Free Speech Press

By Oral Arguments

I upload United States Supreme Court Oral Arguments so that the average American can listen on their smartphone. I do not modify the audios. Each episode is identical to the MP3 file provided at supre... more

· Government

Download on the App Store

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play

FAQs about Free Speech Press:

How many episodes does Free Speech Press have?

The podcast currently has 86 episodes available.

Free Speech Press episodes:

January 13, 2025 Hewitt v. United States (23-1002 & 23-1150) Consolidated 01/13/25
Hewitt v. United States
Docket Number: 23-1002
Date Argued: 01/13/25
&
Duffey v. United States
Docket Number: 23-1150
Date Argued: 01/13/25
Consolidated

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1002_l537.pdf

23-1002 HEWITT V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 92 F.4th 304
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-10265
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The First Step Act (FSA) significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences
for several federal drug and firearm offenses. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-
391, §§ 401, 403, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220-5222. Sections 401 and 403 apply to offenses
committed after the FSA's enactment on December 21, 2018, and to "any offense that
was committed before the date of enactment
* * * if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment."
FSA§§ 401(c), 403(b).
There is an acknowledged split between the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits,
on the one hand; and the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, on the other hand, on the question
whether sections 401(c) and 403(b) apply when a pre-enactment sentence is vacated and the court must impose a new post-enactment sentence.
The question presented accordingly is as follows:
Whether the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant
originally sentenced before the FSA's enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the FSA's enactment.
CONSOLIDATED WITH 23-1150 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.
MICHAEL H. McGINLEY, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF
AND ARGUE THESE CASES, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE
JUDGMENT BELOW.

...more
1h 31min
January 11, 2025 TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen. (24-656 & 24-657) Consolidated 01/10/25
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen.
Docket Number: 24-656
Date Argued: 01/10/25

Firebaugh v. Garland, Att'y Gen.
Docket Number: 24-657
Date Argued: 01/10/25
Consolidated

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-656_1an2.pdf
...more
2h 29min
December 11, 2024 Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. (23-900) 12/11/24
Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.
Docket Number: 23-900
Date Argued: 12/11/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-900_7m48.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether an award of the "defendant's profits" under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117
(a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate
non-party corporate affiliates.
...more
1h 11min
December 10, 2024 Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County (23-975) 12/10/24
Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County
Docket Number: 23-975
Date Argued: 12/10/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-975_6k47.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004), this Court
held that when an agency cannot prevent an environmental effect "due to its limited statutory
authority over the relevant actions," the National Environmental Policy Act does not require it
to study that effect. This holding has divided the courts of appeals. Five circuits read Public
Citizen to mean that an agency's environmental review can stop where its regulatory authority
stops. Two circuits disagree and require review of any impact that can be called reasonably
foreseeable.
Here, the Surface Transportation Board relied on Public Citizen to cabin its
environmental review of a new rail line in Utah. But the D.C. Circuit rejected that approach,
ruling that the Board "cannot avoid" environmental review "on the ground that it lacks
authority to prevent, control, or mitigate" distant environmental effects. As a result, it ordered
the Board to study the local effects of oil wells and refineries that lie outside the Board's
regulatory authority.
The question presented is:
Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study
environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has
regulatory authority

...more
1h 51min
December 10, 2024 Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation (23-861) 12/09/24
Feliciano v. Dept. of Transportation
Docket Number: 23-861
Date Argued: 12/09/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-861_0n13.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case presents a question of critical importance to hundreds of thousands of
Americans who serve their country both as federal civilian employees and members of
the Armed Services' reserve components.
Congress enacted the differential pay statute, 5 U.S.C. § 5538, to eliminate the
financial burden that reservists face when called to active duty at pay rates below their
federal civilian salaries. To ensure that these reservists suffer no financial penalty for
active-duty service, the differential pay statute requires that the government make up
the difference. Federal civilian employees are entitled to differential pay when
performing active duty "pursuant to a call or order to active duty under * * * a provision of
law referred to in section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10." That section, Section 101(a)(13)(B),
enumerates several statutory authorities and includes a catchall provision: "any other
provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President
or Congress."
Recently, in a decision that departed from settled understandings of this
language, the Federal Circuit held that reservists relying on Section 101(a)(13)(B)'s
catchall provision to claim differential pay must show that they were "directly called to
serve in a contingency operation." Adams v. DHS, 3 F.4th 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Under that demanding, fact-intensive standard, the Federal Circuit has rejected claims
for differential pay even by reservists like petitioner whose activation orders expressly
invoked a presidential emergency declaration.
The question presented is:
Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a
provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the
duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

...more
1h 14min
December 10, 2024 Kousisis v. United States (23-909) 12/09/24
Kousisis v. United States
Docket Number: 23-909
Date Argued: 12/09/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-909_b97c.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED:
The circuits are split 6-5 on the validity of the fraudulent inducement theory of mail and
wire fraud. The Questions Presented are:
Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud,
even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
Whether a sovereign's statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when
compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services.
Whether all contract rights are "property."

...more
1h 27min
December 06, 2024 FDA v. Wages and White Lion (23-1038) 12/02/24
FDA v. Wages and White Lion
Docket Number: 23-1038
Date Argued: 12/02/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1038_3d94.pdf
...more
1h 21min
December 06, 2024 United States v. Miller ( 23-824) 12/02/24
United States v. Miller
Docket Number: 23-824
Date Argued: 12/02/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-824_5hek.pdf
...more
54min
December 06, 2024 Hungary v. Simon (23-867) 12/03/24
Hungary v. Simon Docket Number: 23-867 Date Argued: 12/03/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-867_8m59.pdf

...more
1h 25min
December 06, 2024 United States v. Skrmetti (23-477) 12/04/24
United States v. Skrmetti
Docket Number: 23-477
Date Argued: 12/04/24

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-477_c07d.pdf
...more
2h 22min

FAQs about Free Speech Press:

How many episodes does Free Speech Press have?

The podcast currently has 86 episodes available.