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 th...
Send us a textAndrew v. WhiteIn Andrew v. White, the Supreme Court reviewed the Tenth Circuit's decision to reject Brenda Andrew's due process challenge to her conviction for murder. Andrew was charged with murdering her husband -- at trial, the prosecution introduced prejudicial evidence with little probative value to the issue of her guilt. This included her sexual history, personal attire, and alleged failings as a wife and mother. The prosecution further elicited evidence meant to contrast this with her husband's character. On appeal, Andrew alleged that these irrelevant characteristics were meant to improperly impute the murder to her. The Tenth Circuit rejected her due process claim, but the Supreme Court disagreed. Though the decision below reasoned that there was no general rule that the wrongful admission of prejudicial evidence violates due process -- the Supreme Court disagreed. Relying on Payne v. Tennessee, the Court clarified that introducing inadmissible prejudicial evidence, may violate the Due Process Clause when it renders the trial fundamentally unfair. So, the case was remanded to the Tenth Circuit to determine whether the prosecution's inflammatory evidence materially affected the outcome of the trial. Per curiam decision. Justice Alito concurring. Justice Thomas dissenting. Read by RJ Dieken.
--------
24:33
TikTok v. Garland (Special Edition)
Send us a text***Special edition -- with no syllabus in this case -- the recording includes the entire per curiam decision, as well as the two concurring opinions.***In TikTok Inc. v. Garland, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The Act prohibits U.S. companies from providing services to TikTok unless its U.S. operations are separated from Chinese control.TikTok and a group of U.S. users argued that the Act constitutes a content-based restriction on speech because it singles out TikTok's platform, targeting the content it hosts and its unique mode of communication. They contended that such a restriction is subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review, and that the government could not meet the burden of proving the law was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. TikTok asserted that less restrictive alternatives, such as data localization or transparency measures, could address any national security concerns without burdening free expression.The government countered that PAFACA is content-neutral, as its primary aim is to mitigate national security risks stemming from TikTok’s data collection practices and its connections to ByteDance Ltd., a Chinese-owned company potentially subject to Chinese government influence. The government maintained that the Act is a permissible regulation addressing the platform’s structural risks rather than the speech it hosts and argued that national security constitutes a significant governmental interest.The Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that PAFACA does not violate the First Amendment. It determined that the Act is content-neutral, targeting the ownership and control of TikTok rather than the content on its platform. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Court held that the Act was narrowly tailored to address well-substantiated national security concerns. The ruling emphasized Congress’s findings regarding the risks posed by TikTok’s data collection practices and its potential for misuse by a foreign adversary.The Court’s decision affirmed the legality of requiring ByteDance to divest its U.S. operations by January 19, 2025, or face a nationwide ban.Read the full decision here.
--------
46:55
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Labor / Overtime Wages)
Send us a textE.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (Decided January 15, 2025)In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court considered the standard of proof employers must meet to classify employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) overtime-pay provisions.The case arose when sales representatives sued E.M.D. Sales, alleging they were improperly denied overtime pay under the FLSA. E.M.D. argued that the employees were exempt as "outside salesmen," but the lower courts required "clear and convincing evidence" to prove the exemption. The Supreme Court held that the correct standard is the usual "preponderance of the evidence" used in civil litigation unless a statute or constitutional principle demands otherwise.The Court reversed and remanded, clarifying that the preponderance standard applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate an FLSA exemption.Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, with a concurrence by Justice Gorsuch joined by Justice Thomas.
--------
6:16
Royal Canin USA Inc. v. Wullschleger (Federal Jurisdiction)
Send us a textRoyal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (Decided January 15, 2025)In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court addressed whether a federal court retains supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 when a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims after a case is removed to federal court.The case arose after Wullschleger sued Royal Canin in state court, asserting both federal and state claims. Following removal to federal court, Wullschleger amended her complaint, eliminating the federal claims and seeking remand to state court. The Court held that when federal claims are removed from an amended complaint, federal courts lose supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, requiring remand to state court. Justice Kagan, writing for a unanimous Court, emphasized that federal jurisdiction must be assessed based on the operative complaint.Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
--------
10:19
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (Immigration)
Send us a textBouarfa v. Mayorkas (Decided December 10, 2024)In Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, the Supreme Court addressed whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the revocation of a previously approved visa petition under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The case involved Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, whose petition for her noncitizen spouse was revoked by USCIS upon suspicion of a prior sham marriage. The agency cited its authority under 8 U.S.C. §1155 to revoke approvals “for good and sufficient cause.”The Court unanimously held that the Secretary of Homeland Security’s revocation of a visa petition is a discretionary action falling under §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes judicial review of such agency decisions. Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, emphasized that the broad statutory language granting discretion to revoke a visa petition reflects clear congressional intent to shield these decisions from court oversight.This ruling underscores Congress' authority to limit procedural protections in immigration matters when decisions are entrusted to agency discretion. Justice Jackson writing for a unanimous Court. Read by RJ Dieken.
About Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
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.
USA