Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Supreme Court of the United States
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States episodes
- Case: 19-199 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES RAILROAD RETIREMENT BD (2020-November-02)
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether, under section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 355(f), and section 8 of the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231g, the Railroad Retirement Board's denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a "final decision" subject to judicial review.
SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★1 hr 4 min - Case: 19-547 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERV. V. SIERRA CLUB, INC. (2020-November-02)
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5) (2012), by incorporating the deliberative process privilege, protects against compelled disclosure a federal agency's draft documents that were prepared as part of a formal interagency consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1536, and that concerned a proposed agency action that was later modified in the consultation process.
SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★1 hr 10 min - Case: 19-438 PEREIDA V. BARR (2020-Oct-14)
QUESTION PRESENTED:
A noncitizen may not apply for relief from deportation, including asylum and cancellation of removal, if he has been convicted of a disqualifying offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The categorical approach (including its "modified" variant) governs the analysis of potentially disqualifying convictions. Under that approach, a conviction for a state offense does not carry immigration consequences unless it "necessarily" establishes all elements of the potentially corresponding federal offense. Moncrieffe v. Holder,569 U.S. 184, 190-91 (2013).
Accordingly, four courts of appeals hold that a state conviction does not bar relief from removal if the state-court record is merely ambiguous as to whether the conviction involved the elements of the corresponding federal offense. In their view, ambiguity means the conviction does not "necessarily" establish the elements of the federal offense. Four other courts of appeals-including the Eighth Circuit below-take the opposite view. They hold that a merely ambiguous conviction is nonetheless disqualifying because the immigration laws place an evidentiary burden of proof on noncitizens to establish eligibility for relief.
The question presented is:
1. Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★1 hr 5 min - Case: 19-292 TORRES V. MADRID (2020-Oct-14)
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Police officers shot Petitioner, but she drove away and temporarily eluded capture. In this excessive force suit, the district court granted summary judgment for the officers on the ground that no Fourth Amendment "seizure" occurred. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, reasoning
that an officer's application of physical force is not a seizure if the person upon whom the force is applied is able to evade apprehension.
The question presented is:1. Is an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the Eighth; Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or must physical force be successful in detaining a suspect to
constitute a "seizure," as the Tenth Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals hold?SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★1 hr 18 min - Case: 19-357 CITY OF CHICAGO V. FULTON (2020-Oct-13)
19-357 CITY OF CHICAGO V. FULTON
DECISION BELOW: 926 F3d. 916 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-2527, 18-2793, 18-2835, 18-3023QUESTION PRESENTED:
1. Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★1 hr 22 min - Consolidated Case: 19-108 UNITED STATES V. BRIGGS and 19-184 UNITED STATES V. COLLINS (2020-Oct-13)
19-108 UNITED STATES V. BRIGGS
DECISION BELOW: 78 M.J. 289 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-0711QUESTION PRESENTED:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding-contrary to its own longstanding precedent-that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
19-184 UNITED STATES V. COLLINS
DECISION BELOW: 78 M.J. 415 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 19-0052QUESTION PRESENTED:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding-contrary to its own longstanding precedent-that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★1 hr 1 min - Consolidated Case: 19-368 FORD MOTOR CO. V. MONTANA EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT and 19-369 FORD MOTOR CO. V. BANDEMER (2020-Oct-7)
19-368 FORD MOTOR CO. V. MONTANA EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT
DECISION BELOW: 443 P.3d 407 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: OP 19-0099QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only when the plaintiff’s claims“arise out of or relate to" the defendant's forum activities.Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted).The question presented is:
1. Whether the“arise out of or relate to" requirement is met when none of the defendant's forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.19-369 FORD MOTOR CO. V. BANDEMER
DECISION BELOW: 931 N.W.2d 744 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: A17-1182QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only when the plaintiff’s claims“arise out of or relate to" the defendant's forum activities.Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted).The question presented is:
