Opinion Summary: Riley v. Bondi | Date Decided: 6/26/25 | Case No. 23–1270

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Petitioner Pierre Riley, ineligible for cancellation of removal or discretionary relief from removal, sought deferral in withholding-only proceedings, pursuant to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. After the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision reversing an immigration judge's grant of relief, Riley promptly petitioned for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Although both parties urged the court to decide the merits of the case, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley's petition for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1), which states "[t]he petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal."

This holding implicates two circuit splits, each of which independently warrants review.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited.
2. Whether a person can obtain review of the BIA's decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that BIA decision?

Holding: 1. BIA orders denying deferral of removal in "withholding-only" proceedings are not "final order[s] of removal" under Section 1252(b)(1). An "order of removal" includes an "order of deportation," which, in turn, is defined as an order "concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation." 2. The 30-day filing deadline under Section 1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4 as to the holding that BIA orders denying deferral of removal in "withholding-only" proceedings are not "final order[s] of removal" under Section 1252(b)(1). 9-0 as to the holding that the 30-day filing deadline under Section 1252(b)(1) is a claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement.

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined in full, and in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson joined only as to Part II–B. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion dissenting in part, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined in full, and in which Justice Gorsuch joined except as to Part IV.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner:
• For Respondent:

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Gutierrez v. Saenz | Date Decided: 6/26/25 | Case No. 23-7809

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

In Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230 (2023), this Court held that Rodney Reed has standing to pursue a declaratory judgment that Texas's post-conviction DNA statute was unconstitutional because ''Reed suffered an injury in fact," the named defendant "caused Reed's injury," and if a federal court concludes that Texas's statute violates due process, it is "substantially likely that the state prosecutor would abide by such a court order."

In this case, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to follow that ruling over a dissent that recognized that this case was indistinguishable from Reed. The majority formulated its own novel test for Article III standing, which requires scouring the record of the parties' dispute and any legal arguments asserted, to predict whether the defendants in a particular case would actually redress the plaintiff’s injury by complying with a federal court's declaratory judgment. Gutierrez v. Saenz, 93 F.4th 267, 274 (5th Cir. 2024).

The Fifth Circuit's new test conflicts with Reed and creates a circuit split with the United States Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, which have applied the standing doctrine exactly as this Court directed in Reed. See Johnson v. Griffin, 69 F.4th 506 (8th Cir. 2023); Redd v. Guerrero, 84 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2023).

Question Presented: Does Article III standing require a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment?

Holding: Gutierrez has standing to bring his Section 1983 claim challenging Texas's postconviction DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joined, and in which Justice Barrett joined as to all but Part II.B.2. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Anne E. Fisher, Assistant Federal Defender, Philadelphia, Pa.
• For respondents: William F. Cole, Deputy Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic | Date Decided: 6/26/25 | Case No. 23–1275

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

More than 30 years ago, this Court first applied what would become known as the "Blessing factors," holding that a Medicaid Act provision created a privately enforceable right to certain reimbursement rates. Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 509-10 (1990). Later, the Court distilled from Wilder a multi-factor test for deciding whether a "statutory provision gives rise to a federal right" privately enforceable under Section 1983. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340 (1997). Five years later, though, the Court disparaged Blessing's test while clarifying that only "an unambiguously conferred right is enforceable by § 1983." Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 282 (2002). Then, in Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166, 180 (2023), the Court doubled down on Gonzaga's "demanding bar."

The Court did not apply Blessing or Wilder in Talevski, but it did not overrule them either. After the Court GVR'd this case in light of Talevski, the Fourth Circuit applied Wilder and Blessing again and reaffirmed its prior opinions, maintaining a 5-2 circuit split over the first question presented and a 3-1 circuit split over the proper reading of O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773 (1980), which frames the second question.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.

2. What is the scope of a Medicaid beneficiary's alleged right to choose a provider that a state has deemed disqualified?

Holding: Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights enforceable under Section 1983.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: John J. Bursch, Washington, D.C.; and Kyle D. Hawkins, Counselor to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
• For respondents: Nicole A. Saharsky, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Hewitt v. United States | Date Decided: 6/26/25 | Case No. 23-1002

This case was consolidated with: Duffey V. United States, Case No. 23-1007.

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

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.

Question Presented: 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.

