Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Mullin v Al Otro Lado.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a noncitizen who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border “arrive in the United States” within the meaning of Immigration and Nationality Act?

The case was decided on June 25, 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 Cisco Systems, Inc.v Doe.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does either the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act allow a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting?

The case was decided on June 23, 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 Exxon Mobil Corp. v Corporación Cimex, S. A.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Helms-Burton Act abrogate foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, even if the parties do not satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?

The case was decided on June 23, 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 Blanche v. Lau. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: To remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, must the government prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident’s last reentry into the United States?

The case was decided on June 23, 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 Pung v Isabella County.

In this case, the court considered these issues:

1. When the government takes property for tax debt, does the Fifth Amendment require compensation based on the property’s true fair market value, or only on the lower amount it sold for at a tax foreclosure auction?

2. Does the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause prohibit the government from seizing and keeping a property worth far more than the small tax debt owed on it?

The case was decided on June 23, 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 Landor v Louisiana Dept of Corrections and Public Safety.

In this case, the court considered this issue: May an individual sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (R-L-U-I-P-A)?

The case was decided on June 23, 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 McCarthy v Hernandez.

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the Second Circuit properly granted habeas relief under AEDPA (28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1)) by holding that the state trial court's response to a jury note on confession attenuation violated clearly established federal law from Missouri v. Seibert.

The case was decided on June 22, 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 United States v Hemani.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violate the respondent’s Second Amendment right to bear arms?

The case was decided on June 18, 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 Hunter v United States. 

In this case, the court considered these issues 1. Does an appeal waiver bar all claims except for ineffective assistance of counsel or a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum? 

2. Does such a waiver become ineffective if the sentencing judge later tells the defendant they can appeal, and the government fails to object?

The case was decided on June 18, 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 T-M v University of Md. Medical System Corporation.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court?

The case was decided on June 18, 2026.

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