Swear on the Stand

The Supreme Court of Louisiana recently reversed the burglary convictions of Michael Steven White because the written verdict form provided to the jury failed to include a "not guilty" option. Although the trial judge gave correct verbal instructions, the written form listed only guilty, guilty of attempted simple burglary, and guilty as the possible responses. The majority opinion determined that omitting the presumption of innocence from the final deliberation document was a patent error that potentially influenced the jury’s decision-making process. Evidence of juror confusion during polling further convinced the court that the mistake was not harmless, despite the state's claims of overwhelming evidence. While a concurring justice argued the error was structural and required an automatic new trial, a dissenting justice maintained that the trial's overall context made the omission harmless. Ultimately, the court vacated White's twenty-year sentence and remanded the case for a new trial to protect his constitutional rights.

This episode details the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to uphold a drug conviction against Jesus Arturo Conchas-Mancilla. The defendant challenged the search of his vehicle, arguing that a drug dog's instinctual alert was insufficient to establish probable cause compared to a formal, trained indication. However, the court ruled that the totality of the circumstances, including the dog's high level of reliability and certification, justified the search that uncovered hidden cocaine. By affirming the lower court's ruling, the judges clarified that canine behavior does not need to follow a rigid protocol to provide legal grounds for a vehicle inspection. This case reinforces that a credible alert from a drug-detection animal is a valid basis for a search under the Fourth Amendment.

This episode details a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the validity of construction liens under Mississippi law. The dispute centers on whether Cuevas Machine Company properly established its liens against Calgon Carbon Corporation by attaching invoices rather than explicitly stating the final date of service within the lien filing. Because state statutes require the "last date" of work to be specified for a lien to be enforceable, the court found the existing legal precedents to be conflicting and unclear. Consequently, the federal court has certified the question to the Mississippi Supreme Court to determine if such invoices satisfy the strict statutory requirements. The final resolution will define whether these multi-million dollar claims are legally binding or void due to technical non-compliance.

This episode details a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the constitutionality of a long-standing federal ban on at-home distilling for personal consumption. A group of hobbyists and the Hobby Distillers Association challenged the statutes, arguing that the prohibition exceeds the legislative powers granted to Congress. The court concluded that all plaintiffs have standing to sue because they face a credible threat of prosecution for their intended hobbies. Most significantly, the court ruled that the ban violates the Taxation and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution. The judges reasoned that a total prohibition on production does not facilitate revenue collection, but instead improperly invades the regulatory police powers reserved for individual states. This ruling effectively affirms that while the government can tax alcohol, it cannot use that authority to criminalize the private, non-commercial act of distilling at a residence.

This episode outlines the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which addressed whether Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors violates the First Amendment rights of licensed counselors. Petitioner Kaley Chiles argued that the law unconstitutionally restricted her use of "talk therapy" to help clients achieve their personal goals regarding sexual orientation and gender identity. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch concluded that because the law permits certain viewpoints while forbidding others, it constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination against professional speech. The Court rejected the state's claim that the law merely regulated professional conduct, ruling instead that the government cannot enforce a speech orthodoxy simply by labeling medical discourse as a "treatment." In contrast, Justice Jackson’s dissent argued that states possess the police power to regulate harmful medical practices, maintaining that professional speech should be subject to less scrutiny when it is incidental to medical care. Ultimately, the ruling underscores the Court's commitment to protecting the free marketplace of ideas, even within the context of licensed professional relationships.

In the case RICO v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant’s term of federal supervised release does not automatically extend if the individual absconds or fails to report. The Ninth Circuit had previously held that such a term is "tolled" while a defendant is a fugitive, allowing for new crimes committed during that period to be treated as formal release violations. However, the Supreme Court majority concluded that the Sentencing Reform Act provides no statutory authority for such an automatic extension, noting that Congress explicitly defined when release may be paused or extended. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch emphasized that while judges have other tools to punish absconders, they cannot unilaterally lengthen a supervision term beyond what was originally ordered. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Alito argued that the dispute over tolling was unnecessary because sentencing judges already possess the broad legal authority to consider a defendant's criminal history when fashioning a punishment.

This Supreme Court opinion in Olivier v. City of Brandon addresses whether a person previously convicted of a crime can later challenge the constitutionality of that same law. The petitioner, a street preacher named Gabriel Olivier, sought a federal injunction to prevent future enforcement of a city ordinance that restricted his speech near a public amphitheater. While lower courts held that the suit was barred by the Heck v. Humphrey precedent—which prevents using civil rights lawsuits to implicitly invalidate prior convictions—the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan clarified that the "Heck bar" does not apply to plaintiffs seeking purely prospective relief rather than the reversal of past judgments. The decision affirms that individuals are not forced to choose between repeatedly breaking a law or surrendering their First Amendment rights. Ultimately, the Court ruled that because Olivier’s suit focuses solely on future conduct, his prior conviction does not block his right to challenge the ordinance's validity.

This episode is from a Supreme Court of the United States slip opinion from the 2025 term regarding the case Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Jackson, the Court addressed whether federal appeals courts should use a deferential "substantial-evidence" standard or a de novo review when evaluating asylum denials. The petitioners, a family from El Salvador, argued that their experiences with a hitman constituted persecution, but their claims were rejected by lower immigration authorities. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, concluding that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires judges to treat agency findings as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to disagree. By doing so, the Court clarified that the entirety of a persecution determination—including the application of law to specific facts—is subject to this highly deferential level of judicial review.

This episode from Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (2026) clarifies the criteria used to determine if a state-created entity qualifies as an "arm of the state" for sovereign immunity purposes. The Court unanimously ruled that NJ Transit is not entitled to immunity because it was structured as a legally separate corporation with the power to sue, be sued, and manage its own property. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion emphasizes that formal financial liability is a primary factor; since New Jersey is not legally responsible for the agency’s debts, the entity remains distinct from the state's protected treasury. While the state exerts substantial control through board appointments and veto powers, the Court held that such oversight does not override the agency's independent corporate status. This decision resolves a conflict between New York and Pennsylvania courts, affirming that sovereign immunity does not extend to independent instrumentalities that are responsible for their own legal judgments. Conclusively, the ruling establishes that states cannot grant immunity to autonomous entities simply by labeling them as state agencies if they function with corporate independence.

This episode contains a Supreme Court of the United States per curiam opinion and subsequent opinions from a 2026 case regarding California’s school policies on student gender identity. The Court vacated a stay issued by the Ninth Circuit, effectively reinstating a lower court's injunction that prevents schools from withholding information about a child’s gender transition from their parents. The majority concluded that parents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Free Exercise Clause and the Due Process Clause, emphasizing the fundamental right of parents to direct their children's upbringing and mental health. In a concurrence, Justice Barrett defended the use of the emergency docket to prevent irreparable harm to the parent-child relationship during the appeals process. Conversely, Justice Kagan’s dissent criticized the Court for bypassing regular appellate procedures and questioned the majority's sudden embrace of substantive due process to reach its conclusion.