Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Send us Fan Mail  Respondent Yonas Fikre, a U. S. citizen and Sudanese emigree, brought suit alleging that the government placed him on the No Fly List unlawfully. In his complaint, Mr. Fikre alleged that he traveled from his home in Portland, Oregon to Sudan in 2009 to pursue business opportunities there. At a visit to the U. S. embassy, two FBI agents informed Mr. Fikre that he could not return...

Send us Fan Mail Wilkinson v. Garland  Congress gives immigration judges discretionary power to cancel the removal of a noncitizen and instead permit the noncitizen to remain in the country lawfully. 8 U. S. C. §§1229b(a)–(b). An IJ faced with an application for cancellation of removal proceeds in two steps: The IJ must decide first whether the noncitizen is eligible for cancellation of removal un...

Send us Fan Mail O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier In 2014, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T. J. Zane created public Facebook pages to promote their campaigns for election to the Poway Unified School District (PUSD) Board of Trustees. While O’Connor-Ratcliff and Zane (whom we will call the Trustees) both had personal Facebook pages that they shared with friends and family, they used their public p...

Send us Fan Mail  James Freed, like countless other Americans, created a private Facebook profile sometime before 2008. He eventually converted his profile to a public “page,” meaning that anyone could see and comment on his posts. In 2014, Freed updated his Facebook page to reflect that he was appointed city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, describing himself as “Daddy to Lucy, Husband to Jessie...

Send us Fan Mail PULSIFER v. UNITED STATES No. 22–340. Argued October 2, 2023—Decided March 15, 2024 After pleading guilty to distributing at least 50 grams of methamphetamine, petitioner Mark Pulsifer faced a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. At sentencing, he sought to take advantage of the “safety valve” provision of federal sentencing law, which allows a sentencing court to dis...

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