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:

March 31, 2026 Pitchford v. Cain
Pitchford v. Cain | 03/31/26 | Docket #: 24-7351
24-7351 PITCHFORD V. CAIN
DECISION BELOW: 126 F.4th 422
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-70009
QUESTION PRESENTED:
District Attorney Doug Evans convicted Terry Pitchford, aged 18 years at the time of the
crime, of capital murder and secured a death verdict in the Grenada Circuit Court before Judge
Joseph Loper on February 9, 2006, with the entirety of jury selection and opening arguments
taking place on February 6.
After direct and collateral reviews in state court, the Northern District of Mississippi
granted habeas corpus relief upon concluding that the trial court failed to determine the
plausibility of the prosecutor
’
s proffered reasons for peremptorily striking four Black venire
members or otherwise consider the full circumstances bearing upon whether Mr. Evans
’
s
reasons for striking any and each of these four venire members was pretextual and in violation
of the Equal Protection Clause. In so doing, the District Court ruled the state supreme court
’
s
reliance on its waiver jurisprudence improperly foreclosed consideration of pretext
under
Batson v. Kentucky
, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
The Fifth Circuit reversed, finding that Judge Loper implicitly made determinations for
each of the four strikes, trial counsel waived argument of pretext, and the Supreme Court of
Mississippi
’
s waiver jurisprudence comports with
Batson.
This opinion in
Pitchford v. Cain
confirmed the Fifth Circuit
’
s disavowal of earlier circuit
jurisprudence recognizing, inter alia, that since
Miller-El v. Dretke
, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (
Miller-El
II
), capital petitioners had been unable to
“
waive[] any
Batson
claim based on a comparison
analysis,
”
Woodward v. Epps
, 580 F.3d 318, 338 (5th Cir. 2009), deepening the Fifth Circuit
’
s
split, joined by two other circuits, with the majority of courts of appeals in the application of
Batson
.

This petition presents the following questions:
1. Does clearly established federal law determined by this Court and applied in six other
circuits require reversal of a state appellate court
’
s denial of relief from a capital prosecutor
’
s
discriminatory exercise of four peremptory strikes against Black venire members wherein the
trial court, for each of the four strikes, failed to determine
“
the plausibility of the reason in light
of all evidence with a bearing on it
”?
Miller-El II
, 545 U.S at
251–52.
2. Does Mississippi Supreme Court precedent, which deems waived on direct review
arguments of pretext not stated in the trial record, defy this Court
’
s clearly established federal
law under
Batson
?
3. Does a finding of waiver on a trial record possessing
Batson
objections, defense
counsel efforts to argue the objection, and the trial court
’
s express assurance the issues were
preserved, constitute an unreasonable determination of facts?
GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER, UNDER THE STANDARDS SET
FORTH IN AEDPA,
28
U. S. C. §
2254
(d), THE MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT UNREASONABLY
DETERMINED THAT PETITIONER WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO REBUT THE PROSECUTOR'S ASSERTED
RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS FOR EXERCISING PEREMPTORY STRIKES AGAINST FOUR BLACK
JURORS.
ORDER OF MARCH
30
,
2026
:
THE MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS GRANTED.

