Listen to this podcast in the app for free:
Download for free in the App Store
radio.net
Sleep timer
Save favorites
The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments
Brad Neal
Latest episode
1025 episodes
Trump, President of U.S. v. Cook
1/21/2026Trump, President of U.S. v. Cook | 01/21/26 | Docket #: 25A312
25A312 TRUMP V. COOK
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 2654786
THE APPLICATION FOR STAY PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO THE
COURT IS DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT IN JANUARY 2026.
JURISDICTION NOTED 10/1/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund
1/20/2026M & K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM Pension Fund | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 23-1209
23-1209 M & K EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LLC V. TRUSTEES OF THE IAM PENSION FUND
DECISION BELOW: 92 F.4th 316
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act imposes "withdrawal liability"
when an employer withdraws from an underfunded multiemployer pension plan. This
withdrawal liabilty covers the employer's share of the plan's underfunding. Because a
plan's amount of underfunding hinges on projections about its projected liabilities and
assets decades into the future, withdrawal liability computations are partly a product of
actuarial assumptions about anticipated interest rates and other predictions. Withdrawal
liability must be computed "as of the end of the plan year preceding the plan year in
which the employer withdraws."
E.g.,
29 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2)(E)(i). The question
presented is:
Whether 29 U.S.C. 1391's instruction to compute withdrawal liability "as of the
end of the plan year" requires the plan to base the computation on the actuarial
assumptions to which its actuary subscribed at the end of the year, or allows the plan to
use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after the end of the year
.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-7157, 22-7158, 23-7028
THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER
29
U. S. C. §
1391
’
S INSTRUCTION TO
COMPUTE WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY
“
AS OF THE END OF THE PLAN YEAR
”
REQUIRES THE PLAN TO BASE THE COMPUTATION ON THE ACTUARIAL
ASSUMPTIONS TO WHICH ITS ACTUARY SUBSCRIBED AT THE END OF THE
YEAR, OR ALLOWS THE PLAN TO USE DIFFERENT ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS
THAT WERE ADOPTED AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR.
Order of July 3, 2025:
The order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari is amended as follows. THE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER 29 U. S. C. §1391
’
S INSTRUCTION TO
COMPUTE WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY
“
AS OF THE END OF THE PLAN YEAR
”
REQUIRES THE PLAN TO BASE THE COMPUTATION ON THE ACTUARIAL
ASSUMPTIONS MOST RECENTLY ADOPTED BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR,
OR ALLOWS THE PLAN TO USE DIFFERENT ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT
WERE ADOPTED AFTER, BUT BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS OF, THE
END OF THE YEAR.
CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025Wolford v. Lopez
1/20/2026Wolford v. Lopez | 01/20/26 | Docket #: 24-1046
24-1046 WOLFORD V. LOPEZ
DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 959
LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
, 597 U.S. 1, 33 (2022), holds that
"the Second Amendment guarantees a general right to public carry" of arms, meaning ordinary,
law-abiding citizens may "'bear' arms in public for self-defense." In this case, the Ninth Circuit
sustained a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a concealed carry permit holder to carry a
handgun on private property unless he has been "given express authorization to carry a firearm
on the property by the owner, lessee, operator, or manager of the property." H.R.S. § 134-9.5.
That holding is in acknowledged direct conflict with the Second Circuit's holding in
Antonyuk v.
James
, 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024), a decision that struck down an
identical
State law in the
same procedural posture as this case.
The Ninth Circuit also sustained a multitude of other location bans on carry by permit
holders, relying solely on post-Reconstruction Era and later laws. That doctrinal approach is in
direct conflict with the Third Circuit's decision
in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State
Police
, 125 F.4th 428 (3d Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit's decision in
United States v. Connelly
, 117
F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit's decision in
Worth v. Jacobson
, 108 F.4th 677 (8th
Cir. 2024), and, most recently, the Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in
NRA v. Bondi
, No. 21-
12314, 2025 WL 815734 at *5 (11th Cir. March 14,2025) (en banc), all of which hold that
primary focus must be on Founding generation laws and tradition in applying the text, history
and tradition test
Bruen
mandates.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit,
that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry
permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively
gives express permission to the handgun carrier?
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in solely relying on post-Reconstruction Era and later
laws in applying
Bruen
's text, history and tradition test in direct conflict with the holdings of the
Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-16164Galette v. NJ Transit Corp.
1/14/2026Galette v. NJ Transit Corp. | 01/14/26 | Docket #: 24-1021
24-1021 GALETTE V. NJ TRANSIT CORP.
DECISION BELOW: 332 A.3d 776
THE PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI ARE GRANTED, LIMITED TO
THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE NEW JERSEY TRANSIT
CORPORATION IS AN ARM OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY FOR INTERSTATE
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PURPOSES.
CONSOLIDATED FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT WITH
24-1113
.
ORDER OF SEPTEMBER
19,2025
:
THE TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER
15
,
2025
, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY, IS THEREFORE STAYED PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF THE
MANDATE OF THIS COURT IN
NJ TRANSIT CORP., ET AL.
V.
COLT, JEFFREY, ET AL.
, CASE NO.
24-
1113
, AND
GALETTE, CEDRIC
V.
NJ TRANSIT CORP.
, CASE NO.
24-1021
.
CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is entitled to interstate sovereign
immunity under the Federal Constitution, as held by the highest court of Pennsylvania in
square conflict with the highest court of New York.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 4 EAP 2024West Virginia v. B. P. J.
1/13/2026West Virginia v. B. P. J. | 01/13/26 | Docket #: 24-43
24-43 WEST VIRGINIA V. B.P.J.
DECISION BELOW: 98 F.4th 542
CERT. GRANTED 7/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Like everywhere else, West Virginia schools offer separate sports teams for boys
and girls. The West Virginia Legislature concluded that biological boys should compete
on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the
Legislature found, because of the "inherent physical differences between biological
males and biological females."
A parent sued on behalf of her child, B.P.J., arguing that the State must allow
biological boys who identify as girls to compete on girls' teams. After extensive
discovery, the district court disagreed, entering summary judgment for the State on
claims under the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX. Yet a divided Fourth Circuit panel
granted an injunction pending appeal. B.P.J. then beat and displaced hundreds of girls
in track and field.
Ultimately, the same divided panel ruled in B.P.J.'s favor on the Title IX claim and
vacated the district court's judgment for the defendants on the equal-protection claim.
Judge Agee dissented, criticizing the majority for "inappropriately expand[ing] the scope
of the Equal Protection Clause and upend[ing] the essence of Title IX." App.44a. He
hoped this Court would "take the opportunity with all deliberate speed to resolve these
questions of national importance." App.74a
The questions presented are:
1.
Whether Title IX prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys'
sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
2.
Whether the Equal Protection Clause prevents a state from offering separate boys'
and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1078, 23-1130
About The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments
A public good: every Supreme Court Oral Argument since 2010. Making the Highest Court more accessible for a modern audience. The DC Bar blog's piece about this podcast can be found here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotuspod. If you'd like to support the law student who created this project instead of studying you can do so here: https://www.tinyurl.com/scotusguy. Thanks for listening! Patreon
Podcast website
USA