Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast) - podcast cover

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Jake Leahyscotuspodcast.com

Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients. 

*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.

Last refreshed:
Follow this podcast in the Metacast mobile app to refresh it and see new episodes.
Download Metacast podcast app
Podcasts are better in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episodes

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (Texas Pornography Regulation)

Send us a text Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Texas, like many States, prohibits distributing sexually explicit content to children. In 2023, Texas enacted H. B. 1181, requiring certain commercial websites publishing sexually explicit content that is obscene to minors to verify that visitors are 18 or older. Knowing violations subject covered entities to injunctions and civil penalties. Petitioners—representatives of the pornography industry—sued the Texas attorney general to enjoin enfor...

Jun 30, 202510 minSeason 2024Ep. 62

Hewitt v. United States

Send us a text Hewitt v. United States Before the First Step Act was enacted in 2018, federal judges were required to sentence first-time offenders convicted of violating 18 U. S. C. §924(c)—a law that criminalizes possessing a firearm while committing other crimes—to “stacked” 25-year periods of incarceration. The First Step Act eliminated this harsh mandatory minimum penalty. Section 403(b) of the Act also made its more lenient penalties partially retroactive. Specifically, if a sentence “has ...

Jun 30, 20258 minSeason 2024Ep. 61

Medina v. Planned Parenthood (Medicaid Funding)

Send us a text Median v. Planned Parenthood Held: Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under §1983.

Jun 30, 202511 minSeason 2024Ep. 60

Riley v. Bondi (Immigration Removal)

Send us a text Riley v. Bondi The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to remove Pierre Riley, a citizen of Jamaica, from the United States under expedited procedures for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. On January 26, 2021, the DHS issued a “final administrative review order” (FARO) directing Riley’s removal to Jamaica. Under 8 U. S. C. §1228(b)(3), aliens may petition courts of appeals for FARO review. While Riley did not contest his removal from the United States, he sought re...

Jun 27, 20259 minSeason 2024Ep. 58

Stanely v. City of Sanford (ADA)

Send us a text Stanley v. City of Sanford Karyn Stanley worked as a firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida, starting in 1999. When Ms. Stanley was hired, the City offered health insurance until age 65 for two categories of retirees: those with 25 years of service and those who retired earlier due to disability. In 2003, the City changed its policy to provide health insurance up to age 65 only for retirees with 25 years of service, while those who retired earlier due to disability would rec...

Jun 27, 20257 min

Fuld v. Palestinian Liberation Organization (Due Process)

Send us a text Held: The PSJVTA’s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches. Read by Jeff Barnum.

Jun 27, 20259 minSeason 2024Ep. 52

United States v. Skrmetti (Transgender Treatment)

Send us a text In 2023, Tennessee joined the growing number of States restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, Senate Bill 1 (SB1). SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex,...

Jun 23, 202512 minSeason 2024Ep. 28

Rivers v. Guerrero (Habeus Petition)

Send us a text Rivers v. Guerrero Petitioner Danny Rivers was convicted in Texas state court of continuous sexual abuse of a child and related charges. After unsuccessfully seeking direct appeal and state habeas relief, Rivers filed his first federal habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. §2254 in August 2017, asserting claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other constitutional violations. The District Court denied the petition in September 2018, and Rivers appeal...

Jun 23, 20257 min

Commissioner v. Zuch (Tax Court Jurisdiction)

Send us a text Commissioner v. Zuch This case involves the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court over appeals from collection due process hearings when there is no longer an ongoing levy. The dispute here began in 2012, when Jennifer Zuch and her then-husband Patrick Gennardo each filed an untimely 2010 federal tax return. Gennardo subsequently submitted an offer in compromise to resolve outstanding tax liabilities. This offer implicated $50,000 in estimated tax payments that the couple ha...

Jun 23, 20258 minSeason 2024Ep. 45

Parrish v. United States (Appellate Procedure)

Send us a text Parrish v. United States Federal inmate Donte Parrish alleges that he was placed in restrictive segregated confinement for 23 months based on his suspected involvement in another inmate’s death. After a hearing officer cleared him of wrongdoing, Parrish filed suit in Federal District Court seeking damages for his time in segregated confinement. The District Court dismissed his case on March 23, 2020, holding that some claims were untimely and others unexhausted. When the court’s o...

