The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

By Brad Neal

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments episodes

March 24 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
1 hr 22 min
March 24 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
1 hr 10 min
March 23 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
2 hr 9 min
March 04 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
1 hr 40 min
March 03 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
1 hr 36 min
March 02 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
1 hr 55 min
February 25 Pung v. Isabella County
Pung v. Isabella County | 02/25/26 | Docket #: 25-95
25-95 PUNG V. ISABELLA COUNTY, MICHIGAN
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 318222
CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Isabella County confiscated the Pung Estate's private home for approximately $2,200 in
taxes and fees (that were never actually owed). The lower courts used the artificially depressed
auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value as the starting point for its
damages calculation. The Sixth Circuit and others have held that the "fair market value" taken
is not what is owed to begin to fulfill the constitutional compensatory obligation imposed by
the Fifth Amendment. That defies this Court's precedents. And if it is not taken within the
meaning of the Fifth Amendment, it is otherwise an excessive fine under the Eighth
Amendment by imposing a punishment by pilfering far more than ever needed to satisfy a
small debt.
The questions presented are:
1.
Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and
keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the
property's fair market value?
2.
Whether the forfeiture of real property worth far more than needed to satisfy a
tax debt but sold for fraction of its real value constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth
Amendment, particularly when the debt was never actually owed?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1919, 22-1939
1 hr 45 min
February 24 Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel | 02/24/26 | Docket #: 24-783
24-783 ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LP V. NESSEL
DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 958
CERT. GRANTED 6/30/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the thirty-day procedural time
limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1671
0 min
February 23 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. | 02/23/26 | Docket #: 24-699
24-699 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. CORPORACION CIMEX
DECISION BELOW: 111 F.4th 12
CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In 1960, the Cuban government confiscated the property of American nationals and
transferred it to state-owned enterprises. After years without a diplomatic resolution, Congress
enacted the Helms-Burton Act, which created a damages action for American nationals against
"any person ... that traffics in" such confiscated property. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1). The Act
defines "person" to include "any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state," id. § 6023(11),
and expressly contemplates "judgment[s] against an agency or instrumentality of the Cuban
Government,"
id
. § 6082(d). The question presented is:
Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against
Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that Act must also satisfy an
exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-7127, 22-7019, 22-7020
1 hr 32 min
February 23 Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises | 02/23/26 | Docket #: 24-983
24-983 HAVANA DOCKS CORP. V. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES
DECISION BELOW: 119 F.4th 1276
CERT. GRANTED 10/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The LIBERTAD Act is an essential pillar of United States foreign policy toward Cuba's
hostile and anti-American regime. Title III of that Act creates a private right of action for United
States nationals who have a claim to property confiscated by that regime against persons who
traffic in that property. 22 U.S.C. § 6082(a)(1). The Act specifies that such trafficking
"undermines the foreign policy of the United States" by, among other things, "provid[ing] badly
needed financial benefit" to the Cuban regime.
Id
. § 6081(6).
The question presented here applies in every case brought under Title III, and will
determine whether that provision continues to advance U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba:
whether a plaintiff must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the
Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim (as the statute requires), or instead
that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the
time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation" (as the
divided Eleventh Circuit panel held below).
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10151, 23-10171
1 hr 33 min

About The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

From the publisher's feed

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:…