Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Klein v Martin. 

In this case, the court considered whether the Fourth Circuit violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's (AEDPA) highly deferential standard of review by granting federal habeas relief and ordering a new trial for Charles Brandon Martin after a Maryland state court denied relief on his Brady claim regarding undisclosed forensic evidence.

The case was decided on January 26, 2026.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Ellingburg v United States.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause?

The case was decided on January 20, 2026.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Berk v Choy.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Must a Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit be enforced by a federal court sitting in diversity?

The case was decided on January 20, 2026.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v Burton. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) impose any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction?

The case was decided on January 20, 2026

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Barrett v United States.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment permit two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j)?

The case was decided on January 14, 2026. 

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Bost v.  Illinois Bd. of Elections. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do federal candidates have Article 3 standing to challenge state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be received and counted for two weeks after Election Day based on claims that such laws dilute their votes and force them to incur additional campaign expenses for extended ballot monitoring?

The case was decided on January 14, 2026.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Case v Montana. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: May law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring?

The case was decided on January 14, 2026. 

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Bowe v United States. 

In this case, the court considered these issues:

1. Does a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state prisoner habeas petitions also apply to repeat claims in federal prisoner motions to vacate their sentences?

2. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review lower court decisions allowing or denying federal prisoners permission to file repeat challenges to their sentences?

The case was decided on January 9, 2026.

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Pitts v. Mississippi. 

In this case, The Court considered whether the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause by allowing a child witness to testify behind a physical screen without first holding a case-specific hearing and making a case-specific finding of necessity, as required by Coy v. Iowa and Maryland v. Craig.

In other words, the issue was: Does the Sixth Amendment permit a child witness to be screened from the defendant based solely on a mandatory state statute, without evidence or a case-specific judicial finding that such screening is necessary to prevent trauma?

The Supreme Court held no—a mandatory statute isn’t enough; the trial court must hear evidence and make a case-specific necessity finding.

The case was decided on November 24, 2025. 

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

The defendant, Jeremiah Sweeney, had been convicted by a Maryland jury of second‑degree murder (among other crimes. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and a state post‑conviction relief effort failed, Sweeney filed a federal habeas petition. He argued that his criminal trial counsel had been constitutionally ineffective. Specifically, his claim was that after one juror (Juror 4) visited the crime scene on his own initiative — and was subsequently dismissed — counsel should have asked to voir dire (i.e. question) the remaining jurors to assess whether any had been tainted by that visit. The lower federal district court denied habeas relief. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and ordered a new trial — even though the theory they relied on (ineffective counsel for not voir‑direing the full jury) was one Sweeney never had raised. 

Thus, the core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Fourth Circuit acted properly in granting habeas relief — i.e., ordering a new trial — on a claim that was never presented by the defendant, in violation of the “party‑presentation principle.” In a unanimous, per curiam decision issued November 24, 2025, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case.  The Court held that the Fourth Circuit “departed dramatically from the principle of party presentation” by granting habeas relief based on a claim that the petitioner never had presented. In other words: courts should not raise new arguments or theories unprompted by the parties. By doing so, the Fourth Circuit abused its discretion. 

The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.