Holding: Under § 403(b) of the First Step Act, a sentence "has . . . been imposed" for purposes of that provision if, and only if, the sentence is extant—i.e., has not been vacated. Thus, the Act's more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous § 924(c) sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act's enactment.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and V, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D.C.
• For respondent in support of petitioners: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Michael H. McGinley, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

In today's episode, we analyze the Supreme Court's recent activities across three key areas:

• Last week's 11 opinions and emerging patterns
• Term statistics and remaining docket overview
• Major religious liberty case granted certiorari via June 23rd Order List

Key Topics Covered

Term Statistics (As of June 23, 2025)

• Total cases heard: 62 unique cases this term
• Cases decided: 52 (approximately 84%)
• Cases pending: 11 (approximately 16%)
• Methodology: Consolidated cases counted once

Last Week's Opinion Analysis

• Unanimous consensus: 7 of 11 cases showed stable coalition of seven justices
• Opinion distribution: Justice Thomas, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Barrett each authored exactly 4 opinions
• Chief Justice Roberts: Finally joined dissent after 41 consecutive majority opinions
• Methodological splits: Justices divided on simple textual approaches vs. complex multi-factor tests

Featured Case Deep Dive: Esteras v. United States

• Issue: Whether judges can consider retribution in supervised release decisions
• Majority (Barrett): Applied "expressio unius" canon - Congress deliberately excluded retribution
• Dissent (Alito/Gorsuch): Criticized majority's "mind-bending exercises" for trial judges
• Vote: 7-2 with additional splintering on implementation details

Standing Doctrine Analysis: FDA v. Reynolds & Diamond Energy v. EPA

• Common thread: When can businesses challenge regulations affecting market participants?
• Identical 7-2 splits with completely different reasoning approaches
• Barrett's approach: Traditional statutory interpretation and precedent analysis
• Kavanaugh's approach: Practical economic reasoning and regulatory dynamics

 Certiorari Grant: Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections | Case No. 23-1197 | Docket Link: Here.

• Question Presented: Whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) permits individual-capacity damages suits against state prison officials who violate prisoners' religious exercise rights.

The Shocking Facts

• Petitioner: Damon Landor, devout Rastafarian with 20-year religious dreadlocks
• Incident: Prison officials threw away Fifth Circuit decision protecting his rights, then forcibly shaved his head
• Timeline: Occurred with just 3 weeks left in his sentence
• Legal precedent: Clear violation of Ware v. Louisiana Department of Corrections

Legal Framework

• RFRA (1993): Applies to federal government; Tanzin v. Tanvir (2020) permits individual damages
• RLUIPA (2000): Applies to state/local governments receiving federal funds
• Sister statutes: Nearly identical language and purposes
• Circuit split: All courts of appeals currently reject RLUIPA individual damages

Petitioner’s (Landor) Key Arguments:

• Tanzin controls: Identical "appropriate relief" language must have same meaning
• Sister statute harmony: Supreme Court routinely interprets RFRA/RLUIPAtogether
• Constitutional authority: Spending Clause permits individual liability under Dole test
• Practical necessity: Damages often only meaningful remedy for released prisoners

 Respondent’s (Louisiana) Key Arguments:

• No circuit split: Unanimous rejection across all circuits
• Spending Clause limits: Only grant recipients (states) can be liable, not individual officials
• Sossamon precedent: "Appropriate relief" is "ambiguous" under RLUIPA
• Practical concerns: Would worsen prison staffing crisis and destabilize Title IX law

 United States Key Arguments:

• Supports petitioner - significant federal government backing
• Argues Sossamon only addressed sovereign immunity, not individual officials
• Emphasizes Congress's clear Spending Clause authority

Remaining Docket Highlights

Constitutional Powder Kegs

• Trump v. Casa trilogy: Immigration enforcement and nationwide injunctions
• Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: Online adult content restrictions vs. child protection

Voting Rights Crucible

• Louisiana v. Callais: Racial gerrymandering vs. Voting Rights Act compliance

Religious Liberty Battleground

• Mahmoud v. Taylor: Religious exercise vs. LGBTQ+ curricula in schools

Support the Podcast: If you found this analysis helpful, please subscribe, rate, and share this podcast. Your support helps us continue providing in-depth Supreme Court coverage.

