In episode 50 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Flowers Foods Inc. v Brock. At issue in this case, whether the phrase "engaged in interstate commerce" in §1 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires that one travel between states or interact with vehicles that do.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-935_k53m.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

5:30 Justice Gorsuch, for the Court

18:25 Opinions of the host

In episode 49 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Margolin v. NAIJ. At issue in this case, whether the Fourth Circuit's decision below violated party presentation principles.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-767_7758.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction

0:19 Per curiam

6:39 Thomas, concurring

10:07 Opinions of the host

In episode 48 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court Justices' opinions in Hamm v Smith, as the case was dismissed as improvidently granted, and there was no further opinion of the Court. At issue in this case, how courts should assess multiple IQ scores for determining whether a defentant is intellectually disabled and cannot constitutionally be executed under Atkins v Virginia.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-872_ec8f.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction

0:21 Justice Sotomayor, concurring

38:15 Justice Thomas, dissenting

1:04:14 Justice Alito, dissenting

1:44:28 Opinions of the host

In episode 47 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in M & K Employee Solutions v Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, employers who withdraw from a multiemployer pension plan must pay their share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits (UVBs) as of the last day of the plan year preceeding their withdrawal (the measurement date). At issue in this case, whether the assumptions actuaries use to calculate the value of UVBs must be selected by the measurement date or can be selected after.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/23-1209_i3kn.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

6:45 Justice Jackson, for the Court

26:06 Opinions of the host

In episode 46 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.. Havana Docks Corp. was granted a time-limited usufruct with respect to docks by the government of Cuba. Cuba later siezed control over the docks before the usufruct expired, and years after it would have expired, several cruise lines used the docks. At issue in this case is whether the cruise lines can be held liable under Title III of the LIBERTAD act for using the docks.

LInk to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-983_c07d.pdf

LInktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

8:44 Justice Thomas, for the Court

36:57 Justice Sotomayor, concurring

43:27 Justice Kagan, dissenting

54:33 Opinions of the host

In episode 45 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Montgomery v Caribe Transport II, LLC. At issue in this case, whether the safety exception to the preemption sceme in the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act saves claims against transportation brokers for negligently hiring unsafe trucking companies whose trucks and drivers cause injuries.

LInk to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1238_1b7d.pdf

LInktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

5:49 Justice Barrett, for the Court

17:30 Justice Kavanaugh, concurring

27:04 Opinions of the host

In episode 44 of the Supreme Court Opinions Read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Jules v Andre Balasz Properties. At issue in this case, whether a federal court that stayed a case pending arbitration under §3 of the Federal Arbitration Act retains jurisdiction to hear motions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under §9 and §10.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-83_3e04.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

9:56 Justice Sotomayor, for the Court

38:04 Opinions of the host

In espisode 43 of the Supreme Court Opinions Read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v Davenport. At issue in this case, whether a group suffers an injury in fact to their First Amendment associational rights sufficient for Article III standing when the government seeks to compel the disclosure of private, identifying donor information.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

6:50 Justice Gorsuch, for the Court

41:21 Opinions of the host

In episode 42 of the Supreme Court Opinions Read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Louisiana v Callais. At issue in this case, whether Louisiana's 2024 map, drawn to comply with the Voting Rights Act after its 2022 map was enjoined under that statute, is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth Amendment. In answering this question, the Court addressed whether compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is a compelling government interest for purposes of strict scrutiny and focused mostly on the proper understanding of that statute.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_new_jifl.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

11:34 Justice Alito, for the Court

1:07:51 Justice Thomas, concurring

1:09:27 Justice Kagan, dissenting

2:37:27 Opinions of the hosts

In episode 41 of the Supreme Court Opinions Read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Enbridge Energy, LP v Nessel. At issue in this case, whether the 30 day deadline in §1446(b)(1) for removing state court suits to federal court can be equitably tolled.

Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-783_bqm2.pdf

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread

0:00 Introduction/Syllabus

8:57 Justice Sotomayor, for the Court

34:45 Opinions of the host