SCOTUS Oral Arguments

FCC v. AT&T, No. 25-406

Argued on Apr 21 2026.

For AT&T, Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc.: Jeffrey B. Wall, Washington, D. C. For FCC, et al.: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.

Question Presented:

The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq ., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

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 Opening Brief on the Merits (Blue Br.)

Chapters:

(00:00:00) Case Call

(00:00:07) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JEFFREY B. WALL

(00:53:41) ORAL ARGUMENT OF VIVEK SURI

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

T. M. v. Univ. of MD Medical Sys. Corp., No. 25-197

Argued on Apr 20 2026.

For petitioner: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review 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 ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR

(00:40:46) ORAL ARGUMENT OF LISA S. BLATT

(00:58:24) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF 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

Sripetch v. SEC, No. 25-466

Argued on Apr 20 2026.

For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondent: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power. In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable "disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits" and "is awarded for victims ." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit," and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake. The question presented is: Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm .

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 DANIEL L. GEYSER

(00:40:34) ORAL ARGUMENT OF MALCOLM L. STEWART

(01:07:30) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF DANIEL L. GEYSER

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, President of U.S. v. Barbara, No. 25-365

Argued on Apr 01 2026.

For petitioners: D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Cecillia D. Wang, San Francisco, Cal.

Question Presented:

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those "born * * * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship , which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the Order's effective date. The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.

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. D. JOHN SAUER

(01:09:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF CECILLIA D. WANG

(02:05:11) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF GEN. D. JOHN SAUER

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

Pitchford v. Cain, No. 24-7351

Argued on Mar 31 2026.

For petitioner: Joseph J. Perkovich, New York, N. Y. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondents: Scott G. Stewart, Solicitor General, Jackson, Miss.; and Emily M. Ferguson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Question Presented:

District Attorney Doug Evans convicted Terry Pitchford, aged 18 years at the time of the crime, of capital murder and secured a death verdict in the Grenada Circuit Court before Judge Joseph Loper on February 9, 2006, with the entirety of jury selection and opening arguments taking place on February 6. After direct and collateral reviews in state court, the Northern District of Mississippi granted habeas corpus relief upon concluding that the trial court failed to determine the plausibility of the prosecutor ’ s proffered reasons for peremptorily striking four Black venire members or otherwise consider the full circumstances bearing upon whether Mr. Evans ’ s reasons for striking any and each of these four venire members was pretextual and in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the District Court ruled the state supreme court ’ s reliance on its waiver jurisprudence improperly foreclosed consideration of pretext under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that Judge Loper implicitly made determinations for each of the four strikes, trial counsel waived argument of pretext, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi ’ s waiver jurisprudence comports with Batson. This opinion in Pitchford v. Cain confirmed the Fifth Circuit ’ s disavowal of earlier circuit jurisprudence recognizing, inter alia, that since Miller-El v. Dretke , 545 U.S. 231 (2005) ( Miller-El II ), capital petitioners had been unable to “ waive[] any Batson claim based on a comparison analysis, ” Woodward v. Epps , 580 F.3d 318, 338 (5th Cir. 2009), deepening the Fifth Circuit ’ s split, joined by two other circuits, with the majority of courts of appeals in the application of Batson . This petition presents the following questions: 1. Does clearly established federal law determined by this Court and applied in six other circuits require reversal of a state appellate court ’ s denial of relief from a capital prosecutor ’ s discriminatory exercise of four peremptory strikes against Black venire members wherein the trial court, for each of the four strikes, failed to determine “ the plausibility of the reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it ”? Miller-El II , 545 U.S at 251–52. 2. Does Mississippi Supreme Court precedent, which deems waived on direct review arguments of pretext not stated in the trial record, defy this Court ’ s clearly established federal law under Batson ? 3. Does a finding of waiver on a trial record possessing Batson objections, defense counsel efforts to argue the objection, and the trial court ’ s express assurance the issues were preserved, constitute an unreasonable determination of facts?

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

(00:53:19) ORAL ARGUMENT OF SCOTT G. STEWART

(01:33:27) ORAL ARGUMENT OF EMILY M. FERGUSON

(01:47:21) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF JOSEPH J. PERKOVICH

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

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83

Argued on Mar 30 2026.

For petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex.

