Podcast
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Hosted by Attorney RJ Dieken, Loki Esq Law, Montana · EN
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
59episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
WEST VIRGINIA v. B. P. J. (Transgender Athletes, Title IX)
3w ago00:13:48Tap to summarizeSend 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
Transcribe →National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) (Campaign Finance/Election Law)
3w ago00:07:49Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailIn 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
Transcribe →TRUMP v. BARBARA (BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP) RJD Recoding
3w ago00:15:36Tap to summarizeSend 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
Transcribe →Trump v. Barbara (Birthright citizenship) JB recording.
3w ago00:11:54Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailIn 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
Transcribe →CHATRIE v. UNITED STATES (4a and Geofence Warrant for Google Location history)
3w ago00:13:55Tap to summarizeSend 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
Transcribe →WATSON v. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (Absentee ballots and Election day statutes)
3w ago00:11:24Tap to summarizeSend 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
Transcribe →Trump v. Slaughter (For cause removal protection (non-Federal Reserve))
3w ago00:16:19Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailIn 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
Transcribe →Trump v. Cook (For Cause Removal (Federal Reserve))
3w ago00:13:04Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailIn 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
Transcribe →Monsanto v. Durnell (Federal Preemption)
4w ago00:06:58Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailIn 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
Transcribe →MULLIN v. DOE (TPS/Immigration/Admin Law)
4w ago00:08:24Tap to summarizeSend us Fan MailThe TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims.Support the show
Transcribe →