Supreme Court Opinions

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Mirabelli v Bonta.  The case was decided on March 2, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in case.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a trial court violate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by preventing the defendant and his lawyer from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight break in the trial? The case was decided on February 25, 2026. The opinion is pr...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Is an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine? The case was decided on February 25, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, bu...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Postal Service v. Konan. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a claim that Postal Service employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to a designated address arise out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal-matter exception? The case was deci...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v Palmquist. In this case, the court considered this issue: Must a federal court’s final judgment be set aside if the case did not have complete diversity when it was removed from state court, and can a plaintiff block diversity jurisdiction by updating the complaint after removal to i...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), authorize the president to impose tariffs? The case was decided on February 20, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitte...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Klein v Martin.  In this case, the court considered whether the Fourth Circuit violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) highly deferential standard of review by granting federal habeas relief and ordering a new trial for Charles Brandon Martin after a Maryland state court denied r...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Ellingburg v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause? The case was decided on January 20, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted....

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Berk v Choy. In this case, the court considered this issue: Must a Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit be enforced by a federal court sitting in diversity? The case was decided on January 20, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v Burton.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) impose any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction? The case was decided on January 20, 2026 The opinion is presented here in i...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Barrett v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment permit two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j)? The case was decided on January 14, 2026.  The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omi...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Bost v.  Illinois Bd. of Elections.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Do federal candidates have Article 3 standing to challenge state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be received and counted for two weeks after Election Day based on claims that such laws dilute their votes and force them to incu...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Case v Montana.  In this case, the court considered this issue: May law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring? The case was decided on January 14, 2026.  The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Bowe v United States.  In this case, the court considered these issues: 1. Does a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state prisoner habeas petitions also apply to repeat claims in federal prisoner motions to vacate their sentences? 2. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review lower court decisions all...

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Pitts v. Mississippi.  In this case, The Court considered whether the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause by allowing a child witness to testify behind a physical screen without first holding a case-specific hearing and making a case-specific finding of necessity, as required by Coy v...

The defendant, Jeremiah Sweeney, had been convicted by a Maryland jury of second‑degree murder (among other crimes. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a state post‑conviction relief effort failed, Sweeney filed a federal habeas petition. He argued that his criminal trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective. Specifically, his claim was that after one juror (Juror 4) vi...

In Goldey v. Fields, the Court considered whether an implied damages action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents can be extended to cover an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against federal prison officials . The Supreme Court of the United States held that a damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents does not extend to allow an Eighth Amendment excessiv...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is 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 subject to “rational basis” review or “strict scrutiny”? The case was decided on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Texas’s age-verification law for sexually explicit w...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a district court issue a nationwide (universal) injunction that blocks enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in the lawsuit? The case was decided on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Federal courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that pr...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did Congress violate the Constitution in the way it delegated power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions? The case was decided on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme that allows the FCC t...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out? The case was decided on June 27, 2025 The Supreme Court held that Parents challenging the Montgomery County Boa...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the structure of the U-S Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, and if so, is the provision that insulates the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision severable from the rest of the statute? The case was decided on June 27, 2025. The Supreme Court held that members of the U-S...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider? The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U-S-C...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provision apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, but was later vacated and resentenced after the Act took effect? The case was decided on June 26, 2025.  The Supreme Court held that because a sentence “has...been imposed” for purposes of § 403(b) of the First...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Texas death-row inmate have standing to sue the state over its refusal to grant access to DNA testing under a law that allows such testing only when the person can demonstrate that exculpatory results would have prevented their conviction? The case was decided on June 26, 2025.  The Supreme Court held that Petitioner Ruben Gutierrez has standin...