U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

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.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies in cases involving seized money and that the plaintiffs must establish a clear trace between expropriated property (or the proceeds from its sale) and property present in the United States in connection with commercial activity.

A case in which the Court held that § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the Government’s sovereign immunity with respect to a §544(b) claim, but that waiver does not extend to state-law claims nested within that federal claim.

A case in which the Court held that the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products was not arbitrary and capricious.

A case in which the Court will clarify the pleading standards to show knowledge or intent for Private Securities Litigation Reform Act claims that rely on internal company documents.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).

A case in which the Court held that a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Mr. Shamagam represents Meta, arguing against securities liability over past risk omissions. Meanwhile, Mr. Russell and Mr. Barber, from Amalgamated Bank, contend that Facebook's disclosures are misleading. They delve into the complexities of corporate disclosures, discussing the critical distinction between materiality and falsity. The dialogue also highlights the implications of past data breaches, regulatory challenges, and the necessity for transparency in risk communication to protect investors. The episode paints a vivid picture of the ongoing legal battle and its impact on corporate accountability.

A case in which the Court held that employers seeking to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.