Supreme Court Oral Arguments

In this discussion, Ms. Harrington represents Hain Celestial Group, emphasizing the importance of preserving final judgments despite a non-diverse defendant's dismissal. Mr. Post counters by asserting that federal courts cannot gain jurisdiction through error and stresses the implications of such removals. Topics span jurisdictional defects, the fairness of dismissals, and the plaintiff's forum choice rights. The debate reveals intricate legal principles and the potential consequences of each argument on future cases.

Mr. Gainsbourg and Ms. Blatt, the petitioner's and respondent's counsels respectively, delve into a gripping legal battle over jurisdiction and judgment vacatur. They debate whether Rule 60(c)(1) allows for an unlimited time to vacate judgments deemed void due to improper service. The conversation explores historical context, the implications of timeliness for justice, and practical concerns regarding notice and access to legal relief. This intense discussion raises critical questions about due process and the flexibility required in the legal system.

Mr. Chang, counsel for the petitioner, argues that state tort claims should apply to military contractors, challenging the limits of federal preemption. Mr. Mosier from Fluor Corporation counters that uniquely federal interests in wartime activities necessitate preemption of such claims. Mr. Gannon represents the U.S. position, advocating for a test to determine when contractor claims may be preempted based on combat activities. The discussion delves into military supervision, constitutional arguments, and the implications of contractor liability in combat zones.

Mr. Unikowski, appellate counsel for Isabel Rico, debates the interpretation of the Sentencing Reform Act, arguing that absconding from supervised release should not trigger the fugitive-tolling doctrine. Mr. Handel, representing the government, asserts that fugitives cannot be considered under supervision. The discussion dives into the rehabilitative nature of supervised release and the implications of late-detected violations, highlighting concerns about establishing a common-law fugitive doctrine and the statutory intent behind supervised release regulations.

Louisiana v. Callais (Reargument) Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 15, 2025. Appellant: Louisiana.Appellee: Phillip Callais, et al. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) This case involves a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map, specifically focusing on District 6, alleging that the map is an impermissible racial gerrymander. The map was created in response to a previous lawsuit, Robinson v. Ardoin, where plaintiffs argued that the prior map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes. To address these issues, the Louisiana Legislature adopted a new map (Senate Bill 8) that included a second majority-Black district. However, the plaintiffs in this case claimed that this new map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by prioritizing race in its creation. A three-judge panel concluded that District 6 of the new map did indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause, leading the court to issue an injunction against using this map in future elections.   Question Does Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?  

Case v. Montana Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 15, 2025. Petitioner: William Trevor Case.Respondent: State of Montana. Advocates: Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (for the Petitioner) Christian B. Corrigan (for the Respondent) Zoe A. Jacoby (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In September 2021, Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend J.H. called police to report that Case had threatened suicide during their phone conversation. J.H. believed Case was intoxicated due to his erratic behavior, and she became alarmed when he mentioned getting “a note or something like that” before committing suicide. During the call, J.H. heard clicking sounds resembling a cocking pistol, prompting her to tell Case she would call police. Case responded by threatening to harm any officers who came to his home. The call ended when J.H. heard a “pop” that she believed was a gunshot, followed by dead air, though the line remained connected. Unable to get Case to respond, J.H. contacted police and drove to his residence. Law enforcement officers arrived at Case’s home and attempted to make contact by knocking on doors and calling through an open window, but received no response. Through the windows, officers observed empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad they believed contained a suicide note. The officers knew of Case’s history of alcohol abuse, mental health issues, and previous suicide threats, including an incident where he brought a weapon to the school where he taught. After approximately forty minutes on scene, officers made the decision to enter the home without a warrant to conduct a welfare check. They entered with weapons drawn due to J.H.’s report of Case's threats against officers. While clearing the home, Sergeant Pasha encountered Case in an upstairs bedroom closet. When Case suddenly opened the closet curtain, Pasha observed what he believed was a dark object at Case’s waist and shot him in the abdomen. A handgun was subsequently found in a laundry hamper next to where Case fell. Case was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer and filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Following a jury trial in December 2022, Case was convicted of the felony charge. Case appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which affirmed. Question May law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring?

