U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state prisoner habeas petitions also applies to repeat claims in federal prisoner motions to vacate their sentences; and (2) whether it has jurisdiction to review lower court decisions allowing or denying federal prisoners permission to file repeat challenges to their sentences.

A case in which the Court will decide whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a claim that Postal Service employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to a designated address arises out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal-matter exception.

Mr. Clement, an experienced appellate litigator, represents the petitioners arguing that federal candidates should have standing to challenge state election laws impacting mail-in ballots. He discusses how extended counting periods lead to vote dilution and increased campaign costs. Mr. Talent defends a narrower view of standing, suggesting it should only apply when ballots could genuinely affect outcomes. Meanwhile, Ms. Oates argues for traditional standing rules, critiquing claims of speculative harm. The debate raises questions about candidate rights and practical implications for electoral integrity.

In this riveting discussion, Mr. Larson, a veteran appellate counsel, argues that 18 U.S.C. §924(c) should be viewed as a lesser-included offense of §924(j), challenging the double jeopardy implications. Ms. Brown, representing the DOJ, counters that the statutes allow for separate punishments and explores their textual interplay. Mr. McLeod, as amicus counsel, reinforces the argument for cumulative punishments based on statutory design. The interplay between conviction, sentencing, and legislative intent shines through in their engaging legal debate.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit must be applied in federal court.

In this conversation, Mr. Banner, appellate counsel for Villarreal, emphasizes the critical Sixth Amendment right to discuss ongoing testimony with counsel during overnight recesses. Mr. Worthen, representing Texas, defends limited discussion rules to maintain trial integrity, while Mr. Parber, from the Solicitor General's office, advocates for broader prohibitions on testimony discussions. They tackle the fine line between permissible counseling and coaching, explore the implications of overnight recesses, and debate various legal precedents that could impact trial practices.

In this discussion, General Sauer, representing President Trump, dives into the 14th Amendment's original meaning and challenges around judicial power with universal injunctions. Mr. Feigenbaum, advocating for CASA Inc., contrasts states' injuries with the breadth of typical injunctions. Lastly, Ms. Corcoran emphasizes the significance of universal injunctions in defending against executive actions. Together, they navigate complex legal terrains regarding citizenship rights, historical precedents, and the evolving role of district courts in addressing these crucial constitutional debates.

In this discussion, representatives argue about the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond case. They dive into whether private schools' actions count as state actions when under contracts to provide free education. Key topics include the complexities of religious curriculum, the implications of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, and the legal boundaries charter schools navigate. The talk reveals tensions between educational diversity, state control, and religious freedoms within Oklahoma's charter school landscape.