This week delivered explosive Supreme Court developments with two unanimous decisions and Texas redistricting ruling reshaping voting rights.

The Court reversed Clark versus Sweeney and Pitts versus Mississippi while granting Texas a controversial redistricting stay. Oral arguments revealed deep tensions involving internet liability, immigration law, First Amendment standing, and federal court jurisdiction. Next week promises blockbuster cases addressing presidential power, campaign finance regulations, death penalty standards, and investment law.

• Examine three major Supreme Court actions including two unanimous reversals that reinforce core judicial principles and one explosive redistricting decision that signals the Court's growing skepticism toward racial gerrymandering claims.
• Analyze this week's oral arguments covering Cox Communications' copyright liability dilemma, the complex standing issues in First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Platkin, and Justice Jackson's pointed questioning in Olivier versus City of Brandon.
• Explore the implications of the Abbott decision for Louisiana versus Callais and broader voting rights protections.
• Preview next week's constitutional showdowns including Trump's challenge to independent agency protections and two death penalty cases that could reshape capital punishment standards.

TIMESTAMPS

[00:00] Intro

[01:44] Clark v. Sweeney

[04:19] Pitts versus Mississippi

[05:19] Abbott versus League of United Latin American Citizens

[10:44] Oral Argument Recap

[17:10] Next Week Preview

Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25 | Docket Link: Here

Gabriel Olivier, a Christian who shares his faith on public sidewalks, gets convicted under a Mississippi ordinance restricting demonstrations near a city amphitheater. He sues in federal court seeking only prospective relief to prevent future enforcement against his religious expression. The Fifth Circuit blocks his lawsuit entirely under Heck v. Humphrey, but eight judges dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, setting up a Supreme Court showdown over whether prior convictions permanently bar constitutional challenges.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (Olivier): Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, TX
• United States, as Amicus Curiae Supporting Vacatur: Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent (City of Brandon): G. Todd Butler, Flowood, MS

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:01:37] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:47] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:03:42] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:22:08] Petitioner Round Robin Questions

[00:38:31] United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Vacatur Opening Statement

[00:39:46] United States Free for All Questions

[00:49:39] United States Free for All Questions

[00:55:53] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:58:02] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:20:04] Respondent Round Robin Questions

[01:21:23] Petitioner Rebuttal

First Choice Women's Resource v. Platkin | Case No. 24-781 | Oral Argument Date: 12/2/25 | Docket Link: Here

Whether federal courts can hear First Amendment challenges to state subpoenas immediately, or whether challengers must first litigate their constitutional claims in state court.

This episode examines First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Platkin, a case that generated a stunning 42 amicus briefs and could fundamentally reshape federal court jurisdiction over state investigatory demands. The Supreme Court will determine whether organizations facing state subpoenas for donor information can immediately challenge those demands in federal court, or whether they must first exhaust state court proceedings - potentially losing their federal forum rights forever due to res judicata.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (First Choice Women's Resource): Erin M. Hawley, Washington, D.C.
• For United States as Amicus Curiae: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent (New Jersey): Sundeep Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General, Trenton, N.J.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[00:01:32] Oral Argument Begins

[00:01:50] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:03:55] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:19:27] Petitioner Round Robin Questions

[00:24:43] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement

[00:25:25] Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions

[00:35:30] Amicus Curiae Round Robin Questions

[00:38:09] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:40:30] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:08:31] Respondent Round Robin Questions

[01:20:41] Petitioner Rebuttal

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi | Asylum Authority Showdown: Cartel Violence and Court Deference | Oral Argument Date: 12/1/25 | Docket Link: Here

In this case, the Supreme Court must decide whether federal courts must defer to immigration officials when determining if undisputed facts constitute "persecution" under asylum law, or whether courts should make independent legal determinations. The case involves a Salvadoran family who fled years of cartel violence, including death threats and physical attacks, but were denied asylum when the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded their experiences didn't rise to the level of persecution. This decision will affect hundreds of thousands of asylum cases and could reshape the relationship between agency expertise and judicial review in immigration law.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (Urias-Orellana): For petitioners: Nicholas Rosellini, San Francisco, CA
• For Respondent (United States): For respondent: Joshua Dos Santos, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00] Oral Argument Preview

[01:10] Oral Argument Begins

[01:20] Petitioner Opening Statement

[03:25] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[26:30] Petitioner Round Robin Questions

[35:09] Respondent Opening Statement

[38:39] Respondent Free for All Questions

[54:30] Respondent Round Robin Questions

[54:41] Petitioner Rebuttal

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment | The Billion-Dollar Broadband Battle: When ISPs Face Copyright Catastrophe | Oral Argument Date: 12/1/25 | Docket Link: Here

Questions Presented: (1) Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it? (2) Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)?

