Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth ServicesVon Supreme Court of the United States

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained…

Perttu v. RichardsVon Supreme Court of the United States

Esteras v. United StatesVon Supreme Court of the United States

Gutierrez v. SaenzVon Supreme Court of the United States

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Von Better Informed Network

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Von Better Informed Network

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit. ★ Support this …

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★Von Better Informed Network

Barnes v. FelixVon Supreme Court of the United States

Cunningham v. Cornell UniversityVon Supreme Court of the United States

FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.Von Supreme Court of the United States

McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.Von Supreme Court of the United States

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 ★Von Better Informed Network

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 ★Von Better Informed Network

Free Speech Coalition v. PaxtonVon Supreme Court of the United States

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…

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 ★…

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

Thompson v. United StatesVon Supreme Court of the United States

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

Hewitt v. United StatesVon 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 ★Von Better Informed Network

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

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

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

Kousisis v. United StatesVon 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 ★Von 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 ★Von 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. SkrmettiVon Supreme Court of the United States

Hungary v. SimonVon 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…