Jun 23, 20257 min

Soto v. United States (VA Benefits)

Send us a text Soto v. United States The Barring Act, 31 U. S. C. §3702, establishes default settlement procedures for claims against the Government and subjects most claims to a 6-year limitations period. However, the Act includes an exception: If “another law” confers authority to settle a claim against the Government, that law displaces the Barring Act’s settlement mechanism, including its limitations period. §3702(a). In 2002, Congress enacted a statute providing “combat-related special comp...

Jun 23, 20256 minSeason 2024Ep. 42

AJT v. Osseo Area Schools (Education / Disability)

Send us a text AJT v. Osseo Area Schools Held: Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which...

Jun 19, 20259 minSeason 2024Ep. 38

Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin (First Amendment)

Send us a text Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Wisconsin law exempts certain religious organizations from paying unemployment compensation taxes. The relevant statute exempts nonprofit organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes” and “operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.” Wis. Stat. §108.02(15)(h)(2). Petitioners, Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., and four of its subentities, sought this exemption as organiza...

Jun 19, 20256 minSeason 2024Ep. 37

CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. (Jurisdiction / Foreign Immunity)

Send us a text Held: Personal jurisdiction exists under the FSIA when an immunity exception applies and service is proper. The FSIA does not require proof of “minimum contacts” over and above the contacts already required by the Act’s enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity. Read by Jeff Barnum. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court....

Jun 19, 20256 minSeason 2024Ep. 36

Blom Bank v. Honickman (Civil Procedure)

Send us a text Held: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply.

Jun 17, 20257 minSeason 2024Ep. 35

Seven County Infrastructure v. Eagle County

Send us a text Held: The D. C. Circuit failed to afford the Board the substantial judicial deference required in NEPA cases and incorrectly interpreted NEPA to require the Board to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects that are separate in time or place from the Uinta Basin Railway. Pp. 6–22. Read by Jeff Barnum.

Jun 17, 20258 minSeason 2024Ep. 34

Kousisis v. Trump (Fraud)

Send us a text Kousisis v. Trump Held: A defendant who induces a victim to enter into a transaction under materially false pretenses may be convicted of federal fraud even if the defendant did not seek to cause the victim economic loss. Read by Jeff Barnum.

Jun 05, 202511 min

AARP v. Trump (Alien Enemies Act)

Send us a text AARP v. Trump PER CURIAM. The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants are two detainees identified as members of TdA and a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas. All of the alleged TdA members in the ...

Jun 05, 202517 minSeason 2024Ep. 31

Barnes v. Felix (Fourth Amendment)

Send us a text Barnes v. Felix Held: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Read by Jeff Barnum.

Jun 04, 20255 minSeason 2024Ep. 30

Felicano v. Department of Transportation (Differential Pay / Veterans' Benefits)

Send us a text In Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “during a national emergency” in a federal statute granting differential pay to federal civilian employees who serve as reservists. Nick Feliciano, a federal air traffic controller and Coast Guard reservist, sought differential pay for his active-duty service from 2012 to 2017 under 5 U.S.C. §5538. His service orders cited support for operations like Iraqi Freedom, but he was activated under a...

May 01, 20258 minSeason 2024Ep. 29

Advocate Christ v. Kennedy (Social Security Benefits)

Send us a text In Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy , the Supreme Court addressed how to calculate the Medicare “disproportionate share hospital” (DSH) adjustment—a statutory formula that provides extra funding to hospitals serving many low-income patients. At issue was how to interpret the term “entitled to [SSI] benefits” in the Medicare fraction of that formula. A coalition of over 200 hospitals argued that this phrase should include all patients enrolled in the Supplemental Security ...

May 01, 202513 minSeason 2024Ep. 28

Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi (Immigration)

Send us a text In Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi the Supreme Court held that when a voluntary departure deadline under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) lands on a weekend or legal holiday, it carries over to the next business day. Monsalvo Velázquez had been granted 60 days to voluntarily depart the U.S. He filed a motion to reopen on the following Monday after day 60 fell on a Saturday. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Tenth Circuit rejected the motion as late, reading “60 days” to mean calendar days...

Apr 24, 20256 minSeason 2024Ep. 27
Hosted on Buzzsprout
For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android