Advertise on podcast: Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Send us Fan Mail 4th Circuit's Writ of Mandamus to force the FCC to decide an issue out of time, and in 48 hours is stayed. LokiEsq.Law Support the show

Send us Fan Mail The Court here removed the District Court's Stay. The Court held that the plaintiffs seeking a prohibition of the Governments use of the SAVE program to help states check voter rolls is overturned. The Court will decide in another case if the States are able to clean voter rolls within 90 days of an election).  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail  In People Not Politicians v. Onder, the Supreme Court stayed federal-court orders that would have forced Missouri to use its 2025 congressional map instead of the 2022 map. Under state law, the 2025 map cannot take effect unless voters approve it in a referendum. Relying on Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Court held that federal courts should not change a state's election rules on the eve of an election, especially here, where ballots on the 2022 map had already been printed and mailed and voting had begun. It also rejected the Eighth Circuit's view that the Missouri Supreme Court caused the late change, noting that the state court had flagged the referendum requirement months before the primary.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail Support the show

Send us Fan Mail The Court did not seem to think the 4th Circuit should have made a ruling on an appeal from the 4th Circuit, therefore they grant a stay of the 4th's Stay. Support the show

Send us Fan Mail The Supreme Court Thinks the National Trust for Historic Preservation in The United States Does not have Article III Standing. (Simplified) Construction on the White House East Wing can resume (Simplified) Support the show

Send us Fan Mail  1. Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail  Children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In NRSC v. FEC the Supreme Court granted Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to answer the question of whether the limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) on how much political parties can spend in direct coordination with their federal candidates violate the First Amendment.  Held: FECA’s political party coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kagan, J. Filed a dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined.  Read by Jake A. Leahy.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In Trump v. Barbara, the Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, striking down Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The Court relied on the common law rule of jus soli and its precedent in Wong Kim Ark, rejecting the Government's domicile-based theory. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court; Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part, while Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch each dissented. Support the show

Send us Fan Mail  The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.  Support the show

Send us Fan Mail  Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In Trump v. Cook, the Supreme Court denied the Government's application to stay an injunction reinstating Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whom President Trump had fired over alleged mortgage fraud predating her appointment. The Court held that the Federal Reserve Act's "for cause" removal standard is judicially reviewable, that "cause" requires a substantial showing reflecting the Fed's unique independence, and—resolving the case on this narrow ground—that the President failed to give Cook the notice and opportunity to respond that the statute requires before removal. The Court also held that equity permits courts to reinstate an officer during litigation over a disputed removal. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, with Kavanaugh and Jackson concurring separately and Thomas, Alito (joined by Gorsuch), and Barrett each dissenting. Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held that the FTC's for-cause removal protection for its Commissioners violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) to the extent it survived. The Court reasoned that the Constitution vests executive power solely in the President, who must be able to remove at will any officer—like an FTC Commissioner—who exercises that power, a principle confirmed by the First Congress's "Decision of 1789" and by Myers v. United States (1926). It concluded that Humphrey's rested on an outdated and unworkable view of the FTC as merely "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial," when in fact the agency promulgates binding rules, adjudicates enforcement actions, and sues in federal court—all executive functions. The Court reversed the lower courts and reinstated President Trump's removal of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, with Justice Gorsuch concurring and Justice Sotomayor dissenting, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Support the show

Send us Fan Mail In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Supreme Court held that FIFRA expressly preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim demanding a cancer warning on Roundup's label, since the EPA had approved the label without one and federal law requires using the approved label. The Court (per Justice Kavanaugh) reversed a $1 million Missouri verdict; Justice Thomas concurred; Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented. Support the show