On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. At issue is district court jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal (of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration) in arbitration cases under the Federal Arbitration Act.Join us to hear from Dr. Tamar Meshel as she breaks down the case and argument.

On March 20, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolodated cases of Arizona v. Navajo Nation and Dep. of Interior v. Navajo Nation. At issue is whether the federal government has an affirmative duty to the Navajo Nation to assess and provide for the Nation's water needs from particular sources, given that such a duty was not expressly established in past treaties between the federal government and the Nation. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

On February 28, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases challenging the Biden Administration's student loans forgiveness program: Board of Education v. Brown and Biden v. Nebraska. In August 2022, the Biden Administration's Department of Education announced plans to forgive up to $20,000 in federal student loans for borrowers who qualified. In order to do this, the DOE relied on the HEROES Act, which allows the government to modify student loans, among other things, during a national emergency.Both cases challenge this action. Biden v. Nebraska involves a challenge to the Executive action from six states who contend they will suffer direct harm based on a loss of tax revenue. In Department of Education v. Brown, two individual borrowers, one of whom has loans that are fully intelligible for forgiveness under the program, and one of whose loans only qualify for part of the maximum relief possible, also challenge the legitimacy of the program. The Court is faced with two questions in both cases: first, do the challengers, whether they be the states or the individual borrowers, have standing to sue? The Biden administration contends neither of the respondents possess standing. Second, assuming the Court decides there is standing to sue, the Court will face the question “Does the plan exceed the statutory authority available to the Secretary of Education, and adopted in a procedurally proper manner?”We will break down and analyze how oral argument went in both cases in this program.Featuring:Mark Chenoweth, President and General Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

On February 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dubin v. United States. At issue in the case is whether, when using (reciting, mentioning, or employing) someone else’s' name or identifying information in the committing a predicate offense, one also commits aggravated identity theft.Petitioner David Dubin was convicted of healthcare fraud for submitting a factually inaccurate reimbursement claim to Medicaid that mischaracterized the nature of the provider, the time spent on the testing in question, and the date of the test. Additionally, because he used the name and identifying information of a real patient, Dubin was also convicted of one count of aggravated identity theft. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit upheld the convictions on appeal.Dubin claims that the Fifth Circuit’s decision, if upheld, has massive and undesirable implications for a spectrum of other white collar crimes.Join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding

On February 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC.After U.S. citizen Nohemi Gonzalez was killed by a terrorist attack in Paris, France, in 2015, Gonzalez’s father filed an action against Google, Twitter, and Facebook. Mr. Gonzalez claimed that Google aided and abetted international terrorism by allowing ISIS to use YouTube for recruiting and promulgating its message. At issue is the platform’s use of algorithms that suggest additional content based on users’ viewing history. Additionally, Gonzalez claims the tech companies failed to take meaningful action to counteract ISIS’ efforts on their platforms.The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss the claim based on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The question now facing the Supreme Court is: does Section 230 immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?Join us as Erik Jaffe breaks down the oral argument.Featuring:Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

On January 17, the Court heard oral argument in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland. The case involves immigration law and whether a court of appeals can review an immigrant’s petition that the Board of Immigration Appeals participated in impermissible fact finding because the immigrant did not exhaust this claim using a motion to reconsider.Join us to hear a breakdown of the case!Featuring:John Elwood, Partner, Arnold & Porter, head of the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice

On January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States.Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (“Halkbank”) was indicted by a grand jury in 2019, and charged with involvement in a scheme to launder billions of dollars worth of proceeds from Iranian oil and natural gas, which was in violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran at the time.Halkbank is majority-owned by the government of Turkey and moved to dismiss this indictment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction. Halkbank contended that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the fact that the government of Turkey had a majority of its ownership made it immune to criminal prosecution in U.S. federal court. In relying on FSIA, Halkbank asserted that exceptions in FSIA apply only to civil cases, and that even if such exceptions applied in criminal cases, Halkbank Would still be immune under common law standards.The U.S. District Court rejected the argument put forward by Halkbank, and the Second Circuit affirmed. This Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether US district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of FSIA.Please join us to break down and analyze the oral argument!Featuring:Mike Hurst, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to clarify when and under what circumstances federal labor law preempts state tort claims for strike-related misconduct. On January 10, it heard oral arguments in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 174, a case involving the intentional destruction of an employer’s property.The employer, Glacier Northwest, manufactures ready-mix concrete. Ready-mix concrete hardens quickly and must be poured on the same day it’s mixed. In August 2017, a union representing Glacier’s employees called a sudden strike. The union allegedly timed the strike so that concrete would be left to harden in Glacier’s trucks. Predictably, the concrete was ruined, and Glacier sued the union for damages. But state courts rejected the suit. They held that the suit was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because (a) the union’s conduct was arguably protected by federal law, and (b) the conduct fell outside an existing exception for intentional-tort claims because it involved no violence or “outrageous conduct.”The central issue for the Court is whether the NLRA preempts intentional tort claims except when they’re accompanied by violence or outrageous conduct. The union argues that the state courts got it right: violence or outrageous conduct is necessary. Glacier, on the other hand, argues that violence or outrageous conduct has never been required. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has long recognized that intentional property destruction is unprotected and falls outside the NLRA’s preemptive reach.Regardless of who wins that argument, the resulting decision will likely clarify the scope of NLRA preemption. And potentially, it will offer guidance on the bounds of acceptable strike-related conduct.Join Alex MacDonald to stay informed on one of the most important cases currently before the Supreme Court.Featuring: Alex MacDonald, Director, Future of Work and Labor Law, Instacart

On December 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Moore v. Harper.Following the most recent census, North Carolina gained a House seat, and its legislature adopted a new district map. The state’s supreme court deemed that map a partisan gerrymander and substituted in its place the court’s own map. That result, it concluded, was required by four separate parts of the state constitution, including clauses protecting the “freedom of speech” and guaranteeing “free” elections. Although the Supreme Court denied an emergency request to block that ruling for the 2022 election, it agreed to take the case to answer the broader question of state-court authority over the laws governing federal elections. Supporters of legislature primacy—often called the “independent state legislature” doctrine—say that a decision enforcing the doctrine will cut back on election-litigation gamesmanship, end the disruption of last-minute rule changes, and put primary responsibility back in the hands of democratically accountable legislators. Opponents, however, say that a decision for the state would threaten voting rights and democracy itself. Join us to break down the oral argument for this case!Featuring:Andrew M. Grossman, partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, co-leader of the firm’s Appellate and Major Motions practice, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute

On December 5, 2022, the Court heard oral argument in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, concerning public accommodation laws, compelled speech, and religious liberty as they relate to a website designer who stated it would be against her faith to design wedding announcement websites for same-sex couples. Join us to hear from Prof. Dale Carpenter as he breaks down the background of the case and the oral argument.