Bowe v. United States Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 14, 2025. Petitioner: Michael Bowe.Respondent: United States of America. Advocates: Andrew L. Adler (for the Petitioner) Anthony A. Yang (for the Respondent) Kasdin M. Mitchell (Court-appointed amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below as to Question 1) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2008, Michael Bowe was charged with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. He pleaded guilty in 2009 and received a 288-month sentence, which included a mandatory consecutive 120-month term for the firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Starting in 2016, Bowe made multiple attempts to challenge his § 924(c) conviction through a series of motions and applications, arguing that changes in Supreme Court precedent (particularly Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis) meant that his underlying crimes no longer qualified as “crimes of violence” that could support the firearm conviction. The district court initially denied Bowe’s first § 2255 motion in 2016, finding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery still qualified as a crime of violence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit then denied several subsequent applications from Bowe to file additional challenges, ultimately concluding in that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his latest application because he was attempting to raise the same claim he had already presented in previous applications.       Question 1. Does a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state prisoner habeas petitions also apply to repeat claims in federal prisoner motions to vacate their sentences? 2. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review lower court decisions allowing or denying federal prisoners permission to file repeat challenges to their sentences?      

Ellingburg v. United States Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 14, 2025. Petitioner: Holsey Ellingburg, Jr.Respondent: United States of America. Advocates: Amy M. Saharia (for the Petitioner) Ashley Robertson (for the Respondent, supporting vacatur) John F. Bash (Court-appointed amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In December 1995, Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. robbed a bank and was indicted in April 1996. He was convicted in August 1996 and sentenced to prison, along with an order to pay over $7,500 in restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). Following his release from prison in June 2022, having paid only about one-quarter of the original restitution amount, Mr. Ellingburg filed a motion arguing that enforcement of his restitution order was unlawful. He claimed that the applicable 20-year payment period under the VWPA had expired and that applying a longer restitution term and mandatory interest provision under the later-enacted Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court rejected Mr. Ellingburg’s arguments and upheld the restitution order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Question Is criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause?

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 8, 2025. Petitioner: Michael J. Bost.Respondent: Illinois State Board of Elections. Advocates: Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioners) Michael Talent (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners) Jane E. Notz (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Michael Bost, a multi-term U.S. Representative from Illinois’s 12th District, along with Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, political activists who served as presidential electors in 2020, challenged Illinois’s mail-in ballot receipt procedure. Under Illinois law, election officials can receive and count mail-in ballots for up to fourteen days after Election Day if the ballots are postmarked or certified by Election Day. Plaintiffs argued this procedure violates federal election statutes by impermissibly extending Election Day beyond the federally mandated date. They claimed the counting of these “untimely” ballots dilutes their votes and forces them to expend additional campaign resources to monitor ballot counting for two weeks after Election Day. Plaintiffs filed suit in May 2022 against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, finding that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court also rejected their claims on the merits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. Question Do federal candidates have Article III standing to challenge state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be received and counted for two weeks after Election Day based on claims that such laws dilute their votes and force them to incur additional campaign expenses for extended ballot monitoring?

United States Postal Service v. Konan Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 8, 2025. Petitioner: United States Postal Service.Respondent: Lebene Konan. Advocates: Frederick Liu (for the Petitioners) Easha Anand (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Lebene Konan, a Black property owner, leased two rental residences in Euless, Texas, and retrieved business and tenant mail from a central mailbox daily. In May 2020, United States Postal Service (USPS) employee Jason Rojas changed the lock on the mailbox at one of Konan's properties without her approval, halted mail delivery, and demanded ownership verification. Even after USPS’s Inspector General confirmed Konan’s ownership, Rojas and another USPS employee, Raymond Drake, allegedly continued marking mail addressed to Konan and her tenants as undeliverable. Konan claims this refusal of service extended to her second property and was racially motivated, causing loss of rental income and disruption of essential communications. Konan sued USPS, Rojas, Drake, and the United States, raising claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and alleging violations of the equal protection guarantees of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. The district court dismissed her FTCA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the postal-matter exception, and her equal protection claims for failure to state a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claims but reversed on the FTCA claim, holding that sovereign immunity did not bar claims based on intentional acts of mail non-delivery. Question Does a claim that Postal Service employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to a designated address arise out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal-matter exception?