Free Speech Press

Free Speech Press

By Oral ArgumentsGovernment
Download on the App Store

Free Speech Press episodes

  • 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.


    1 hr 31 min
  • 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.

    1 hr 11 min
  • 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


    1 hr 51 min
  • 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.


    1 hr 14 min
  • 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."


    1 hr 27 min

About Free Speech Press

From the publisher's feed

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…