SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

• Upcoming Oral Argument | Chiles v. Salazar | Battle Over Conversion Therapy and Therapist Free Speech Rights

  Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.Other Referenced Episodes:August 19 – Road Work Ahead: How Four 2024 Cases May Be Reshaping First Amendment Scrutiny | HereOverviewThis episode examines one of the most anticipated cases of the October 2025 Supreme Court term - a First Amendment challenge to Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban that has generated over 50 amicus briefs and sits at the intersection of free speech, parental rights, LGBTQ issues, and professional regulation.RoadmapOpening: A Constitutional Perfect StormOctober 7th, 2025 oral argument dateOver 50 amicus briefs filed (compared to 7 for most cases)Intersection of hot-button topics: parental rights, LGBTQ issues, religious freedom, professional regulationBackground: The Players and the LawKaley Chiles: Licensed counselor in Colorado Springs at Deeper Stories CounselingChristian counselor using "client-directed" approach with speech-only methodsColorado's 2019 law banning "conversion therapy" for minorsPenalties: fines up to $5,000, license suspension or revocationConstitutional Framework: The First Amendment Text"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"Extension to state governments through Fourteenth AmendmentThe simplicity of "no law" languageProcedural History: The Court Journey2022: Chiles filed pre-enforcement challengeDistrict court denied preliminary injunction using rational basis reviewTenth Circuit affirmed in divided panel decisionJudge Hartz's "scathing dissent" calling majority approach "remarkable" and "contrary" to precedentThe Central Constitutional QuestionSpeech versus conduct: When does professional speech become conduct that can be regulated?Level of scrutiny determines case outcomeThree-tiered analysis: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutinyUnderstanding Scrutiny Levels: The Road AnalogyRational basis: Highway with minimal obstaclesIntermediate scrutiny: Busy road with stop signs and traffic lightsStrict scrutiny: Road closure - "fatal in fact" for governmentCompeting Legal FrameworksChiles's Arguments (Strict Scrutiny)Content-based discrimination: "You can help with binge eating, but not sexual orientation behaviors"Viewpoint-based discrimination: "Support gender transition but forbid comfort with biological body"Speech-only counseling deserves full First Amendment protectionColorado's Arguments (Rational Basis)Professional healthcare treatment regulation, not speech restrictionTraditional state authority over professional standards"Professional healthcare treatment that happens to involve words"Key Supreme Court Precedents BattleNational Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA) (2018)Chiles...

  --------  

  21:13

  --------

  21:13
• Upcoming Oral Argument | Villareal v. Texas | Constitutional Conundrum Over the Right to Counsel and Witness Coaching

  Villarreal v. Texas | Case No. 24-557 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.OverviewThis episode examines Villareal v. Texas, a case that addresses a fundamental question affecting every criminal trial where a defendant takes the stand: what happens when testimony gets interrupted by an overnight recess? The case explores the intersection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and trial courts' authority to prevent witness coaching during extended breaks in testimony.Episode RoadmapOpening: The Constitutional DilemmaDavid Villareal's murder trial and self-defense claimThe overnight recess that created a constitutional questionThe judge's "qualified conferral order" - a middle-ground approachWhy this affects every criminal trial with testifying defendantsThe Trial Court's Balancing ActJudge's concern about overnight "coaching" of defendant's testimonyThe court's solution: prohibit testimony discussions, allow everything elseDefense counsel's understanding and preserved Sixth Amendment objectionConviction and 60-year sentence outcomeConstitutional Territory: Competing PrecedentsSixth Amendment's broad language: "assistance of counsel for his defence"Geders v. United States (1976): overnight recesses require full consultationPerry v. Leeke (1989): 15-minute recesses allow complete prohibitionThe gap: what about partial restrictions during long recesses?Split in Lower CourtsFederal circuits generally reject qualified orders during overnight recessesState supreme courts (including Texas) embrace the middle-ground approachTexas Court of Criminal Appeals: "type of communication" controls, not recess lengthThe constitutional question that prompted Supreme Court reviewVillareal's Three-Pronged AttackPerry already resolved this: "unrestricted access" during overnight recessesThe rule is unworkable: testimony and strategy discussions are "inextricably intertwined"Practical impossibilities: plea negotiations, perjury prevention, attorney-client privilegeTexas's Constitutional DefensePerry endorsed qualified orders even during short recessesSubstance matters more than timing: testimony discussions aren't constitutionally protectedThe rule works in practice: defense counsel understood and compliedFairness and truth-seeking justify the restrictionThe Current Court's JurisprudenceEmphasis on workability and bright-line rulesSkepticism of broad constitutional rules that are difficult to administerText and original meaning analysis of "assistance of counsel"Historical wrinkle: defendants couldn't testify when Sixth Amendment was ratifiedStakes and ImplicationsImpact on trial court management of testimony scheduling nationwideEffect on criminal defendants' consultation rights during testimony breaksBroader tension: advocacy system vs. truth-seeking functionPotential for significant practical impact regardless of outcomeRelevant Precedential CasesGeders v. United States | 425 U.S. 80 (1976) Holding: Trial courts...