Opinion Summaries: June 20, 2025 Opinions

The Supreme Court released six significant opinions on June 20, 2025, spanning tobacco regulation, terrorism jurisdiction, environmental standing, telecommunications law, disability rights, and federal sentencing. This episode provides comprehensive analysis of each decision, including voting breakdowns, key holdings, and detailed examination of concurring and dissenting opinions.

Host Note: Today I'm personally narrating this episode, so the pacing may be slightly different from our usual format.

Here are details about the six cases:

1. FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. | Case No. 23-1187

Holding: Retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the FDA's denial order may seek judicial review of that order under § 387l(a)(1).

Result: Affirmed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

2. Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) | Case No. 24-20 (consolidated with United States v. PLO, Case No. 24-151)

Holding: 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.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, and Justice Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Part II.

Link to Opinion: Here.

3. Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA | Case No. 24-7

Holding: The fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of the California regulations.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson filed dissenting opinions.

Link to Opinion: Here.

4. McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. | Case No. 23-1226

Holding: The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

5. Stanley v. City of Sanford | Case No. 23-997

Holding: To prevail under §12112(a), a plaintiff must plead and prove that she held or desired a job, and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, at the time of an employer's alleged act of disability-based discrimination.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Kagan, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Barrett joined. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts III and IV, except for n. 12.

Link to Opinion: Here.

6. Esteras v. United States | Case No. 23-7483

Holding: A district court considering whether to revoke a defendant's term of supervised release may not consider § 3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant's underlying criminal offense.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas Kagan and Kavanaugh joined and in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined as to all but Part II–B. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Opinion Summary: United States v. Skrmetti | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23-477

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SBl), which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity," Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holding: SB1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. SB1 satisfies rational basis review.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett joined, and in which Justice Alito joined as to Parts I and II–B. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined in full, and in which Justice Kagan joined as to Parts I–IV. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
• For respondents L.W., et al. supporting petitioner: Chase B. Strangio, New York, N. Y.
• For respondents Jonathan Skrmetti, et al.: J. Matthew Rice, Solicitor General, Nashville, Tenn.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps:

Opinion Summary: Perttu v. Richards | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23–1324

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?

Holding: Parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Jackson joined. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Ann M. Sherman, Solicitor General, Lansing, Mich.
• For respondent: Lori Alvino McGill, Charlottesville, Va.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: Oklahoma v. EPA | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23–1067

This case was consolidated with: Pacificorp V. EPA, Case No. 23-1067.

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Under the Clean Air Act, each state must adopt an implementation plan to meet national standards, which EPA then reviews for compliance with the Act. In 2023, EPA published disapprovals of 21 states' plans implementing national ozone standards. It did so in a single Federal Register notice. The Act specifies that "[a] petition for review of the [EPA's] action in approving or promulgating any implementation plan ... or any other final action of the [EPA] under this Act ... which is locally or regionally applicable may be filed only in" the appropriate regional circuit, while "nationally applicable regulations ... may be filed only in" the D.C. Circuit. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1). Parties from a dozen states sought judicial review of their respective state plan disapprovals in their appropriate regional circuits.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits held that the implementation plan disapprovals of states within those circuits are appropriately challenged in their respective regional courts of appeals. In the decision below, the Tenth Circuit held that challenges to the disapprovals of Oklahoma's and Utah's plans can only be brought in the D.C. Circuit, explicitly disagreeing with the decisions of its sister circuits.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether a final action by EPA taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit because EPA published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.
2. Whether the Environmental Protection Agency's disapproval of a State Implementation Plan may only be challenged in the D.C. Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607 (b)(1) if EPA packages that disapproval with disapprovals of other States' SIPs and purports to use a consistent method in evaluating the state-specific determinations in those SIPs.

Holding: EPA's disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional Circuit.

Result: Reversed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Chief Justice Roberts joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioners in 23-1067: Mithun Mansinghani, Oklahoma City, Okla.
• For Petitioners in 23-1068: Misha Tseytlin, Chicago, Ill.
• For Respondents: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Opinion Summary: EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. | Date Decided: 6/18/25 | Case No. 23–1229

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented:

Holding: EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
• For respondents Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association in support of petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.
• For respondents Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., et al.: Michael R. Huston, Phoenix, Ariz.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Timestamps: