Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Send us Fan Mail In Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi    the Supreme Court held that when a voluntary departure deadline under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) lands on a weekend or legal holiday, it carries over to the next business day.  Monsalvo Velázquez had been granted 60 days to voluntarily depart the U.S. He filed a motion to reopen on the following Monday after day 60 fell on a Saturday. The Board of Immi...

Send us Fan Mail In Cunningham v. Cornell University , the Supreme Court addressed a fundamental pleading question under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Petitioners—former and current Cornell University employees—alleged that university fiduciaries violated ERISA §1106(a)(1)(C) by causing their retirement plans to pay excessive fees for recordkeeping services to Fideli...

Send us Fan Mail In Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. J.G.G., et al. , the Supreme Court granted the government’s application to vacate temporary restraining orders issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia, which had blocked the removal of several Venezuelan detainees allegedly affiliated with the foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). The de...

Send us Fan Mail In Department of Education, et al. v. California , the Supreme Court in a per curiam decision granted the federal government’s application to stay a district court order that had mandated continued payment of certain education-related grants. The District Court for the District of Massachusetts had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 10, 2025, barring the terminati...

Send us Fan Mail In Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn , the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit and held that a plaintiff may seek treble damages under the civil RICO statute for injuries to business or property, even if those injuries stem from a personal injury. Douglas Horn was fired after testing positive for THC, allegedly caused by using a CBD product marketed as THC-free. He sued the ma...

Send us Fan Mail In FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments , the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Fifth Circuit decision that found the Food and Drug Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied authorization for flavored e-cigarette products. Under the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, manufacturers must receive FDA approval before marketing “new tobacco products,” including mo...

Send us Fan Mail In United States v. Miller , the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and held that a bankruptcy trustee cannot use §544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to claw back funds from the federal government under a state fraudulent-transfer law, due to sovereign immunity. The case arose after shareholders of a failed Utah business used $145,000 of company money to pay personal federal tax...

Send us Fan Mail In Bondi v. Vanderstok , the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and upheld the ATF’s 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to cover certain “ghost gun” kits and unfinished firearm parts. The GCA requires licenses and background checks for firearm sales and defines “firearm” to include both weapons and their frames or receivers. In recent years, companies h...

Send us Fan Mail In Delligatti v. United States , the Supreme Court held that New York attempted second-degree murder qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. §924(c) because the knowing or intentional causation of death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the use of physical force under §924(c)(3)(A).  Salvatore Delligatti was convicted under §924(c) after recruiting gang me...

Send us Fan Mail In Thompson v. United States the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §1014, which prohibits “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement” to influence the FDIC’s actions on a loan, does not extend to statements that are merely misleading but not technically false. Patrick Thompson, a former Chicago Alderman, was charged under §1014 after disputing his loan balance in conversations with F...

Send us Fan Mail ​In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency , the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case arose when the EPA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to San Francisco's wastewater treatment facilities, including provisions that prohibited discharges contr...

Send us Fan Mail In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. , the Supreme Court addressed the scope of monetary remedies under the Lanham Act. The case arose from a trademark dispute between two entities using the "Dewberry" name. The district court awarded the plaintiff not only the defendant's profits but also those of affiliated companies. The Fourth Circuit upheld this a...

Send us Fan Mail In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. , the Supreme Court held that a case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) qualifies as a "final proceeding" under Rule 60(b), allowing a district court to reopen the case. Gary Waetzig sued Halliburton for age discrimination but later dismissed his case without prejudice and pu...

Send us Fan Mail In Glossip v. Oklahoma , the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial when the prosecution knowingly fails to correct false testimony and that error could have contributed to the verdict. Richard Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death based primarily on the testimony of Justin Sneed, who claimed Glossip orchestrated the 1997 murder of Barry Van...

Send us Fan Mail In Lackey v. Stinnie , the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who secure only preliminary injunctive relief before their case becomes moot do not qualify as "prevailing parties" entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b). Virginia drivers challenged the constitutionality of a law suspending licenses for unpaid court fines. After a district court granted a preli...

Send us Fan Mail In Williams v. Reed , the Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s administrative-exhaustion rule, holding that states cannot require claimants to complete an allegedly delayed administrative process before filing a 42 U.S.C. §1983 lawsuit challenging that very delay. Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh explains that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision effectively immunized state off...

Send us Fan Mail In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath , the Supreme Court unanimously affirms that E-Rate reimbursement requests qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). The case centers on whether federal subsidies distributed through the E-Rate program—funded by contributions from telecommunications carriers and administered by a private corporation—constitute gove...

Send us Fan Mail In Republic of Hungary v. Simon , the Supreme Court held the mere allegation of commingling funds doesn't satisfy the commercial nexus requirement under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)’s expropriation exception. Holocaust survivors sued Hungary and its national railway, seeking damages for property seized during World War II, arguing that Hungary liquidated the pr...

Send us Fan Mail 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. This included her sexual history, person...

Send us Fan Mail ***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. companies from providing services to TikTok unless...

Send us Fan Mail 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 they were improperly denied overtime pay unde...

Send us Fan Mail 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 case arose after Wullschleger sued Royal Canin...

Send us Fan Mail Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Decided December 10, 2024) In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas , the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the revocation of a previously approved visa petition under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, whose petition for her noncitizen spouse was revoked by USCIS upon suspicion of a pri...

Send us Fan Mail Florida and Texas both enacted laws regulating social media companies and other online platforms.  Netchoice alleges a facial challenge to the statutes under the First Amendment.  Held: both judgments (of the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits) are vacated, as neither court conducted a proper analysis to the facial challenges under the First Amendment to these two laws. Read by Jeff Barn...

Send us Fan Mail Trump v. United States A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that after losing that election, Trump conspired to overturn it by spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the collecting, counting, and certifying of...