  --------  

  15:31

  --------

  15:31
• Upcoming Oral Argument | Berk v. Choy | Showdown Over Federal Uniformity and State Authority

  Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Delaware's expert affidavit requirement for medical malpractice claims conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when applied in federal diversity casesEpisode OverviewThis episode examines Berk v. Choy, a case that started with a simple fall but could reshape how federal courts handle state law requirements across the country. The Supreme Court must decide whether Delaware's expert affidavit requirement for medical malpractice claims conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when applied in federal diversity cases, presenting a fundamental clash between federal procedural uniformity and state regulatory authority.RoadmapOpening: A Fall That Could Reshape Federal Court PracticeHarold Berk's fall from bed leads to medical malpractice case with nationwide implicationsDelaware's expert affidavit requirement vs. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure29 states with similar medical malpractice requirements creating potential patchworkThe Legal Framework: Erie Meets the Federal RulesErie Doctrine (1938): Federal courts must apply state substantive law for state claimsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure (1938): Uniform procedures for all federal courtsShady Grove Test: When Federal Rule and state law "answer the same question," Federal Rule winsTension between federal procedural uniformity and state regulatory authorityThe Shady Grove FoundationShady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance (2010) background$500 individual claim vs. multimillion-dollar class action potentialNew York's prohibition on statutory penalty class actions vs. Federal Rule 23Fractured Decision: Scalia plurality vs. Stevens concurrence vs. four dissentsThe Procedural Journey: From Delaware District Court to the Supreme CourtBerk's five-month struggle to obtain required expert affidavitDr. Raikin's refusal despite initially supporting Berk's caseMultiple physicians declining to provide affidavits against other doctorsThird Circuit's dismissal: affidavit "not a pleading" with "different purpose"Petitioner's Three-Pronged AttackDirect conflict with Federal Rules 8 and 9 under Shady Grove testUniformity concerns: Undermines federal procedural consistency established in 1938Anti-circumvention: State requirements shouldn't allow end-run around federal pleading standardsRespondents' Three-Part DefenseSeparate spheres: Delaware law operates as evidentiary requirement distinct from pleading rulesErie compliance: Represents substantive state law that federal courts must respectLimited Shady Grove: Fractured decision provides narrow precedential valueCASE SIGNIFICANCEThe outcome will likely determine whether federal courts remain faithful to both federal procedural uniformity and state substantive authority, or whether one value must give way to the other in the modern era of complex state regulatory schemes.Key Legal Concepts ExplainedDiversity Jurisdiction: Federal court authority over cases between citizens of different states involving state law claimsErie Doctrine: Principle requiring federal courts to apply state substantive law in diversity cases while using federal procedureFederal...