CERT. GRANTED 12/15/2025
...more
1h 50min
March 30, 2026 Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties
Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties | 03/30/26 | Docket #: 25-83
25-83 JULES V. ANDRE BALAZS PROPERTIES
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 1201914
CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a party may apply to confirm or
vacate an arbitration award. But federal courts have limited jurisdiction over Section 9 and 10
applications. In
Badgerow v. Walters
, 596 U.S. 1, 4, 9-11 (2022), this Court held that a federal
court may exercise jurisdiction only if the application establishes diversity or federal-question
jurisdiction on its face. A federal court may not exercise jurisdiction merely on the basis that
the underlying dispute, save for the arbitration agreement, would have been justiciable in
federal court.
See id
.
But what happens when a court initially exercises jurisdiction over the underlying
dispute, stays the case pending arbitration, and is later faced with an application to confirm or
vacate an arbitration award in the same case? The courts of appeals have sharply divided on
the appropriate jurisdictional analysis. Several courts of appeals, including the Second Circuit
below, have held that the initial exercise of jurisdiction creates a "jurisdictional anchor" that
confers jurisdiction over a subsequent Section 9 or 10 application to confirm or vacate, even if
jurisdiction would otherwise be absent. By contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that a court
must establish an independent basis for jurisdiction over a Section 9 or 10 application to
confirm or vacate.
The question presented is:
Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending
arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where
jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1253, 23-1283
...more
0min
March 30, 2026 Abouammo v. United States
Abouammo v. United States | 03/30/26 | Docket #: 25-5146
25-5146 ABOUAMMO V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 122 F.4th 1072
GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
As part of an investigation into a scheme to disclose nonpublic Twitter account
information to foreign actors, San Francisco-based FBI agents visited Petitioner Ahmad
Abouammo at his home in Seattle. While they were there, Mr. Abouammo went upstairs and
emailed them an allegedly falsified document. Mr. Abouammo's only interaction with the
agents occurred in Seattle.
A grand jury in the Northern District of California indicted Mr. Abouammo for (among
other things) falsifying documents with the intent to impede an investigation. The parties then
agreed to toll the statute of limitations for other uncharged offenses. On the day the tolling
agreement expired, the government filed a superseding
information
adding various felony
counts. Mr. Abouammo never waived prosecution by indictment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b). Four
months after the limitations period had expired, the government dismissed this placeholder
information and replaced it with a superseding
indictment
containing the same charges.
The questions presented are:
1.

Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as
the statute's intent element "contemplates" effects that could occur there.
2.

Whether a criminal information unaccompanied by a waiver of indictment is an
"information charging a felony" that allows the government to unilaterally extend the statute
of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3288.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-10348
...more
0min
March 25, 2026 Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock
Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock | 03/25/26 | Docket #: 24-935
24-935 FLOWER FOODS, INC. V. BROCK
DECISION BELOW: 121 F.4th 753
CERT. GRANTED 10/20/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
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 Federal Arbitration Act's § 1 exemption?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1182
...more
1h 19min
March 24, 2026 Noem, Sec. of Homeland v. Al Otro Lado
Noem, Sec. of Homeland v. Al Otro Lado | 03/24/26 | Docket #: 25-5
25-5 NOEM V. AL OTRO LADO
DECISION BELOW: 138 F.4th 1102
CERT. GRANTED 11/17/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101
et seq
. , provides that an alien who
"arrives in the United States" may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration
officer. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1225(a)(1) and (3). The question presented is whether an alien
who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border "arrives in the United States"
within the meaning of those provisions.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-55988, 22-56036
...more
1h 22min
March 24, 2026 Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc.
Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | 03/24/26 | Docket #: 25-6
25-6 KEATHLEY V. BUDDY AYERS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 673434
CERT. GRANTED 10/20/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine designed '"to protect the integrity of the
judicial process' by 'prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions"' to gain an unfair
advantage.
New Hampshire v. Maine
, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001). The doctrine targets those
who "'deliberately"' mislead courts, not those whose inconsistent positions stem from
"inadvertence or mistake."
Id
. at 750, 753.
Courts regularly apply judicial estoppel when a debtor-plaintiff pursues a claim he failed
to disclose to the bankruptcy court. The Eleventh, Ninth, Seventh, Sixth, and Fourth Circuits
require courts to look at the totality of the circumstances and find that a debtor subjectively
intended to mislead the bankruptcy court before applying judicial estoppel to bar a claim
outside of the bankruptcy. In stark contrast, the Fifth and Tenth Circuits have embraced a
"rigid" and "unforgiving" judicial estoppel rule in the bankruptcy context that bars claims
regardless of whether there is evidence that a plaintiff actually intended to mislead. App. 55a.
In those circuits, a debtor's failure to disclose a lawsuit to a bankruptcy court triggers judicial
estoppel whenever the debtor knew the facts relevant to the undisclosed claim and had a
potential
motive for concealment-which is virtually always present in the bankruptcy context.
The question presented is:
Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to
disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a

