Supreme Court Season episodes will include all arguments that occur from October 01st to April/May. You can listen to the sidebar version of each Supreme Court Case https://thesidebar.transistor.fm/
…
continue reading
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
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Brett and Nazim are two attorneys who hate being attorneys. Each week, they discuss current Supreme Court cases with the intent to make the law more accessible to the average person, while ruminating on what makes the law both frustrating and interesting. This podcast is not legal advice and is for entertainment purposes only. If anything you hear leads you to believe you need legal advice, please contact an attorney immediately
…
continue reading
In under 30 minutes. Do you want to understand specific cases? We are here to provide commentary on every Supreme Court case.
…
continue reading
The latest news and analysis about key cases and critical arguments before the Supreme Court. (Updated periodically) PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
…
continue reading
Unedited English audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada. Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada’s highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court’s website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.
…
continue reading
A chronological podcast of oral arguments with improved files and meta data. Hosted by Free Law Project through the CourtListener.com initiative. Not an official podcast.
…
continue reading
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Fur ...
…
continue reading
Audio from oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States (beg. Oct. 2010)
…
continue reading
In depth explanations of Supreme Court Cases New Jersey v T.L.O, Mapp v Ohio, and Miranda v Arizona.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
A podcast feed for the audio of Supreme Court oral arguments and decision announcements. Short case descriptions are reproduced from Oyez.org under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license. This feed is not approved, managed, or affiliated with Oyez.org. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
…
continue reading
We will dive into the astounding stories of the Supreme Court.
…
continue reading
Opinion announcements from the Supreme Court of the United States, presented by Oyez, a multimedia judicial archive at the IllinoisTech Chicago-Kent College of Law.
…
continue reading
Podcast by Hemant Mehta
…
continue reading
The Queens Supreme Court podcast is the hilarious spinoff of the hit online series “The Queens Supreme Court” with Ts Madison. The premise of the weekly satirical show is to discuss pop culture and all the hot social media trends, topics and gossip THEN try them as cases, render judgements and sentence the crimes accordingly to determine the ultimate fate of each celebrity!
…
continue reading
Any listeners out there...really want entertaining basketball content? Don't want to worry about the hosts - all on the show trying to force "controversial" hot takes, all in your earbuds, yelling back and forth to win an argument? Come to The Supreme Court: A Basketball Podcast! Check back with the SC trio; Robaire, Chris, and Henri, Wednesdays as we discuss the latest NBA headlines, news, and transactions.
…
continue reading
Throughout the years the Supreme Court has evolved much like the rest of the federal government. This would not be without landmark rulings, which will be the main focus of this podcast. Landmark rulings lay the groundwork for laws to be overturned or upheld and allow for the United States to work toward major goals. Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/aaron-larson2/support
…
continue reading
This study, A Christian Response to the Supreme Court Decision, exposes the foreboding Danger that this ruling will bring upon our nation if things don’t turn around very quickly. You will also be thoroughly equipped to give a loving Biblical apologetic response to 15 different accusations made against Christians regarding this issue.
…
continue reading
1
Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007 [Arg: 1.22.2025]
1:30:44
1:30:44
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:30:44
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained…
…
continue reading
Send us a text Andrew v. White In Andrew v. White, the Supreme Court reviewed the Tenth Circuit's decision to reject Brenda Andrew's due process challenge to her conviction for murder. Andrew was charged with murdering her husband -- at trial, the prosecution introduced prejudicial evidence with little probative value to the issue of her guilt. Thi…
…
continue reading
1
Awale Hussein v. His Majesty the King (41015)
2:42:39
2:42:39
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
2:42:39
After friends spent a night drinking heavily in a basement apartment, Mr. Boucher was fatally stabbed multiple times in a bedroom. No one witnessed the stabbing. Mr. Hussein was charged with second degree murder and tried before a jury. He testified at trial. Defence counsel brought an application to prevent or restrict the Crown from cross-examini…
…
continue reading
Cunningham v. Cornell University | 01/22/25 | Docket #: 23-1007
…
continue reading
1
Barnes v. Felix
1:05:13
1:05:13
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:05:13
Barnes v. FelixSupreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
This week's episode covers the Supreme Court's decision in TikTok v. Garland, a great example of how the Federal government passing laws can end up as the Federal Government's own worst nightmare. Nazim has returned, so enjoy commentary on snow days, getting old, and legos. Law still starts from the beginning.…
…
continue reading
The clock is ticking on a potential ban on TikTok. In April, Congress and President Biden gave the app's Beijing-based parent company 270 days to find a new owner or face a shutdown. They argued that Chinese control of the platform was a national security threat. Geoff Bennett discussed the latest developments with Carrie Cordero of the Center for …
…
continue reading
The Supreme Court case, Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida. The central question is whether a former employee, who alleges disability discrimination regarding post-employment benefits, can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) even if the alleged discrimination occurred before the employee's retirement. The arguments presented by bot…
…
continue reading
1
Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239 [Arg: 1.22.2025]
1:15:57
1:15:57
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:15:57
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation, No. 23-1226 [Arg: 1.21.2025]
1:13:53
1:13:53
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:13:53
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., No. 23-1187 [Arg: 1.21.2025]
1:12:12
1:12:12
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:12:12
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit. ★ Support this …
…
continue reading
1
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, No. 23-1122 [Arg: 1.15.2025]
2:05:32
2:05:32
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
2:05:32
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
Barnes v. Felix | 01/22/25 | Docket #: 23-1239
…
continue reading
1
Barnes v. Felix
1:15:57
1:15:57
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:15:57
A case in which the Court will decide whether courts should apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.
