Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Send us Fan Mail Trump v. Anderson A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to ex...

Send us Fan Mail Trump v. Anderson JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring in the judgment.  "“If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215, 348 (2022) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment). That fundamental principle of judicial restraint is practi...

Send us Fan Mail Trump v. Anderson DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO [March 4, 2024] JUSTICE BARRETT, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to res...

Send us Fan Mail MCELRATH v. GEORGIA  Damian McElrath was charged with malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault -- all related to the death of his mother.  A jury returned a split verdict.  For the malice-murder charge, finding him “not guilty by reason of insanity” and “guilty but mentally ill” to the other counts.  The Georgia Supreme Court stated that because these findings were inc...

Send us Fan Mail Great Lakes v. Raiders Great Lakes Insurance (organized in Germany and HQ in UK) entered into a maritime insurance contract with Raiders Retreat Realty Company (HQ in PA).  The contract included a provision to apply New York law.  A Raiders vessel had an incident in Florida, Raiders then filed a claim.  Great Lakes filed for declaratory judgment in a Pennsylvania federal court.  R...

Send us Fan Mail  TREVOR MURRAY, PETITIONER v. UBS SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL. As part of Trevor Murray's job at UBS, he had to file reports to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  In these reports, he had to certify that the reports reflected his personal and independent views.  Despite physical separation from the rest of the unit, Murray claimed that he was receiving pressure from higher...

Send us Fan Mail DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT RURAL HOUSING SERVICE v. KIRTZ   Reginald Kirtz obtained a loan from the Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service.  According to Kirtz, the USDA later told one of the major credit agencies (TransUnion) that Kirtz was behind on his payments.  Kirtz says this was false and these false statements hurt his credit rep...

Send us Fan Mail The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a circuit split -- whether Deborah Laufer has Article III standing to sue hotels that fail to include information about accessibility accommodations as required by the ADA.  She sued hundreds of hotels, most of which she never intended on trying to stay at.  After her lawyer faced sanctions, Laufer decided to voluntarily dismiss her...

Send us Fan Mail In Biden v. Nebraska , the Supreme Court reviewed whether the HEROES Act authorized the Secretary of Education to unilaterally forgive $10,000 of student loans for most borrowers. The Court held that the Secretary does not have this power under HEROES Act, despite the language that allows the Secretary to "waive or modify" certain student loan provisions. Read by Jake A....

Send us Fan Mail In  Department of Education v. Brown , the Supreme Court reviewed whether a person who was expecting student loan forgiveness, but not the maximum amount, had Article III standing to sue. The Court found that those individuals lacked standing to bring their challenge to the student loan forgiveness plan. Read by Jake A. Leahy.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In 303 Creative v. Elenis , the Supreme Court considered whether a Colorado based website designer could be compelled to speak in a manner that violates her religious beliefs--that is, whether she could be compelled to create custom website designs for same-sex weddings. The Supreme Court held for the designer, finding that anti-discrimination laws did not prevent her from refusin...

Send us Fan Mail In  Groff v. DeJoy , the Supreme Court reviewed whether a postal worker was entitled to a religious accommodation that would allow him to not be scheduled on Sundays. The Court held that an employer who denies a religious accommodation is required to show a substantial burden if it had decided to accept the request. Read by Jeff Barnum.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In  Abitron v. Hetronic , the Supreme Court answered whether certain sections of the Lanham Act were unconstitutionally extraterritorial. To decide this issue, the Court applies a two-part test. It first looks to: 1) whether “Congress has affirmatively and unmistakably instructed for the statute to regulate foreign conduct; and if part-one finds it is not extraterritorial, the ana...

Send us Fan Mail In Students for Fair Admissions , the Supreme Court reviewed whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina are constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Held : The universities' race-based affirmative action admissions programs are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clauses of the Four...

Send us Fan Mail Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from requiring an out of state corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction in order to do business in the state. Mallory, a Virginia resident, brought suit against Norfolk Southern Railway Company under Pennsylvania Law -- claiming carcinogen exposure in Ohio and Virginia. Norfolk Southern rebutted th...

Send us Fan Mail In  Counterman v. Colorado , the Supreme Court reviewed whether a conviction for stalking based on "true threats" requires an objective or subjective test. The Court ruled that to government must prove true threats based on a subjective test. Under this test, the Court writes, the speaker need not intend harm, and that recklessness is enough. Justice Kagan writes for the...

Send us Fan Mail In Moore v. Harper , the Supreme Court reviewed whether acts by the state Legislature regarding the regulation of federal elections can be subject to state-level judicial review. Government actions are presumptively subject to judicial review, the Constitution's elections clause does not create a carveout to this expectation. In Moore , the North Carolina General Assembly pas...

Send us Fan Mail In United States v. Hansen , the Supreme Court considered whether a statute that forbids purposeful facilitation and facilitation of certain acts in overbroad and unconstitutional. To be over broad, a statute must criminalize such an unreasonable amount of protected speech that it cannot be applied to anyone. Hansen incorrectly promised hundreds of people American citizenship thro...

Send us Fan Mail In  Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski , the Supreme Court reviewed whether a district court must stay proceedings while an interlocutory appeal is pending regarding the arbitrability of the claim is ongoing. Writing for an (in part) 5-4 and (in part) 6-3 majority, Justice Kavanaugh answers in the affirmative, stating that while an interlocutory appeal is pending about whether the case sho...

Send us Fan Mail In  United States v. Texas , the Supreme Court reviewed whether Texas and Louisiana have Article III standing to challenge the Biden Administration's new immigration guidelines. Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Kavanaugh ruled no, the states do not have standing to challenge the actions. Read by Jeff Barnum.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In Samia v. United States , the Supreme Court reviewed whether the confrontation clause is violated when a confession one of the co-defendants that implicitly implicates one of the other co-defendants violates the confrontation clause. The Court held that it does not. Read by Jake Leahy.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In Pugin v. Garland , the Court reviewed "whether an offense 'relat[es] to obstruction of justice' under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending . Dictionary definitions, federal laws, state laws, and the Model Penal Code show that the answer is yes: An offense “relat[es] to obstruction of justice” even if...

Send us Fan Mail In  Arizona v. Navajo Nation , the Supreme Court answers whether the Navajo Nation has reserved water rights pursuant to the agreement that established the reservation for the Navajo people. Held: While the Navajo Nation has certain water and mineral rights, the United States is not required to take affirmative steps to provide for water rights to the Navajo people. Jeff Barnum, G...

Send us Fan Mail In  Yegiazaryan v. Smagin , the Supreme Court reviewed whether the United States district court has jurisdiction over a Civil RICO claim where the plaintiff is a foreign national (who resides in Russia) who has pleaded an injury based on his "his efforts to execute on a California judgment in California against a California resident were foiled by a pattern of racketeering ac...

Send us Fan Mail In  Jones v. Hendrix , the Supreme Court reviewed whether a prisoner can bring a habeas petition after the Supreme Court retroactively overruled Circuit Court precedent that would have allowed him to previously challenge his conviction. Held: The prisoner cannot circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, by filing a habeas petition after a change in the...