  --------  

  17:10

  --------

  17:10
• SCOTUS 2025 Term Launches: Your Preview Series Begins Now

  Episode OverviewThe Supreme Court returns from summer recess with a blockbuster lineup of cases for October and November 2025. This episode provides a comprehensive preview of the 19 cases already scheduled for oral argument, spanning critical issues from voting rights to conversion therapy bans to criminal procedure reforms. We examine why this term opens with such consequential cases and what practitioners and citizens should watch for as the arguments unfold.What You'll LearnComplete October & November argument schedule with key dates and case pairingsWhy Louisiana v. Callais could be the most significant voting rights case in years - including why the Court ordered reargument with explosive new briefingHow Chiles v. Salazar tests the boundaries between professional regulation and First Amendment protectionCriminal justice cases that could reshape double jeopardy doctrine, death penalty procedures, and federal sentencingWhat these early cases signal about the Court's priorities for the full 2025-2026 termEpisode RoadmapOpening: Term Overview Supreme Court's 2025-2026 schedule: 19 cases across 10 argument daysWhy the Court frontloaded significant cases in October-NovemberWhat's still coming: Additional cases and argument dates to be announcedOctober Arguments Deep DiveWeek 1: October 6-8Villarreal v. Texas - Sixth Amendment right to counsel during trial recessesBerk v. Choy - State procedural rules in federal courtChiles v. Salazar - Colorado conversion therapy ban and First Amendment clashBarrett v. United States - Double jeopardy and multiple sentencesBost v. Illinois Board of Elections - Standing to challenge election proceduresU.S. Postal Service v. Konan - Federal tort immunity for intentional mail failuresWeek 2: October 14-15Criminal procedure cases: Bowe and Ellingburg on post-conviction relief and ex post facto protectionsThe blockbuster: Louisiana v. Callais reargument on voting rights and equal protectionCase v. Montana - Fourth Amendment emergency aid exceptionNovember Arguments AnalysisEarly November Focus Areas:Capital punishment: Hamm v. Smith on intellectual disability assessmentsGovernment contractor liability: Hencely v. Fluor CorporationPrisoners' religious rights: Landor v. Louisiana Department of CorrectionsFederal Sentencing Reform Finale:Fernandez, Rutherford, and Carter cases on "extraordinary and compelling" sentence reductionsLooking Ahead: What's NextAdditional cases expected throughout fallPattern analysis: What these early cases reveal about Court prioritiesPreview of upcoming episode plans for individual case deep-divesKey Cases HighlightedMust-Watch CasesLouisiana v. Callais (Oct. 15) - Could fundamentally alter Voting Rights Act enforcementChiles v. Salazar (Oct. 7) - Conversion therapy ban meets First AmendmentHamm v. Smith (Nov. 4) - Life-or-death intellectual disability standardsImportant for PractitionersBerk v. Choy - Federal court procedure and state law intersectionBost v. Illinois Board of Elections -...

  --------  

  11:23

  --------

  11:23
• A Constitutional Clash: Trump's Tariffs and the Separation of Powers

  OverviewThis episode examines the Supreme Court's September 9, 2025 Order that expedited review of two consolidated cases challenging President Trump's authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), representing a constitutional clash over the separation of powers and presidential trade authority.RoadmapOpening: Explosive Constitutional QuestionsSeptember 9, 2025 certiorari grant and consolidation orderExpedited briefing schedule for November 2025 oral argumentsStakes: Presidential power to tax trillions in trade and reshape the economyBackground: The Trump Tariff OrdersReciprocal Tariffs: 10% on virtually all imports, higher rates for 57 countriesTrafficking Tariffs: Levies on Mexico, Canada, and China for drug enforcementIEEPA as claimed statutory authority for both tariff schemesNational emergency declarations underlying the ordersThe Central Legal QuestionDoes "regulate" in IEEPA include power to impose tariffs?Constitutional separation of taxing vs. regulating powersArticle I distinctions between taxation and commerce regulationHistorical significance: "No taxation without representation"Lower Court JourneyMultiple simultaneous lawsuits in different courtsDistrict court and Court of International Trade conflicting approachesFederal Circuit en banc decision striking down tariffsJudge Taranto's influential dissent supporting tariff authorityReferenced CasesTrump v. V.O.S. Selections | Case No. 24-1286 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose these specific sweeping tariffsGovernment Arguments:"Regulate" includes power to impose tariffs as lesser-included authorityHistorical practice supports broad executive trade power during emergenciesMajor questions doctrine doesn't apply in foreign policy contextsV.O.S. Arguments:Constitutional separation requires clear authorization for taxation"Regulate" and "tariff" are distinct powers with different purposesMajor questions doctrine requires explicit congressional authorizationLearning Resources v. Trump | Case No. 24-1287 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether IEEPA authorizes any presidential tariffs whatsoeverLearning Resources Arguments:"Regulate" means control behavior, "tariff" means raise revenue - fundamentally differentNo historical practice of IEEPA tariffs in nearly 50 yearsConstitutional avoidance: IEEPA covers exports where tariffs are prohibitedGovernment Arguments:Plain text of "regulate importation" naturally includes tariff authorityYoshida precedent shows Congress ratified tariff interpretationPresidential action deserves greater deference than agency actionKey Legal Precedents ExaminedHistorical Foundation CasesGibbons v. Ogden (1824):...

  --------  

  18:12

  --------

  18:12

More Education podcasts

Trending Education podcasts

About SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions

SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions: Podcasts in Family