1. Whether the“arise out of or relate to" requirement is met when none of the defendant's forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★1 hr 1 min - Case: 18-956 GOOGLE LLC V. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. (2020-Oct-7)QUESTION PRESENTED:The Copyright Act provides that, while "original works of authorship" are generally eligible for copyright protection, 17 U.S.C. 102(a), "[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work," 17 U.S.C. 102(b). The Act also makes clear that "the fair use of a copyrighted work * * * is not an infringement of copyright." 17 U.S.C. 107.As is relevant here, software interfaces are lines of computer code that allow developers to operate prewritten libraries of code used to perform particular tasks. Since the earliest days of software development, developers have used interfaces to access essential tools for building new computer programs. Contravening that longstanding practice, the Federal Circuit in this case held both that a software interface is copyrightable and that petitioner's use of a software interface in a new computer program cannot constitute fair use as a matter of law.THE QUESTION PRESENTED ARE:1. Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface.2. Whether, as the jury found, petitioner's use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt1 hr 37 min
- Case: 18-540 RUTLEDGE V. PHARMACEUTICAL CARE MANAGEMENT (2020-Oct-6)QUESTION PRESENTED:Thirty-six States have enacted legislation to curb abusive prescription drug reimbursement practices by claims-processing middlemen-known as pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)-who make money on the spread between the rates at which they reimburse pharmacies and the drug prices they charge health plans. In response, Respondent Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA), a PBM trade association, has launched a barrage of litigation across the country arguing that state regulations of PBMs generally, and state drug-reimbursement regulations specifically, are categorically preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Disregarding this Court's ERISA precedent (and contrary to the First Circuit's conclusion that PBMregulations are categoricallynot preempted by ERISA), the Eighth Circuit embraced that argument.THE QUESTION PRESENTED HERE IS:1. Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas's statute regulating PBMs' drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of States, is preempted by ERISA, in contravention of this Court's precedent that ERISA does not preempt rate regulation.SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt1 hr 12 min
- Case: 65 Orig TEXAS V. NEW MEXICO (2020-Oct-05)LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:QUESTION PRESENTED:To resolve disputes about use of the Pecos River, Texas and New Mexico entered into the Pecos River Compact. This Court subsequently entered an amended decree ordering New Mexico to comply with its Compact obligations and appointing a River Master to perform the annual calculations of New Mexico's water-delivery obligations.The Court's decree specifies exact procedures for objecting to the River Master's annual reports. In particular, a party must seek this Court's review of any final determination of the River Master within 30 days. Likewise, the decree allows modifying the manual governing the River Master's calculations only by specified procedures.In 2014 and 2015, a federally owned reservoir in New Mexico impounded and held large amounts of flood waters dumped in the Pecos Basin by heavy rains. When the reservoir’s authority to hold the water for flood-control purposes expired, the reservoir began to release it. Texas did not use this water, nor could it. The downstream reservoir in Texas was already full from holding flood water, so Texas had to release water, wasted, to make room for the water flowing in from New Mexico.The River Master timely calculated and reported New Mexico's obligations for 2014 and 2015. Neither report reduced Texas's rights to water delivery based on the evaporation of water stored in the federal reservoir in New Mexico-water that Texas could not use. At the time, New Mexico lodged no objection, and the 30-day review period lapsed. But years later, in mid-2018, New Mexico filed a motion arguing that its delivery obligations should be reduced by the water that evaporated from the floodwaters stored in 2014 and 2015, giving New Mexico delivery credits for losses from water that neither State used.Rather than dismiss that untimely objection, the River Master modified the governing manual over Texas's objection to allow retroactive changes to final reports,gave that modification of the manual retroactive effect, and amended the 2015 report toprovide New Mexico credits against its delivery obligations for most of the evaporative loss in 2015.THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED ARE:1. Whether the River Master clearly erred in retroactively amending the River Master Manual and his final accounting for 2015 without Texas's consent and contrary to this Court's decree.2. Whether the River Master clearly erred by charging Texas for evaporative losses without authority under the Compact.SUPPORT what we are doing here by contributing to our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/supremecourt1 hr 15 min
About Supreme Court of the United States
From the publisher's feed
Supreme Court Season episodes will include all arguments that occur from October 01st to April/May.
You can listen to the sidebar version of each Supreme Court Case https://thesidebar.transistor.fm/