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

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably decide—under the standards set by federal habeas law—that Terry Pitchford gave up his right to argue that the prosecutor’s explanations for striking four Black jurors were false or racially biased?

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 Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: 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 exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act?

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 Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: whether the Fourth Circuit violated the principle of party presentation by vacating and remanding the case on a novel jurisdictional issue regarding the Civil Service Reform Act’s functioning that the parties had not raised or briefed.

The case was decided on May 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 Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the legal right to sue under Title 3 of the LIBERTAD Act tied to the confiscated property claim or the hypothetical, unexpired duration of the original property interest?

The case was decided on May 21, 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 Hamm v. Smith.

In this case, the court considered this issue: When a capital defendant has taken multiple IQ tests with varying results, how should courts evaluate the cumulative effect of those scores to determine whether the defendant has significantly subaverage intellectual functioning under Atkins v. Virginia?

The case was decided on May 21, 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 M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension.

In this case, the court considered this issue: When a pension plan calculates how much a departing employer owes “as of the end of the plan year,” must the plan use the financial assumptions it had already adopted by that date, or can it use new assumptions created after that date if they are based on information that was available at year-end?

The case was decided on May 21, 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 Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintain jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking?

The case was decided on May 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 Montgomery  v Caribe Transport II, LLC. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) preempt a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver?

The case was decided on May 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 Louisiana v. Callais. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

The case was decided on April 29, 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 First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport.

In this case, the court considered this issue: When the recipient of a state investigatory subpoena demonstrates an objectively reasonable chill of its First Amendment rights, does a federal court lack jurisdiction to hear the case because those constitutional claims must first be resolved in state court?

The case was decided on April 29, 2026.

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