SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466

Argued on 2024-10-09.

For petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondent in support of petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of judgment below: Christopher G. Michel, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Justin Sneed was, in the State's words, its "indispensable witness," and Richard Glossip's "fate turned on Sneed's credibility." Sneed is the person who "bludgeoned the victim to death, and his testimony linking Glossip to the murder was central to the conviction." State Stay Resp. 10, Glossip v. Oklahoma , No. 22A941 (U.S.). He only claimed Mr. Glossip was involved after being fed Mr. Glossip's name six times and threatened with execution. And his accounting of basic facts about the crime has shifted dramatically with each telling. With Sneed's credibility already tenuous, the State undisputedly hid from the jury Sneed's having "seen a psychiatrist" who diagnosed Sneed with a psychiatric condition that rendered him volatile and "potentially violent," particularly when combined with methamphetamine use, a street drug Sneed was abusing at the time he murdered Barry Van Treese. Id . In fact, the State allowed Sneed to affirmatively tell the jury he had not seen a psychiatrist. Before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA), the State confessed error, admitting that the failure to disclose the truth about Sneed's psychiatric condition, leaving the jury with Sneed's uncorrected false testimony and then suppressing this information for a quarter-century, rendered "Glossip's trial unfair and unreliable." Id . at 4-5. Before this Court, the State has admitted Mr. Glossip is entitled to a new trial on these grounds, as well as in light of "cumulative error" regarding "multiple issues raised in Glossip's Post-Conviction Relief Application." Id . at 4. But the OCCA has refused to stop the execution of an innocent man who never had a fair trial. This petition presents the following questions: 1. a. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959). b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley , 514 U.S. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: PCD-2023-267

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF SETH P. WAXMAN

(00:32:13) ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAUL D. CLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE

(01:06:37) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER G. MICHEL,

(01:39:29) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF SETH P. WAXMAN

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Garland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852

Argued on 2024-10-08.

For petitioners: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Peter A. Patterson, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

In the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq ., Congress imposed licensing, background-check, recordkeeping, and serialization requirements on persons engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms. The Act defines a "firearm" to include "any weapon * * * which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive," as well as "the frame or receiver of any such weapon." 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A) and (B). In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued a regulation clarifying that certain products that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver fall within that definition. See 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022) (codified in relevant part at 27 C.F.R. 478.11, 478.12(c)). The Fifth Circuit held that those regulatory provisions are inconsistent with the Act. The questions presented are: 1. Whether "a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive," 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a "firearm" regulated by the Act. 2. Whether "a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver" that is "designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver," 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a "frame or receiver" regulated by the Act.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

(00:46:53) ORAL ARGUMENT OF PETER A. PATTERSON

(01:10:58) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621

Argued on 2024-10-08.

For petitioner: Erika L. Maley, Solicitor General, Richmond, Va.; and Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Brian D. Schmalzbach, Richmond, Va.

Question Presented:

1. Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 2. Whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties' legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Merits Stage Brief of the United States (Green Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:04) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIKA L. MALEY

(00:23:36) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ANTHONY A. YANG

(00:41:47) ORAL ARGUMENT OF BRIAN D. SCHMALZBACH

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, No. 23-677

Argued on 2024-10-07.

For petitioners: Katherine B. Wellington, Boston, Mass. For respondents: Ashley C. Keller, Chicago, Ill.

Question Presented:

This Petition presents two separate but related questions concerning the ability of a plaintiff, in an action properly removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a) on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, to compel a remand to state court by amending the complaint to omit federal questions: 1. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal- question subject-matter jurisdiction. 2. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Departing from every other circuit to consider these questions, the Eighth Circuit in this case answered each question in the affirmative and ordered a remand to state court, thereby providing a roadmap for any Eighth Circuit plaintiff determined to undermine a defendant's exercise of removal jurisdiction.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF KATHERINE B. WELLINGTON

(00:44:58) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ASHLEY C. KELLER

(00:45:01) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF KATHERINE B. WELLINGTON

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Williams v. Washington, No. 23-191

Argued on 2024-10-07.

For petitioners: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Edmund G. LaCour, Jr., Solicitor General, Montgomery, Ala.

Question Presented:

Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 in state court.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:07) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY

(00:38:27) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EDMUND G. LaCOUR, JR.

(01:13:21) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Trump v. United States, No. 23-939

Argued on 2024-04-25.

