U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court held that Mexico did not plausibly allege that U.S. gun manufacturers, by producing and selling firearms, aided and abetted Mexican cartels and thus cannot be held liable for violence in Mexico under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

A case in which the Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s “extraordinary circumstances” standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

A case in which the Court held that plaintiffs need not prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

A case in which the Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not prove anything different from a minority-group plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The podcast dives into the vital case of Esteras v. United States, examining whether courts can consider factors beyond the supervised release law during revocation. It highlights the congressional intent to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment, exploring the complexities of statutory interpretation and judicial discretion. The conversation addresses the challenges judges face in balancing public safety with individual rehabilitation and the intricate legal frameworks guiding supervised release versus parole. Through hypothetical scenarios, ethical dilemmas in the sentencing process are examined.

A case in which the Court held that, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.

A case in which the Court held that a Texas death-row inmate has standing to sue the state over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing.

Mr. Wang, the attorney for the petitioner, debates ERISA's implications alongside Ms. Dubin and Ms. Harsky, representing the respondent. They explore fiduciary responsibilities within university retirement plans and the challenges of proving harm from bundled services. Legal exemptions and the burden of proof take center stage, as they dissect recent court rulings affecting fiduciary claims. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in legal pleadings, with discussions underscoring complexities surrounding fiduciary duties and statutory interpretations.

A case in which the Court struck down the Fifth Circuit's “moment of the threat” doctrine, which it applied when evaluating Fourth Amendment excessive force claims.

A case in which the Court held that the Tobacco Control Act’s provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA’s denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval.