U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

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 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.

A case in which the Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation.

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 held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not permit a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits.

A case in which the Court held that 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.

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.