] Respondent Opening Statement[00:26:25] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:52:15] Respondent Sequential Questions[00:52:20] Petitioner Rebuttal
The High Court Report makes Supreme Court decisions accessible to everyone.
We deliver comprehensive SCOTUS coverage without the legal jargon or partisan spin—just clear analysis that explains how these cases affect your life, business, and community.
What you get: Case previews and breakdowns, raw oral argument audio, curated key exchanges, detailed opinion analysis, and expert commentary from a practicing attorney who's spent 12 years in courtrooms arguing the same types of cases the Supreme Court hears.
Why it works: Whether you need a focused 10-minute update or a deep constitutional dive, episodes are designed for busy professionals, engaged citizens, and anyone who wants to understand how the Court shapes America.
When we publish: 3-5 episodes weekly during the Court's October-June term, with summer coverage of emergency orders and retrospective analysis.
Growing archive: Oral arguments back to 2020 and expanding, so you can hear how landmark cases unfolded and track the Court's evolution.
Your direct line to understanding the Supreme Court—accessible, thorough, and grounded in real legal expertise.**
USA