U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.

A case in which the Court will held that (1) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., and (2) the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) of the FTCA overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout § 2680.

A case in which the Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 do not require children with disabilities to satisfy a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.

A case in which the Court held that the statute that provides combat-related special compensation (CRSC) to disabled veterans establishes its own settlement process for claims, which supersedes the Barring Act’s default six-year statute of limitations for most claims against the federal government.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.

A case in which the Court held that a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.

The podcast explores the legal intricacies of mandatory sexuality education in public schools versus parental religious rights. It discusses the tensions between opt-out policies and inclusivity, alongside debates on teaching diverse family narratives. Key issues include navigating First Amendment protections and accusations of religious discrimination in educational content. The conversation highlights challenges in balancing respect for beliefs with the need for comprehensive educational curricula, aimed at fostering an understanding of diverse identities.

A case in which the Court held that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal need not file a second notice after the reopening is granted.

In this discussion, Mr. Bursch, Counsel for Medina, argues that Medicaid beneficiaries lack a private right under the 'any qualified provider' provision. Contrastingly, Ms. Zaharski, representing Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, asserts that this provision does confer such a right. Mr. Hawkins advocates for the government’s stance that no private right exists. The conversation navigates the legal intricacies surrounding healthcare rights, the significance of clear legislative language, and the implications of key legal precedents on individual rights in Medicaid.