Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• [23-1300] NRC v. Texas

  Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 5, 2025. Petitioner: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Respondent: Texas. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The United States has grappled with nuclear waste storage since the 1940s, initially from weapons development and later from commercial nuclear power. While spent nuclear fuel was originally intended to be reprocessed, this proved impractical, leading Congress to pass the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. The Act designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation’s permanent underground repository and required the Department of Energy to begin accepting waste from states by 1998. However, amid strong opposition and delays, the Obama administration halted work on Yucca Mountain and established a Blue Ribbon Commission, which recommended a consent-based approach to siting storage facilities. Following that shift in policy, Waste Control Specialists (as Interim Storage Partners) applied to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County, Texas. Despite opposition from Texas's governor and legislature, which passed a law prohibiting such storage, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a license in September 2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the license, holding that neither the Atomic Energy Act nor the Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorized the Commission to license private interim storage facilities. Question 1. Can a nonparty challenge a federal agency’s “final order” under the Hobbs Act’s judicial review provision?  2. Do federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites?

  --------  

  1:35:50
• [23-1141] Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

  Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 4, 2025. Petitioner: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.Respondent: Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Advocates: Noel J. Francisco (for the Petitioners) Catherine E. Stetson (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The Mexican government sued several U.S. gun manufacturers in federal court, alleging their practices facilitated illegal gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels, causing harm to Mexico. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the lawsuit was barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which prohibits certain lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the PLCAA applied and barred Mexico's claims. Mexico appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that while the PLCAA does apply to lawsuits by foreign governments for harm suffered abroad, Mexico’s lawsuit falls within the statute’s “predicate exception” for claims alleging knowing violations of laws applicable to gun sales. The court found Mexico adequately alleged that the defendants aided and abetted illegal gun trafficking in violation of U.S. laws, and that this proximately caused harm to Mexico. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the causal chain was too attenuated, finding Mexico plausibly alleged direct harm from having to combat well-armed cartels. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Mexico's lawsuit to move forward. Question Can U.S. gun manufacturers be held liable for violence in Mexico under theories of proximate causation and aiding and abetting, based on their domestic production and sale of firearms that are later trafficked to Mexican cartels?

  --------  

  1:31:09
• [23-1201] CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.

  CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 3, 2025. Petitioner: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited.Respondent: Antrix Corp. Ltd. Advocates: Aaron M. Streett (for the Petitioner in No. 24-17) Matthew D. McGill (for the Petitioners in No. 23-1201) Sarah M. Harris (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners) Carter G. Phillips (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) This case involves an agreement between two Indian corporations, Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. and Antrix Corp. Ltd. After a dispute arose, Devas obtained an arbitration award from the International Chamber of Commerce against Antrix. Devas then sought to confirm this award in a U.S. district court. Antrix challenged the court’s personal jurisdiction, but the district court confirmed the award, concluding that a minimum contacts analysis was unnecessary under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Antrix appealed the confirmation order, arguing that the district court erred in exercising personal jurisdiction without conducting a minimum contacts analysis. Meanwhile, a group of intervenors, including CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. and others, moved to register the judgment in the Eastern District of Virginia. Both Antrix and Devas challenged this registration order. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the plaintiff must prove minimum contacts, and its failure to do so meant it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over Antrix. Question Must plaintiffs prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?

  --------  

  49:23
• [23-1259] BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman

  BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 3, 2025. Petitioner: BLOM Bank SAL.Respondent: Michal Honickman. Advocates: Michael H. McGinley (for the Petitioner) Michael J. Radine (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) This case involves victims and family members of HAMAS terrorist attacks who sued BLOM Bank SAL for allegedly aiding HAMAS by providing financial services to customers affiliated with the terrorist organization. The plaintiffs brought their case under the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), claiming BLOM Bank was liable for aiding and abetting terrorism through these financial services. The plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in January 2019, which the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal but clarified that the district court had applied the wrong legal standard for aiding-and-abetting liability under JASTA. The plaintiffs then returned to the district court and moved to vacate the dismissal and amend their complaint. The district court denied their motion, and the Second Circuit concluded that the district court had erred by not properly balancing the competing principles of judgment finality (Rule 60(b)) and liberal pleading standards (Rule 15(a)). Question Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard apply to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint?

  --------  

  52:41
• [23-1039] Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

  Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Feb 26, 2025. Petitioner: Marlean A. Ames.Respondent: Ohio Department of Youth Services. Advocates: Xiao Wang (for the Petitioner) Ashley Robertson (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting vacatur) T. Elliot Gaiser (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The Ohio Department of Youth Services hired Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, in 2004 and promoted her to Administrator of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2014. In 2017, Ames was assigned a new supervisor, Ginine Trim, who is gay. Trim reported to Assistant Director Julie Walburn, and in 2019, Ryan Gies was appointed as the Department's Director. Both Walburn and Gies are heterosexual. In December 2018, Trim gave Ames a generally positive performance evaluation. In April 2019, Ames applied for the position of Bureau Chief of Quality but was not selected. Shortly after, Trim suggested that Ames consider retirement. On May 10, 2019, Ames was demoted from her PREA Administrator position, resulting in a significant pay cut. The Department then promoted Alexander Stojsavljevic, a 25-year-old gay man, to the PREA Administrator position. Later that year, Yolanda Frierson, a gay woman, was chosen as Bureau Chief of Quality. Following these events, Ames filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and then sued the Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserting claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation and sex. The district court granted summary judgment to the Department, holding that Ames lacked evidence of “background circumstances” necessary to establishing her prima facie case for her claim based on sexual orientation, and that Ames lacked evidence of pretext for purposes of her sex-discrimination claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Question Does a plaintiff who belongs to a majority group need to demonstrate “background circumstances suggesting that the defendant is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

  --------  

  54:55

More Government podcasts

Trending Government podcasts

About Supreme Court Oral Arguments