The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

By Brad Neal

The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments episodes

October 07, 2025 Barrett v. United States
Barrett v. United States | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-5774
24-5774 BARRETT V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 102 F.4th 60
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION
1
PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CHARLES L. McCLOUD, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND
ARGUE THIS CASE, AS
AMICUS CURIAE
, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW.
CERT. GRANTED 3/3/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
I.
Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act
that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits
but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree.
II.
Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c)
(3)(A), a question left open after"
United States v. Taylor
, 596 U.S. 845 (2022).
United States v. Stoney
, 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023).
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1379
1 hr 3 min
October 07, 2025 Chiles v. Salazar
Chiles v. Salazar | 10/07/25 | Docket #: 24-539
24-539 CHILES V. SALAZAR
DECISION BELOW: 116 F.4th 1178
CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A
practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with
God's design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel
precisely
because
they believe that their faith and their relationship with God
establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But
Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express.
Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling
conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their "sexual orientation
or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions," while
allowing conversations that provide "[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for ...
identity exploration and development, including ... [a]ssistance to a person undergoing
gender transition." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5).
The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles's conduct, not speech.
In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits,
which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which
does.
The question presented is:
Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their
clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free
Speech Clause
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1445, 23-1002
1 hr 26 min
October 06, 2025 Villarreal v. Texas
Villarreal v. Texas | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-557
24-557 VILLARREAL V. TEXAS
DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 138
CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by
prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an
overnight recess.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: PD-0048-20
1 hr 18 min
October 06, 2025 Berk v. Choy
Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440
24-440 BERK V. CHOY
DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482
CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important
question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court.
Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must
also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint.
See
18 Del. C. § 6853. An
AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct.
See id.
§ 6853(a)(l).
The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM
provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they
answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no
conflict" with any Federal Rules.
In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the
fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge
Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote
to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that
same conclusion."
The question presented is:
Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is
accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620
1 hr 5 min
October 06, 2025 Villarreal v. Texas
Villarreal v. Texas | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-557
24-557 VILLARREAL V. TEXAS
DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 138
CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by
prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an
overnight recess.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: PD-0048-20
1 hr 18 min
October 06, 2025 Berk v. Choy
Berk v. Choy | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-440
24-440 BERK V. CHOY
DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 5354482
CERT. GRANTED 3/10/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case presents a clear, recognized, entrenched conflict over an important
question about the application of state procedural rules in federal court.
Delaware, like numerous states, requires that in certain actions the plaintiff must
also file an affidavit of merit ("AOM") with the complaint.
See
18 Del. C. § 6853. An
AOM is an affidavit signed by an expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that each defendant has committed the alleged misconduct.
See id.
§ 6853(a)(l).
The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits hold that AOM
provisions and comparable statutes do not govern actions in federal court because they
answer the same question as-and therefore conflict with-several different Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The Third and Tenth circuits, in contrast, hold that they present "no
conflict" with any Federal Rules.
In the decision below, the Third Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, for at least the
fifth time, refused to hold that an AOM statute conflicts with any Federal Rules. Judge
Phipps "concur[red] in only the judgment." Third Circuit precedent required him to vote
to affirm, he explained, but ''writing on a clean slate ... he may not [have] arrive[d] at that
same conclusion."
The question presented is:
Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is
accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1620
0 min
May 15, 2025 Trump v. CASA, Inc.
Trump v. CASA, Inc. | 05/15/25 | Docket #: 24A884
2 hr 18 min
April 30, 2025 OK Charter School Board v. Drummond
OK Charter School Board v. Drummond | 04/30/25 | Docket #: 24-394
24-394 OK CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD V. DRUMMOND
DECISION BELOW: 558 P.3d 1
CONSOLIDATED WITH
24-396
FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.
JUSTICE
BARRETT TOOK NO PART.
EXPEDITED BRIEFING.
CERT. GRANTED 1/24/2025
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This Court has "repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause
when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits."
Carson
as next friend of O. C. v. Makin
, 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). Three times, the Court has
applied that principle to strike down "state efforts to withhold otherwise available public
benefits from religious organizations."
Id
. at 778-79 (citing
Trinity Lutheran Church of
Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
, 582 U.S. 449 (2017);
Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue
,
591 U.S. 464 (2020)).
Contrary to those precedents, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that a state can
exclude privately owned and operated religious charter schools from its charter-school
program by enforcing state-law bans on "sectarian" and religiously affiliated charter
schools. The court also held that a charter school engages in state action for
constitutional purposes when it contracts with the state to provide publicly funded
education. These rulings implicate an entrenched circuit split and present two questions
for review:
1. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run
school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free
educational option for interested students.
2. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run
religious schools from the state's charter-school program solely because the schools are
religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment
interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 121,694
2 hr 13 min
April 29, 2025 Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis
Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-304
2 hr 17 min
April 29, 2025 Martin v. United States
Martin v. United States | 04/29/25 | Docket #: 24-362
54 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:…