This case involves a billion-dollar battle between industry titans Sony ($175 billion market cap) and Cox Communications (part of $21 billion Cox Enterprises) that could fundamentally reshape internet service provider liability for customer copyright infringement. The Supreme Court must balance protecting artists' intellectual property rights against maintaining universal internet access in the digital age.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner (Cox Communications): Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N.Y.
• For United States as Amicus Curiae: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent (Sony): Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

[00:00] Oral Argument Introduction

[01:28] Oral Argument Begins

[01:36] Petitioner Opening Statement

[03:37] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[19:25] Petitioner Round Robin Questions

[41:21] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement

[42:25] Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions

[51:39] Amicus Curaie Round Robin Questions

[01:01:23] Respondent Opening Statement

[01:03:44] Respondent Free for All Questions

[01:31:48] Respondent Round Robin Questions

[01:39:19] Petitioner Rebuttal

This comprehensive mega episode covers all seven blockbuster Supreme Court cases scheduled for December 2025 oral arguments. From presidential power over independent agencies to billion-dollar copyright battles, these cases could reshape American governance, individual rights, and economic regulation for generations. The episode provides high-level analysis of each case's constitutional stakes and practical implications.

• Opening: Constitutional Collision Course Preview
• Seven cases in ten days that could rewrite American law
• Unprecedented concentration of constitutional challenges
• Stakes spanning executive power, free speech, civil rights, and economic regulation

• Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment | The Billion-Dollar Broadband Battle: When ISPs Face Copyright Catastrophe | Argument Date: 12/1/25

Billion-Dollar Broadband Battle: Cox v. Sony involves a $1 billion verdict asking whether ISPs face copyright catastrophe when users infringe, potentially transforming how internet service providers police their networks and affecting every American's internet access.

• First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin | The Jurisdictional Jam: When State Subpoenas Silence Speech | Argument Date: 12/2/25

First Choice v. Platkin tests when state subpoenas silence speech - whether nonprofits can bypass state courts for immediate federal protection of First Amendment rights, affecting advocacy groups nationwide.

• Olivier v. City of Brandon | Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25

Olivier v. City of Brandon tackles the prospective relief puzzle - whether past convictions create permanent immunity shields for potentially unconstitutional laws challenging future enforcement.

• Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter | Presidential Power Play: Trump's Total Takedown of Independent Agencies | Argument Date: 12/8/25

Trump v. Slaughter examines Trump's total takedown of independent agencies - whether the President can remove commissioners without cause, potentially eliminating the structure protecting $47 trillion in economic activity.

• NRSC v. FEC | Money, Messaging, and Muzzling: The First Amendment Fight Over Party Coordination | Argument Date: 12/9/15

NRSC v. FEC features the First Amendment fight over party coordination, with the extraordinary situation where the Federal Election Commission sides with challengers against its own regulations.

• Hamm v. Smith | Hamm v. Smith | IQ Score Showdown: When Multiple Tests Determine Life or Death | Argument Date: 12/10/25

IQ Score Showdown and Fund Feud: Hamm v. Smith determines when multiple tests determine life or death in capital cases, while FS Credit v. Saba examines forcing fiduciary fairness through federal lawsuits in investment disputes.

• FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal Lawsuits | Argument Date: 12/10/25

FS Credit v. Saba examines forcing fiduciary fairness through federal lawsuits, asking whether shareholders have implied private rights to sue under the Investment Company Act when the SEC doesn't act.

TIMESTAMPS

[00:00:00] Mailbag

[00:23:59] December Case Previews

[00:24:55]  Cox Communications versus Sony Music Entertainment

[00:26:17]  First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Platkin

[00:27:38]  Olivier versus City of Brandon

[00:29:04]  Trump versus Slaughter

[00:30:31]  National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission

[00:32:04]  Hamm versus Smith

[00:33:12]  FS Credit versus Saba

[00:33:52] Final Thoughts and Conclusion

In this special Thanksgiving episode, The High Court Report pulls back the curtain to share the personal story behind The High Court Report. The episode traces the podcast's origins from a 2021 hearing preparation that led to discovering gaps in existing Supreme Court content, to building a comprehensive resource for practitioners and the public. Your host reflects on the journey from anonymous podcast hosting to creating detailed case previews and opinion summaries that make complex legal decisions accessible. The episode concludes with heartfelt gratitude for family, friends, and listeners who have supported the podcast's mission to democratize Supreme Court coverage.

