QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

The Supreme Court case, Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida. The central question is whether a former employee, who alleges disability discrimination regarding post-employment benefits, can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) even if the alleged discrimination occurred before the employee's retirement. The arguments presented by bot…

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy ServicesPor Supreme Court of the United States

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

The Supreme Court case, Hewitt v. United States. The case centers on whether the Act applies to resentencings following vacated sentences, a point of contention regarding the interpretation of the phrase "a sentence for the offense has not been imposed." The justices debated the statutory language's ambiguity, considering the present-perfect tense …

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★…

Thompson v. United StatesPor Supreme Court of the United States

Stanley v. City of SanfordPor Supreme Court of the United States

Hewitt v. United StatesPor Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court case, TikTok, Inc., et al. v. Merrick B. Garland, and a consolidated case. The arguments center on the constitutionality of a law mandating TikTok's divestiture from its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, due to national security concerns. The petitioners argue the law violates TikTok's First Amendment rights, while the respondent…

QUESTION PRESENTED: - Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen.Por Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court case, Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers. The core dispute centers on the calculation of disgorgement of profits under the Lanham Act, specifically whether a defendant's profits can include those of legally distinct affiliates. The petitioner argues that corporate separateness should be respected and that the lower courts erred …

The Supreme Court case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al., v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The central issue concerns the scope of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for infrastructure projects. The justices debate the appropriate standard for determining which environmental impacts an agency must …

The Supreme Court case, Feliciano v. Department of Transportation. This concerns the interpretation of a statute determining differential pay for reservists called to active duty during a national emergency. The petitioner argues that "during" implies a purely temporal connection, while the respondent contends it requires a substantive connection t…

The Supreme Court case, Kousisis v. U.S. The central issue is the interpretation of federal fraud statutes, specifically whether a property interest must be harmed to constitute property fraud. Petitioners argue that only cases involving actual economic loss qualify, while the government contends that any material misrepresentation resulting in the…

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; …

Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.Por Supreme Court of the United States

Seven County Coalition v. Eagle CountyPor Supreme Court of the United States

Feliciano v. Dept. of TransportationPor Supreme Court of the United States

Kousisis v. United StatesPor Supreme Court of the United States

This episode discusses the Supreme Court oral argument in the case United States v. Skrmetti. The case centers on the constitutionality of a Tennessee law (SB1) restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors. The petitioner argues SB1 constitutes unlawful sex discrimination, requiring heightened judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection …

QUESTION PRESENTED: - Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection …

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rat…

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Por Better Informed Network

In a case of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The central dispute revolves around the interpretation of the FSIA's expropriation exception, specifically whether commingling of expropriated assets with a nation's general funds eliminates jurisdiction. The justices debate the meaning of "exchanged for" within the statute, exploring whethe…

In a case of United States v. Miller, concerning a bankruptcy trustee's attempt to recover fraudulent transfers. The core dispute centers on the interpretation of Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which waives sovereign immunity for certain code provisions, and how that waiver interacts with Section 544(b), allowing trustees to use state law t…

In a case of FDA's denial of applications for flavored e-cigarettes. The core issue is whether the FDA provided fair notice to the applicants regarding the required evidence for approval, specifically concerning the need to demonstrate sufficient benefits for adult smokers to outweigh the risks to youth. The petitioner, representing the FDA, argues…

United States v. SkrmettiPor Supreme Court of the United States

Hungary v. SimonPor Supreme Court of the United States

United States v. MillerPor Supreme Court of the United States

FDA v. Wages and White LionPor Supreme Court of the United States

The case NVIDIA v. Öhman, concerning the sufficiency of pleadings under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The core dispute centers on the level of detail required in complaints alleging corporate fraud, specifically regarding the use of expert reports and the necessity of disclosing the contents of internal documents. The justic…

The case Salvatore Delligatti v. United States. The case centers on the interpretation of the "Elements Clause" within the Armed Career Criminal Act, specifically whether the clause applies to crimes of omission (failing to act) as well as acts of commission. The petitioner argues that the clause only covers affirmative actions involving violent ph…

The Supreme Court case Velazquez v. Garland. The central issue is the interpretation of a 60-day deadline for voluntary departure in immigration law, specifically whether this deadline should be extended if it falls on a weekend or holiday. The petitioner argues for an extension based on established legal principles and regulations, while the respo…

The case Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank. The case centers on whether risk disclosures in financial statements are misleading by omission if they don't mention past occurrences of the described risk. The petitioners argue that such omissions are only misleading if they create an implied representation about the past, while the respondents contend that…

The case E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. The central issue concerns the appropriate standard of proof—preponderance of the evidence versus clear and convincing evidence—for determining whether employees fall under an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements. The Petitioners argue for the def…

The case Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra. The case concerns the interpretation of the phrase "entitled to benefits" within the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustment formula, specifically regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The petitioners argue that "entitled to benefits" should refer to program eligibility, …

This Supreme Court oral argument concerns the application of the False Claims Act (FCA) to the E-rate program, which funds telecommunications services for schools and libraries. The petitioner argues the FCA doesn't apply because the government doesn't directly provide the funds, instead using a private administrator and requiring private carriers …

The case of San Francisco v. EPA. The case centers on the EPA's use of "generic prohibitions" in discharge permits, which San Francisco argues are vague and fail to provide adequate notice of discharge limitations. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, focusing on whether it allows limitations beyo…

The case Bufkin v. McDonough. The central issue concerns the standard of review for the Veterans Court's assessment of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of the "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule. Petitioners argue for a less deferential review, emphasizing the statute's intent to ensure meaningful scrutiny of the agency's decisions. The resp…

The case Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. The central issue is whether the revocation of an immigration petition, following a determination of sham marriage, is subject to judicial review. The petitioner argues that the revocation is mandatory and thus reviewable, citing statutory language and the government’s consistent practice. The respondent, the governmen…

The case of Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn. The central question is whether economic losses stemming from personal injuries are recoverable under RICO. The petitioner argues that RICO excludes such claims, emphasizing the distinction between "injury" (invasion of a legal right) and "damages" (monetary losses resulting from injury). The respondent …

The case of Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, focusing on whether the state court's denial of the petitioner's request to waive procedural bars to his habeas corpus claim constitutes an adequate and independent state ground for review. The central issue revolves around alleged Brady and Napue violations, specifically the prosecution's suppression of ev…

The case of Lackey v. Stinnie, heard on October 8, 2024. The central question concerns whether a preliminary injunction constitutes a "prevailing party" status under Section 1988, allowing for attorney's fee awards. The petitioner argues that a preliminary injunction, being a temporary measure not deciding the case's merits, does not qualify. The r…