…
continue reading
1
Cunningham v. Cornell University
1:30:44
1:30:44
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:30:44
A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff can state a claim under a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that bars a plan fiduciary from knowingly engaging in a transaction that is an exchange of goods or services between the plan and anyone barred from doing business with the plan, simply by alleging tha…
…
continue reading
1
Cunningham v. Cornell University
1:17:55
1:17:55
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:17:55
Cunningham v. Cornell UniversitySupreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp. | 01/21/25 | Docket #: 23-1226
…
continue reading
FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. | 01/21/25 | Docket #: 23-1187
…
continue reading
1
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation
1:13:53
1:13:53
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:13:53
A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Hobbs Act, a federal district court is bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
…
continue reading
1
Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
1:12:11
1:12:11
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:12:11
A case in which the Court will decide whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.
…
continue reading
1
McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.
1:03:27
1:03:27
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:03:27
McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
1
FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
1:01:59
1:01:59
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:01:59
FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.Supreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
1
Attorney General of Québec, et al. v. Louis-Pier Senneville, et al. (40882)
2:31:40
2:31:40
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
2:31:40
The appellants, the Attorney General of Quebec and His Majesty the King, obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the declaration of unconstitutionality made by the Quebec Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment provided for in s. 163.1(4…
…
continue reading
Send us a text ***Special edition -- with no syllabus in this case -- the recording includes the entire per curiam decision, as well as the two concurring opinions.*** In TikTok Inc. v. Garland, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The Act prohibits U.S. com…
…
continue reading
Send us a text E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Decided January 15, 2025) In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court considered the standard of proof employers must meet to classify employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) overtime-pay provisions. The case arose when sales representatives sued E.M.D. Sales, alleging the…
…
continue reading
Send us a text Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (Decided January 15, 2025) In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court addressed whether a federal court retains supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 when a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims after a case is removed to federal court. The…
…
continue reading
1
Mikhail Kloubakov, et al. v. His Majesty the King (Day 1/2) (41017)
3:50:00
3:50:00
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
3:50:00
(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Following their trial, the appellants, Mikhail Kloubakov and Hicham Moustaine, were convicted of obtaining a material benefit from sexual services (s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code) and of procuring, as parties (s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code). However, after entering the convictions, the trial judge determined that the …
…
continue reading
1
Pawel Kosicki, et al. v. City of Toronto, Formerly the Corporation of the Borough of York (40908)
2:48:15
2:48:15
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
2:48:15
The appellants are owners of a residential property in the City of Toronto. They sought an order for adverse possession of a parcel of City parkland that their predecessors in title had fenced off with a chain link fence and enclosed into their backyard. The City acknowledged that the appellants’ evidence satisfied the traditional test for adverse …
…
continue reading
1
Lundin Mining Corporation, et al. v. Dov Markowich (40853)
2:43:40
2:43:40
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
2:43:40
The respondent, Dov Markowich, is a shareholder of the appellant, Lundin Mining Corporation (“Lundin”). He sought leave under s. 138.8 of Ontario’s Securities Act, to bring a statutory cause of action against Lundin and its officers and directors for Lundin’s alleged failure to make timely disclosure of pit wall instability and a subsequent rocksli…
…
continue reading
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | 01/15/25 | Docket #: 23-1122
…
continue reading
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
Thompson v. U.S., No. 23-1095 [Arg: 1.14.2025]
1:17:03
1:17:03
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:17:03
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Better Informed Network
…
continue reading
1
His Majesty the King v. Paul Eric Wilson (40990)
2:36:23
2:36:23
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
2:36:23
Section 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, provides that no person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of the offence of simple possession of a controlled substance if the evidence in su…
…
continue reading
1
Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton
2:05:32
2:05:32
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
2:05:32
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access should be subject to “rational basis” review or “strict scrutiny.”
…
continue reading
1
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton
1:47:48
1:47:48
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:47:48
Free Speech Coalition v. PaxtonSupreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-971
…
continue reading
Thompson v. United States | 01/14/25 | Docket #: 23-1095
…
continue reading
The Supreme Court case, Hewitt v. United States. The case centers on whether the Act applies to resentencings following vacated sentences, a point of contention regarding the interpretation of the phrase "a sentence for the offense has not been imposed." The justices debated the statutory language's ambiguity, considering the present-perfect tense …
…
continue reading
1
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, No. 23-997 [Arg: 1.13.2025]
1:18:04
1:18:04
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:18:04
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
…
continue reading
1
Hewitt v. U.S., No. 23-1002 [Arg: 1.13.2025]
1:30:43
1:30:43
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:30:43
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…
…
continue reading
A case in which the Court will decide whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
…
continue reading
1
Thompson v. United States
1:17:02
1:17:02
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:17:02
A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
…
continue reading
1
Thompson v. United States
1:06:09
1:06:09
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:06:09
Thompson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy ServicesSupreme Court of the United States
…
continue reading
Stanley v. City of Sanford | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-997
…
continue reading
Hewitt v. United States | 01/13/25 | Docket #: 23-1002
…
continue reading
1
Hewitt v. United States
1:30:42
1:30:42
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:30:42
A case in which the Court will decide whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.
…
continue reading
1
Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida
1:18:04
1:18:04
Відтворити пізніше
Відтворити пізніше
Списки
Подобається
Подобається
1:18:04
A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.…
…
continue reading