For petitioner: D. John Sauer, St. Louis, Mo. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Counselor to the Special Counsel, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ’ S REQUEST TO TREAT THE STAY APPLICATION AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED, AND THAT PETITION IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER AND IF SO TO WHAT EXTENT DOES A FORMER PRESIDENT ENJOY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR CONDUCT ALLEGED TO INVOLVE OFFICIAL ACTS DURING HIS TENURE IN OFFICE.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF D. JOHN SAUER

(00:57:36) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MICHAEL R. DREEBEN

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Moyle v. United States, No. 23-726

Argued on 2024-04-24.

For petitioners: Joshua N. Turner, Chief of Constitutional Litigation and Policy, Boise, Idaho. For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

Question Presented:

IN IDAHO ’ S APPLICATION. CONSOLIDATED WITH 23-727 FOR 1 HOUR FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO ESTABLISH A BRIEFING SCHEDULE THAT WILL ALLOW THE CASE TO BE ARGUED IN THE APRIL 2024 ARGUMENT SESSION. THE STAY SHALL TERMINATE UPON THE SENDING DOWN OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT. DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED CERT. GRANTED 1/5/2024 QUESTION PRESENTED: WHETHER EMTALA PREEMPTS STATE LAWS THAT PROTECT HUMAN LIFE AND PROHIBIT ABORTIONS, LIKE IDAHO ’ S DEFENSE OF LIFE ACT.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JOSHUA N. TURNER

(00:56:42) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

(01:47:59) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF JOSHUA N. TURNER

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Dept. of State v. Munoz, No. 23-334

Argued on 2024-04-23.

For petitioners: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Eric T. Lee, Southfeld, Mich.

Question Presented:

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq ., the decision to grant or deny a visa application rests with a consular officer in the Department of State. Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii), any noncitizen whom a consular officer "knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in* * * unlawful activity" is ineligible to receive a visa or be admitted to the United States. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen. 2. Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due. 3. Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists and that citing Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is insufficient standing alone, due process requires the government to provide a further factual basis for the visa denial "within a reasonable time," or else forfeit the ability to invoke consular nonreviewability in court.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:06) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CURTIS E. GANNON

(00:45:37) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ERIC T. LEE

(01:27:52) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF CURTIS E. GANNON

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, No. 23-367

Argued on 2024-04-23.

For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Austin Raynor, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Under the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issues, prosecutes, and adjudicates complaints alleging that employers committed unfair labor practices. 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Section 10(j) of the Act authorizes federal district courts, while the NLRB adjudication remains pending, to grant preliminary injunctive relief at the NLRB's request "as [the court] deems just and proper." Id . § 160(j). The question presented, on which the courts of appeals are openly and squarely divided, is: Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB's requests for section 10(j) injunctions under the traditional, stringent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under some other more lenient standard.

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:08) ORAL ARGUMENT OF LISA S. BLATT

(00:25:36) ORAL ARGUMENT OF AUSTIN RAYNOR

(00:50:10) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF LISA S. BLATT

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, No. 23-175

Argued on 2024-04-22.

For petitioner: Theane D. Evangelis, Los Angeles, Cal. For United States, as amicus curiae: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

In Martin v. City of Boise , 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prevents cities from enforcing criminal restrictions on public camping unless the person has "access to adequate temporary shelter." Id . at 617 & n.8. In this case, the Ninth Circuit extended Martin to a classwide injunction prohibiting the City of Grants Pass from enforcing its public-camping ordinance even though civil citations. That decision cemented a conflict with the California Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit, which have upheld similar ordinances, and entrenched a broader split on the application of the Eighth Amendment to purportedly involuntary conduct. The Ninth Circuit nevertheless denied rehearing en banc by a 14-to-13 vote. The question presented is: Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

Oral Argument Links:

• SCOTUS Oral Argument Page

• Transcript PDF

Docket Links:

• SCOTUS Docket Page

• Question Presented

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (White Br.)

• Brief in Opposition (Orange Br.)

• Reply Brief in Support of Petition (Tan Br.)

• Petitioner's Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

• Respondent's Brief on the Merits (Red Br.)

• Petitioner's Reply Brief on the Merits (Yellow Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:07) ORAL ARGUMENT OF THEANE D. EVANGELIS

(00:54:25) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EDWIN S. KNEEDLER

(01:48:43) ORAL ARGUMENT OF KELSI B. CORKRAN

(02:20:48) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF THEANE D. EVANGELIS

Disclosure, Disclaimer, and Credits:

• Independent feed. NOT affiliated with the Supreme Court of the United States or any other entity.

• Audio files from and links to the Supreme Court of the United States' website.

• Image credit to Ian Hutchinson, https://unsplash.com/photos/U8WfiRpsQ7Y