On November 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Court considered three questions – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. United States. The Court considered whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Professor David Schizer, Dean Emeritus and Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law and Economics, Columbia University Law School

On December 4, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The Court considered whether as part of a plan of reorganization under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, if the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent. Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Professor Anthony Casey, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics and Faculty Director at The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School

On November 7, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Rahimi. The Court considered whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), prohibiting the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violated the Second Amendment on its face Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Professor Mark W. Smith, Presidential Scholar and Senior Fellow in Law and Public Policy, The King’s College

On February 22, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley. At issue was whether a debtor is liable for a debt incurred by her partner’s fraud and if she can discharge that debt in bankruptcy, regardless of her own culpability; the Court held that she could not discharge that debt. Join us to hear Prof. Plank break down the decision and offer his criticism of the Court's reasoning and ruling.Featuring:Thomas Plank, Professor Emeritus, University of Tennessee College of Law

On April 25, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin. At issue is whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property.Join us to hear Prof. Aaron Simowitz break down the background of the case and oral argument.Featuring:Aaron Simowitz, Associate Professor of Law, Willamette University College of Law

On April 18, the Court heard oral argument in Groff v. Dejoy and is set to address two issues concerning the protections provided employees who seek to practice their religious beliefs in the context of the workplace. The Court is considering whether to overrule the “more-than-de-minimis-cost” test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 established in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison. Also at issue is whether burdens on employees are sufficient to constitute “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” for the employer under Title VII.Gerald Groff, a Christian who due to his religious convictions treated Sundays as a sabbath and thus did not work on those days, worked for the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania. Although his sabbath-taking was not a problem at the beginning of his tenure with the USPS, following a 2013 agreement with Amazon, USPS began to provide service on Sundays and holidays. This meant that postal workers now had to work Sundays. Initially, Groff was able to avoid working Sundays by trading shifts with co-workers, but that eventually became untenable as co-workers were not willing or available to trade, resulting in Groff being scheduled for Sunday shifts he could not work due to his convictions. Following disciplinary action for missed shifts, and facing termination, Groff chose to resign. He sued USPS for refusing to accommodate his religious beliefs and practices as required by Title VII. The Third Circuit, following Hardison, ruled in favor of USPS, citing as sufficient to constitute the “undue hardship” test the burden placed on Groff’s coworkers who had to take more Sunday shifts and lessened workplace morale. Join us to hear a breakdown of the oral argument! Featuring:Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel, First Liberty Institute

On May 11, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Percoco v. United States. Justice Scalia once commented “[t]hough it consists of only 28 words, the [honest services] statute has been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behavior.” In this case, the Court is asked to decide if a private citizen who holds no elective office or government employment owes a fiduciary duty to the general public sufficient to be convicted of honest-services fraud if they have informal “influence” over government decisions. Join us to hear from Gary Lawkowski, who is counsel of record for an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Citizens United, Citizens United Foundation, and the Presidential Coalition in Percoco v. United States, and who will break down the decision's reasoning and implications. Featuring: Gary Lawkowski, Counsel at Dhillon Law Group

On March 29, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Samia v. United States. The Court considered whether the admission of a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that incriminates the defendant due to its content violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Robert McBride, Partner-in-Charge, Northern Kentucky, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

On March 27, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Hansen. At issue in Hansen is whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), a federal criminal statute that prohibits encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial or financial benefit sometimes termed “the encouragement provision,” violates the First Amendment.Helamen Hansen operated an advising service for undocumented immigrants who wanted to pursue U.S. citizenship. Under the encouragement provision, Hansen was convicted of two counts of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for financial gain (along with other federal crimes). He challenged those convictions, contending the law is facially overbroad. The Ninth Circuit agreed, vacating his convictions on those counts. Hansen follows on the heels of another case with similar questions. Back in 2020, in United States v. Sinening-Smith, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that attempted to strike down the encouragement provision on the grounds the decision attempted to address an issue that was outside of the issue before the court. Hansen now brings those same constitutional issues to the fore. Please join us to hear the oral argument broken down and analysed. Featuring:Brian Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland