U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Hobbs Act, a federal district court is bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Schaefer, representing the Free Speech Coalition, argues against a Texas law requiring age verification for online content and its implications on First Amendment rights. Mr. Fletcher, speaking for the government, emphasizes the need for strict scrutiny due to child protection needs. Ms. Nielsen, advocating for Texas, supports a rational basis review. They discuss the complexities of age verification laws, the balance between protecting minors and upholding free speech, and the evolving judicial interpretations affecting both sides.

A case in which the Court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

A case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, does not prohibit making a statement that is misleading but not false.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.

Mr. Francisco, a lawyer for TikTok, General Prelager, the government’s Solicitor General, and Mr. Fisher, representing American creators, dive into the complex legal landscape surrounding the TikTok case. They discuss the potential infringement of the First Amendment due to government attempts to regulate the platform based on national security concerns. The conversation highlights the balance between protecting citizens and preserving free speech, questioning the implications of foreign ownership on content moderation and censorship while advocating for thoughtful legislative solutions.

Mr. Hungar, representing Dewberry Group, Inc., argues against including profits from affiliates in calculating defendant profits. Mr. Crown counters that these profits should be considered, while Mr. Lynn contends that financial ties can be examined without breaching corporate separateness. The discussion navigates complexities around the Lanham Act, the intricacies of corporate liability, and the challenges of profit attribution in trademark infringement cases. Legal clarity on corporate structures and equitable remedies emerges as a key theme.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.