Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Section 47(b) of the ICA, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), create an implied private right of action?

The case was decided on June 11, 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 Abouammo v United States.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is venue proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there?

The case was decided on June 11, 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 Keathley v Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.

In this case, the court considered this issue: May the doctrine of judicial estoppel 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?

The case was decided on  June 11, 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 Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v Amarin Pharma, Inc.

In this case, the court considered these issues.

1. When a generic drug manufacturer excludes a patented use from its label, can it still be liable for inducing infringement if it calls its product a “generic version” of the brand-name drug and cites publicly available information about the brand-name drug’s sales?

2. Can a patent infringement complaint survive dismissal if it does not allege that the defendant made any statement specifically instructing or encouraging the patented use?

The case was decided on June 4, 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 FCC v AT&T.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Are provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III?

The case was decided on June 4, 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 Sripetch v SEC.

In this case, the court considered this issue: May the SEC seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm? 

The case was decided on June 4, 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 Allen v Milligan.

In Allen v Milligan, the Supreme Court considered whether Alabama’s 2021 congressional redistricting map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black Alabamians.

The case was decided on June 2, 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 Whitton v Dixon.

In this case, the court considered whether the Eleventh Circuit erred by relying on post-trial DNA evidence (discovered years after the original trial) when evaluating whether the Florida Supreme Court reasonably determined that a Giglio error was harmless and that the evidence against Whitton was overwhelming.

The case was decided on June 1, 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 Rutherford v United States.

In this case, the court considered this issue: May a district court, when evaluating a motion for compassionate release under 18 U-S-C § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), consider as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” the fact that a defendant is serving a sentence substantially longer than what would be imposed today due to the First Step Act’s prospective changes to mandatory minimum penalties, particularly where the disparity amounts to decades of additional imprisonment?

The case was decided on May 28, 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 Fernandez v United States.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a federal prisoner use the compassionate release law to get their sentence reduced based on claims that they might be innocent or that their sentence is unfair, even though these same claims would normally have to be raised through habeas corpus?

The case was decided on May 28, 2026.

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