Question Presented:

Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a party may apply to confirm or vacate an arbitration award. But federal courts have limited jurisdiction over Section 9 and 10 applications. In Badgerow v. Walters , 596 U.S. 1, 4, 9-11 (2022), this Court held that a federal court may exercise jurisdiction only if the application establishes diversity or federal-question jurisdiction on its face. A federal court may not exercise jurisdiction merely on the basis that the underlying dispute, save for the arbitration agreement, would have been justiciable in federal court. See id . But what happens when a court initially exercises jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, stays the case pending arbitration, and is later faced with an application to confirm or vacate an arbitration award in the same case? The courts of appeals have sharply divided on the appropriate jurisdictional analysis. Several courts of appeals, including the Second Circuit below, have held that the initial exercise of jurisdiction creates a "jurisdictional anchor" that confers jurisdiction over a subsequent Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate, even if jurisdiction would otherwise be absent. By contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that a court must establish an independent basis for jurisdiction over a Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate. The question presented is: Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.

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 ADAM G. UNIKOWSKY

(00:31:19) ORAL ARGUMENT OF DANIEL L. GEYSER

(00:50:45) 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

Abouammo v. United States, No. 25-5146

Argued on Mar 30 2026.

For petitioner: Tobias S. Loss-Eaton, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

As part of an investigation into a scheme to disclose nonpublic Twitter account information to foreign actors, San Francisco-based FBI agents visited Petitioner Ahmad Abouammo at his home in Seattle. While they were there, Mr. Abouammo went upstairs and emailed them an allegedly falsified document. Mr. Abouammo's only interaction with the agents occurred in Seattle. A grand jury in the Northern District of California indicted Mr. Abouammo for (among other things) falsifying documents with the intent to impede an investigation. The parties then agreed to toll the statute of limitations for other uncharged offenses. On the day the tolling agreement expired, the government filed a superseding information adding various felony counts. Mr. Abouammo never waived prosecution by indictment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b). Four months after the limitations period had expired, the government dismissed this placeholder information and replaced it with a superseding indictment containing the same charges. The questions presented are: 1. Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element "contemplates" effects that could occur there. 2. Whether a criminal information unaccompanied by a waiver of indictment is an "information charging a felony" that allows the government to unilaterally extend the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3288.

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 TOBIAS S. LOSS-EATON

(00:32:34) ORAL ARGUMENT OF ANTHONY A. YANG

(01:12:47) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF TOBIAS S. LOSS-EATON

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

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, No. 24-935

Argued on Mar 25 2026.

For petitioners: Traci L. Lovitt, New York, N. Y. For respondent: Jennifer D. Bennett, San Francisco, Cal.

Question Presented:

Are workers who deliver locally goods that travel in interstate commerce-but who do not transport the goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that cross borders-"transportation workers" "engaged in foreign or interstate commerce" for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act's § 1 exemption?

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 TRACI L. LOVITT

(00:31:08) ORAL ARGUMENT OF JENNIFER D. BENNETT

(01:13:23) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF TRACI L. LOVITT

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

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., No. 25-6

Argued on Mar 24 2026.

For petitioner: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D. C.; and Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: William M. Jay, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine designed '"to protect the integrity of the judicial process' by 'prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions"' to gain an unfair advantage. New Hampshire v. Maine , 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001). The doctrine targets those who "'deliberately"' mislead courts, not those whose inconsistent positions stem from "inadvertence or mistake." Id . at 750, 753. Courts regularly apply judicial estoppel when a debtor-plaintiff pursues a claim he failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court. The Eleventh, Ninth, Seventh, Sixth, and Fourth Circuits require courts to look at the totality of the circumstances and find that a debtor subjectively intended to mislead the bankruptcy court before applying judicial estoppel to bar a claim outside of the bankruptcy. In stark contrast, the Fifth and Tenth Circuits have embraced a "rigid" and "unforgiving" judicial estoppel rule in the bankruptcy context that bars claims regardless of whether there is evidence that a plaintiff actually intended to mislead. App. 55a. In those circuits, a debtor's failure to disclose a lawsuit to a bankruptcy court triggers judicial estoppel whenever the debtor knew the facts relevant to the undisclosed claim and had a potential motive for concealment-which is virtually always present in the bankruptcy context. The question presented is: Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.

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

(00:00:05) ORAL ARGUMENT OF GREGORY G. GARRE

(00:32:00) ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK LIU

(00:46:17) ORAL ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM M. JAY

(01:08:05) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF GREGORY G. GARRE

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

Noem, Sec. of Homeland v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5

Argued on Mar 24 2026.

For petitioners: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Kelsi B. Corkran, Washington, D. C.

Question Presented:

The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq . , provides that an alien who "arrives in the United States" may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1225(a)(1) and (3). The question presented is whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border "arrives in the United States" within the meaning of those provisions.

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 VIVEK SURI

(00:39:18) ORAL ARGUMENT OF KELSI B. CORKRAN

(01:17:10) REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF VIVEK SURI

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