Follow, rate, subscribe, share, and review. Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Just search "The High Court Report." Or, email us at: [email protected].

[00:00:00] Introduction and Thanksgiving Special

[00:00:09] The Story Behind the Podcast

[00:00:51] Preparing for a Court Hearing

[00:02:20] Discovering Supreme Court Advocacy

[00:05:59] Launching the Podcast

[00:08:05] Expanding the Podcast's Scope

[00:12:17] Gratitude and Acknowledgements

[00:16:28] Looking Ahead

This episode captures the most electrifying moments from the Supreme Court's November 2025 oral arguments in the consolidated Trump Tariff Cases—constitutional blockbusters that pit presidential emergency powers against Congress's exclusive authority to tax. These cases represent the most significant separation of powers challenge since the New Deal, with over $4 trillion in tariffs hanging in the balance.

Follow The High Court Report:

• YouTube: @TheHighCourtReport
• LinkedIn: The High Court Report
• Email: [email protected]

Subscribe and Share to help others access crucial Supreme Court analysis and exceptional advocacy examples.

TIMESTAMPS

[00:00:00] Episode Intro

[00:01:16] Introduction to the Major Question Doctrine

[00:01:16] Trump Tariff Cases Highlights

[00:01:28] Common-Sense Interpretation and Historical Context

[00:02:54] Debating Presidential Powers and Tariffs

[00:03:54] Historical Precedents and Legal Interpretations

[00:05:59] The Nixon Example and Its Significance

[00:09:30] Legislative History and Statutory Interpretation

[00:19:26] Nondelegation Principle and Constitutional Concerns

[00:24:17] Congressional Delegation and Political Oversight

[00:26:52] Historical Context of Presidential Tariff Authority

[00:28:10] Legal Interpretations of 'Regulate Importation'

[00:29:23] Debating the Scope of Presidential Powers

[00:32:07] Judicial Review and Congressional Intent

[00:33:15] Revenue-Raising vs. Embargoes

[00:35:08] Nondelegation Doctrine and Emergency Powers

[00:39:18] Clarifying the Nixon and Algonquin Precedents

[00:41:42] Final Arguments and Hypotheticals

[00:53:02] Episode Conclusion

This episode presents curated highlights from the Supreme Court's November 2025 oral arguments.

Follow, rate, subscribe, share, and review. Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Just search "The High Court Report." Or, email us at: [email protected].

[00:00:00] Episode Intro

[00:00:59] November Argument Highlights

[00:00:59] Coney Island v. Burton Highlights

[00:15:03] Hain v. Palmquist Highlights

[00:29:37] Landor v. LA Dep't of Corrections Highlights

[00:51:19] Fernandez v. United States Highlights

[01:04:29] Rutherford and Carter v. United States Highlights

[01:17:21] Hencely v. Fluor Highlights

[01:39:00] GEO Group v. Menocal Highlights

[01:52:30] Episode Conclusion

• This episode presents curated highlights from the Supreme Court's October 2025 oral arguments, featuring exceptional moments of advocacy and judicial questioning from the term's most significant cases. The October sitting delivered constitutional blockbusters across First Amendment rights, criminal procedure, administrative law, and presidential power. This compilation showcases the highest caliber of Supreme Court advocacy and captures pivotal exchanges that signal how the Court may rule on these transformational cases.

Follow, rate, subscribe, share, and review. Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Just search "The High Court Report." Or, email us at: [email protected].

[00:00:00] Episode Intro

[00:04:28] Berk v. Choy Highlights

[00:21:21] Bost v. Illinois Board of Illinois Highlights

[00:36:54] Bowe v. United States Highlights

[00:40:28] Case v. Montana Highlights

[00:56:57] Chiles v. Salazar Highlights

[01:03:19] Ellingsburg Oral Argument Highlights

[01:22:35] Louisiana v. Callais Highlights

[01:43:29] Villareal v. Texas Highlights

[01:53:38] Episode Conclusion