The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

By Brad Neal

A public good: every Supreme Court Oral Argument since 2010. Making the Highest Court more accessible for a modern audience. The DC Bar blog's piece about this podcast can be found here: https://www.t... more

4.9

6262 ratings

Download on the App Store

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play

FAQs about The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments:

How many episodes does The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments have?

The podcast currently has 1,053 episodes available.

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments episodes:

April 29, 2026 Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. | 04/29/26 | Docket #: 24-889
24-889 HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS V. AMARIN PHARMA, INC.
DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 1370
CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act "[t]o facilitate the approval of generic drugs as
soon as patents allow."
Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
, 566 U.S. 399, 405
(2012). Recognizing that many drugs are approved for both patented and unpatented uses,
Congress sought to ensure "that one patented use will not foreclose marketing a generic drug
for other unpatented ones."
Id
. at 415. The statutory mechanism is a "skinny label": Generic
drugmakers "carve out" patented uses from their labels, leaving only instructions to use
generic drugs for their unpatented uses. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii).
Congress designed this carve-out mechanism to encourage competition and to protect
generic drugmakers from allegations that marketing a generic drug for an unpatented use
"actively induces infringement." 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). After all, active inducement requires "clear
expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"-there is no "liability when a
defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use."
Metro-Goldwyn-
Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
, 545 U.S. 913, 936-937 & n.11 (2005).
The questions presented are:
1. When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the
generic drugmaker calls its product a "generic version" and cites public information about the
branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?
2. Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it
does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or
even mentions, the patented use?

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2023-1169
...more
0min
April 29, 2026 Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe
Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe | 04/29/26 | Docket #: 25-1083
25-1083 MULLIN, SEC. DHS V. DOE
DECISION BELOW:
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY (25A952) PRESENTED TO JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR AND BY HER REFERRED TO THE COURT IS DEFERRED. CONSIDERATION OF THE
APPLICATION FOR STAY (25A999) PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO
THE COURT IS ALSO DEFERRED. THE APPLICATIONS ARE ALSO TREATED AS PETITIONS FOR A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT (25-1083, 25-1084), AND THE PETITIONS ARE
GRANTED. THE CASES ARE CONSOLIDATED, AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR
ORAL ARGUMENT.
CERT. GRANTED 3/16/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 25-2995
...more
1h 48min
April 28, 2026 Cisco Systems v. Doe I
Cisco Systems v. Doe I | 04/28/26 | Docket #: 24-856
24-856 CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. V. DOE I
DECISION BELOW: 73 F.4th 700
GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 3 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
1.

Whether the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows a judicially-implied
private right of action for aiding and abetting.
2.

Whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than
purpose suffices to show the requisite
mens rea.
3.

Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, allows a judicially-
implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-16909
...more
0min
April 27, 2026 Monsanto Co. v. Durnell
Monsanto Co. v. Durnell | 04/27/26 | Docket #: 24-1068
24-1068 MONSANTO CO. V. DURNELL
DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 828
GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
WHETHER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT PREEMPTS A LABEL-
BASED FAILURE-TO-WARN CLAIM WHERE EPA HAS NOT REQUIRED THE WARNING.
CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA'') creates a
comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides. The Act
preempts any state "requirement[] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from
those required under" FIFRA.

7 U.S.C. §136v(b). For decades, EPA has exercised its authority
under FIFRA to find that Monsanto's Roundup product line and its active ingredient,
glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. Consistent with that understanding, EPA has
repeatedly approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. FIFRA prohibits Monsanto
from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first obtains EPA's
permission.
Respondent is one of more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country that nonetheless
seek to hold Monsanto liable for not warning users that glyphosate, the active ingredient in
Roundup, causes cancer. The federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts are divided
over whether FIFRA preempts such claims. The Third Circuit has held that it does. In the
decision below, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and state
appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that it does not.
The question presented is:
Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to- warn claim where EPA has repeatedly
concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product
without EPA approval.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: ED112410
...more
0min
April 27, 2026 Chatrie v. United States
Chatrie v. United States | 04/27/26 | Docket #: 25-112
25-112 CHATRIE V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 136 F.4th 100
LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to
use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their
service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service
provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular
time.
In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant
seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank
robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement
sought - without seeking an additional warrant - information about the movements of certain
devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then -
again without seeking an additional warrant-law enforcement requested de-anonymized
subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello
Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of
armed robbery.
The questions presented are:
1.

Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
2.

Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from the geofence
warrant.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-4489
...more
0min
April 23, 2026 Blanche, Acting Atty Gen. v. Lau
Blanche, Acting Atty Gen. v. Lau | 04/22/26 | Docket #: 25-429
25-429 BLANCHE V. LAU
DECISION BELOW: 130 F.4th 42
CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), various categories of aliens, including those who have
committed or been convicted of certain crimes, are "ineligible to be admitted to the United
States" and subject to removal. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2);

see 8 U.S.C. 1229a.

Under 8

U.S.C. 1101
(a)(13)(C), a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who is returning to the United States after a trip
abroad is generally not "regarded as seeking an admission into the United States" and is
therefore not typically subject to the inadmissibility grounds in Section 1182(a). But that
general rule does not apply to an LPR who "has committed an offense identified in section 1182
(a)(2)"
i.e
., an offense that would render him inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The
question presented is:
Whether, to remove an LPR who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and
was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed
clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the LPR's last reentry into the
United States.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-6623
...more
1h 31min
April 21, 2026 FCC v. AT&T
FCC v. AT&T | 04/21/26 | Docket #: 25-406
25-406 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. AT&T
DECISION BELOW: 149 F.4th 491
CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-567 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.
CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151
et seq
., empowers the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain
violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the
regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the
regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated
party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an
FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of
appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The
question presented is as follows:
Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and
enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article
III.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-60223
...more
0min
April 20, 2026 T. M. v. Univ. of MD Medical Sys. Corp.
T. M. v. Univ. of MD Medical Sys. Corp. | 04/20/26 | Docket #: 25-197
25-197 T.M. V. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION
DECISION BELOW: 139 F.4th 344
CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine
can be triggered by a state-court decision that
remains subject to further review in state court.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-1707
...more
1h 2min
April 20, 2026 Sripetch v. SEC
Sripetch v. SEC | 04/20/26 | Docket #: 25-466
25-466 SRIPETCH V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DECISION BELOW: 154 F.4th 980
CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important
question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power.
In
Liu v. SEC,
591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable
"disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net
profits" and "is awarded for
victims
." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added).
In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for
disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit
recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit,"
and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This
statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's
enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there
are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement
actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake.
The question presented is:
Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7)
without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm
.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-3830
...more
1h 11min
April 02, 2026 Trump, President of U.S. v. Barbara
Trump, President of U.S. v. Barbara | 04/01/26 | Docket #: 25-365
25-365 TRUMP V. BARBARA
DECISION BELOW:
CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those

"born * * * in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are U.S. citizens. U.S. Const. Amend.
XIV, § 1. The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their
children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160,
Protecting the
Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
, which restores the original meaning of the
Citizenship Clause and provides, on a prospective basis only, that children of temporary visitors
and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth. The Citizenship Order directs federal agencies
not to issue or accept citizenship documents for such children born more than 30 days after the
Order's effective date.
The question presented is whether the Executive Order complies on its face with the
Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 25-1861
...more
2h 9min

FAQs about The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments:

How many episodes does The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments have?

The podcast currently has 1,053 episodes available.

More shows like The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

Planet Money by NPR

Planet Money

30,666 Listeners

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts by Slate Podcasts

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

3,541 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

376 Listeners

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments by Oyez

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

660 Listeners

We the People by National Constitution Center

We the People

1,104 Listeners

Pod Save America by Pod Save America

Pod Save America

87,529 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

111,948 Listeners

Up First from NPR by NPR

Up First from NPR

56,508 Listeners

Post Reports by The Washington Post

Post Reports

5,201 Listeners

Strict Scrutiny by Strict Scrutiny

Strict Scrutiny

5,866 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,948 Listeners

5-4 by Prologue Projects

5-4

3,538 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

15,950 Listeners

Amarica's Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar

Amarica's Constitution

393 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude & Dan Epps

Divided Argument

749 Listeners