U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal contractors enjoy immunity from state-law tort suits because they are integrated into combat operations, even when they violate military orders and contractual duties.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.

A case in which the Court held that law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or faces imminent serious injury.

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 held that the statutory bar in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) that prohibits certiorari review of court of appeals decisions on second or successive habeas applications does not apply to federal prisoners, and § 2244(b)(1)’s bar on claims previously presented does not apply to federal prisoners’ motions under § 2255(h).

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.

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.

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 Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit must be applied in federal court.