On June 15, 2022 the Court decided Golan v. Saada, holding that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Margaret Ryznar of Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law.

On June 23rd, the Court decided Vega vs. Tekoh, a case which concerned whether an un-mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal proceeding violates the fifth amendment and might support a section 1983 claim against the officer who obtained the statement. Joining today to discuss the Court’s decision is Misha Tseyltin, partner at Troutman Pepper and leader of the firm’s national Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group.

On March 30th, the Court heard oral argument in Viking River Cruises, Inc. vs. Moriana, a case which concerned whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act. With a decision likely to be rendered in the coming weeks and months, Theane Evangelis, partner in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn and Co-Chair of the firm’s global Litigation Practice Group, joins the program to give analysis.

In April, 2022, the Court heard arguments in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, a bankruptcy case concerning fee increase exemptions in two states. Joining today to discuss the argument is Allyson Ho, partner in the Dallas Office of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher and co-chair of the Firm’s nationwide Appellate and Constitutional Law practice group. Stay tuned for the post-decision episode of this case!

On May 23, 2022 the Court decided Morgan vs. Sundance. Joining today to discuss the 9-0 decision is Stephen J. Ware, the Frank Edwards Tyler Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Kansas Law School.

On May 2nd, 2022 the Court decided Shurtleff vs. City of Boston. Joining SCOTUScast once more, this time for post-decision analysis, is Professor Scott Gaylord of Elon University School of Law.

On May 16, 2022 the Court decided Federal Election Commission vs. Ted Cruz for Senate. Listeners may remember our guest today, Professor Bradley A. Smith, the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Professor of Law at Capital University Law School, who joined earlier in the term for the post-argument segment. Today, Professor Smith, a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (2004), joins to provide expert analysis on this decision.Holding: Section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — which limits the amount of post-election contributions that may be used to repay a candidate who lends money to his own campaign — unconstitutionally burdens core political speech.Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 16, 2022. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.

On March 31, the Court decided Badgerow v. Walters, a case which concerned judicial supervision of arbitration. Joining today to discuss the decision and its implications is Jennifer Dickey, Associate Chief Counsel at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.Holding: Federal jurisdiction in a petition to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act is determined by “looking through” the petition to the jurisdictional basis of the “underlying substantive controversy,” Vaden v. Discover Bank, but that approach does not apply to petitions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA.Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 31, 2022. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion.

The issue before the Court in West Virginia v. EPA is whether, when designing rules under Section 111, EPA is limited to identifying “systems of emission reduction” that can be applied to and at the level of an individually regulated facility, or whether there are no limits to EPA’s authority other than the textual commands to consider cost, nonair quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Federal respondents argue the case is moot and should be dismissed as improvidently granted.Featuring: Speaker: Justin Schwab, Founder, CGCN Law; former Deputy General Counsel, EPA.Moderator: Garrett Kral, Associate Member of the Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group’s Executive Committee; former Special Advisor for Oversight, EPA.

On February 23rd, the Court heard arguments in Arizona vs. City and County of San Francisco, California, a case which concerned whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend. Joining to discuss arguments in the case is Hon. Elizabeth Murrill, Solicitor General in the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office.