Scotuscast

On February 28, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Delaware v. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The issue at hand was a dispute over whether uncashed MoneyGrams qualify as “a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable,” pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2503, and therefore whether they should be escheated to the debtor's or creditor's state.Join us to hear Prof. Adam MacLeod unpack the decision's reasoning and discuss its jurisprudential impacts going forward.Featuring:Adam Macleod, Professor of Law, Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law

On April 18, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in New York v. New Jersey. The issue at hand is New Jersey's right to withdraw unilaterally from the 1953 Waterfront Commission Compact (with New York), in the face of opposition from New York.Tune in to hear Prof. Daniel Barnhizer, a contracts scholar and professor at Michigan State University College of Law, break down the background of the case, the reasoning behind the 9-0 vote, and the decision's implications.

On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wilkins v. United States. The issue at hand is the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and property law from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the vote and the decision's implications.

On April 24, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin. At issue is whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates tribal sovereign immunity. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

On March 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service. At issue is how much authority the IRS has (balanced against privacy rights) to seek records from third-party recordkeepers when it thinks such documents would help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s payment.Join us to hear from Prof. David Schizer as he breaks down the case, argument, and potential implications.

On March 28, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Smith v. United States. At issue is a circuit split over the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue: acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, or allowing the government to re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue.Join us to hear from Prof. Brian Kalt as he breaks down the case and argument.

On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. At issue is district court jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal (of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration) in arbitration cases under the Federal Arbitration Act.Join us to hear from Dr. Tamar Meshel as she breaks down the case and argument.

On March 20, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolodated cases of Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Dep. of Interior v. Navajo Nation. At issue is whether the federal government has an affirmative duty to the Navajo Nation to assess and provide for the Nation's water needs from particular sources, given that such a duty was not expressly established in past treaties between the federal government and the Nation. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

On February 28, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases challenging the Biden Administration's student loans forgiveness program: Board of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska. In August 2022, the Biden Administration's Department of Education announced plans to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans for borrowers who qualified. In order to do this, the DOE relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the government to modify student loans, among other things, during a national emergency.Both cases challenge this action. Biden v. Nebraska involves a challenge to the Executive action from six states who contend they will suffer direct harm based on a loss of tax revenue. In Department of Education v. Brown, two individual borrowers, one of whom has loans that are fully intelligible for forgiveness under the program, and one of whose loans only qualify for part of the maximum relief possible, also challenge the legitimacy of the program. The Court is faced with two questions in both

On February 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dubin v. United States. At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:J

On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is: does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another informati

On January 17, the Court heard oral argument in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland. The case involves immigration law and whether a court of appeals can review an immigrant’s petition that the Board of Immigration Appeals participated in impermissible fact finding because the immigrant did not exhaust this claim using a motion to reconsider.Join us to hear a breakdown of the case!Featuring:John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter, head of the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.Halkbank is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to clarify when and under what circumstances federal labor law preempts state tort claims for strike-related misconduct. On January 10, it heard oral arguments in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174, a case involving the intentional destruction of an employer’s property.The employer, Glacier Northwest, manufactures ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix concrete hardens quickly and must be poured on the same day it’s mixed. In August 2017, a union representing Glacier’s employees called a sudden strike. The union allegedly timed the strike so that concrete would be left to harden in Glacier’s trucks. Predictably, the concrete was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages. But state courts rejected the suit. They held that the suit was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because (a) the union’s conduct was arguably protected by federal law, and (b) the conduct fell outside an existing exception for intentional-tort cl

On December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court’s own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections. Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically acco

On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, concerning public accommodation laws, compelled speech, and religious liberty as they relate to a website designer who stated it would be against her faith to design wedding announcement websites for same-sex couples. Join us to hear from Prof. Dale Carpenter as he breaks down the background of the case and the oral argument.

On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument in MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, which concerns appellate jurisdiction under Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m). Join us to hear from Prof. Thomas Plank as he breaks down the background and oral argument of the case.

On November 30, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wilkins v. United States. The issue at hand is the Quiet Title Act's statute of limitations.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and property law from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the oral argument and offer his takeaways, opinions, and predictions about the case.

On November 29, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Texas. The issues at hand include whether states have standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's immigration guidelines and whether this DHS guidance violates the Administrative Procedure Act.Tune in to hear Prof. Ilya Somin, a scholar of constitutional law, federalism, and immigration from the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, break down the oral argument and offer his takeaways, opinions, and predictions about the case.

On November 8, 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. At issue is whether a state can require corporations to consent to personal jurisdiction in order to do business in the state, or whether such a requirement violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.Tune in to hear from Prof. Christopher R. Green, a leading scholar on the 14th Amendment and constitutional law from the University of Mississippi School of Law.