potential
motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in
fact acted in bad faith.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-60025
...more
1h 10min
March 23, 2026 Watson v. RNC
Watson v. RNC | 03/23/26 | Docket #: 24-1260
24-1260 WATSON V. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
DECISION BELOW: 120 F.4th 200
CERT. GRANTED 11/10/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The federal election-day statutes-2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1-set the
Tuesday after the first Monday in November in certain years as the "election" day for federal
offices. Like all other States, Mississippi requires that ballots for federal offices be cast-marked
and submitted to election officials-by that day. And like most other States, Mississippi allows
some of those timely cast ballots (mail-in absentee ballots, in Mississippi's case) to be counted
if they are received by election officials a short time after election day (in Mississippi, within 5
business days after election day). Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15- 637(1)(a). In the decision below, the
Fifth Circuit held that the federal election-day statutes require that ballots be both cast by
voters and received by election officials by election day and thus preempt Mississippi's law.
The question presented is whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law
that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after
that day.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-60395
...more
2h 9min
March 04, 2026 Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC | 03/04/26 | Docket #: 24-1238
24-1238 MONTGOMERY V. CARIBE TRANSPORT II, LLC
DECISION BELOW: 124 F.4th 1053
CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The common law permits a cause of action for negligent selection. For example, a
person injured in a truck crash has a cause of action against someone that negligently selected
the truck driver to transport property.
A federal statute expressly preempts state laws "related to a price, route, or service of
any motor carrier ... or any motor private carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to
the transportation of property." 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1). The statute has a safety exception,
providing that the statute "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with
respect to motor vehicles."
Id
. § 14501(c)(2)(A).
The question presented is:
Does§ 14501(c) preempt a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently
selecting a motor carrier or driver?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-1192
...more
1h 40min
March 03, 2026 Hunter v. United States
Hunter v. United States | 03/03/26 | Docket #: 24-1063
24-1063 HUNTER V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 5003582
CERT. GRANTED 10/10/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This Court has recognized that "no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all
appellate claims."
Garza v. Idaho
, 586 U.S. 232, 238 (2019). But the Court has "ma[de] no
statement ... on what particular exceptions [to appeal waivers] may be required."
Id
. at 238-39
& n.6.
In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent, holding that there are
only two grounds on which defendants who sign general appeal waivers may challenge their
sentence on appeal: (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) claims that the
sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits adopt a
similarly narrow view of the exceptions to general appeal waivers. In stark conflict, the First,
Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits permit defendants who sign general appeal waivers to raise
a broad range of constitutional challenges to their sentences beyond the limited exceptions
recognized by the Fifth Circuit and the other courts on its side of the circuit split.
The Fifth Circuit below also reaffirmed its precedent holding that an appeal waiver
applies even when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal
and the government does not object to that advice. Although other circuits agree with the Fifth
Circuit, the Ninth Circuit squarely holds otherwise, releasing defendants from appeal waivers in
identical circumstances.
The questions presented are:
1. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum.
2. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant
that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-20211
...more
1h 36min
March 02, 2026 United States v. Hemani
United States v. Hemani | 03/02/26 | Docket #: 24-1234
24-1234 UNITED STATES V. HEMANI
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 354982
CERT. GRANTED 10/20/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of
firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,"
violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-40137
...more
1h 55min

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

30,641 Listeners

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

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

3,452 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

374 Listeners

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments by Oyez

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

655 Listeners

We the People by National Constitution Center

We the People

1,105 Listeners

Pod Save America by Pod Save America

Pod Save America

87,329 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

111,867 Listeners

Up First from NPR by NPR

Up First from NPR

56,463 Listeners

Post Reports by The Washington Post

Post Reports

5,202 Listeners

Strict Scrutiny by Strict Scrutiny

Strict Scrutiny

5,805 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,946 Listeners

5-4 by Prologue Projects

5-4

3,528 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

16,008 Listeners

Amarica's Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar

Amarica's Constitution

396 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude & Dan Epps

Divided Argument

747 Listeners