Oral Arguments - The Supreme Court of the United States

Charles Usen

This podcast is about the oral arguments of cases at the United States Supreme Court. My desire is to bring closer to you Supreme Court arguments that eventually lead to landmark decisions. Enjoy!

  1. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. - Date Argued: 04/29/26

    5D AGO

    Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. - Date Argued: 04/29/26

    Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. - Date Argued: 04/29/26

    1 hr
  2. Monsanto Co. v. Durnell - Date Argued: 04/27/26

    5D AGO

    Monsanto Co. v. Durnell - Date Argued: 04/27/26

    Monsanto Co. v. Durnell - Date Argued: 04/27/26

    1h 14m
  3. Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe - Date Argued: 04/29/26

    5D AGO

    Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe - Date Argued: 04/29/26

    Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe - Date Argued: 04/29/26

    1h 46m
  4. Chatrie v. United State - Date Argued: 04/27/26

    5D AGO

    Chatrie v. United State - Date Argued: 04/27/26

    Chatrie v. United State - Date Argued: 04/27/26

    2 hr
  5. Blanche, Acting Atty Gen. v. Lau: Date Argued - 04/22/26

    APR 22

    Blanche, Acting Atty Gen. v. Lau: Date Argued - 04/22/26

    Facts The case involves a challenge to the Biden administration's efforts to dismantle a Trump-era immigration program known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy (officially the Migrant Protection Protocols or MPP). The policy required certain asylum seekers arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border to wait in Mexico for their immigration court hearings. The Biden administration sought to terminate the program in 2021, but federal courts in Texas and Missouri blocked those efforts, finding that the administration had not adequately considered the policy's benefits or followed proper procedures. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Biden v. Texas (2022) that the administration had the authority to end the program, but lower courts continued to entertain challenges from states claiming they would suffer harm from increased immigration. The current case, brought by the states of Texas and Missouri, argues that the administration's latest termination attempt still violates federal immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1225) and the Administrative Procedure Act. Acting Attorney General Blanche defends the administration's position that the executive branch has broad discretion over immigration enforcement and that MPP is no longer necessary or operationally feasible. The district court sided with the states and ordered the reinstatement of MPP, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether states have standing to challenge the termination and whether the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

    1h 30m
  6. FCC v. AT&T: Date Argued - 04/21/26

    APR 22

    FCC v. AT&T: Date Argued - 04/21/26

    Case Summary: The FCC fined major wireless carriers over $100 million for unlawfully selling access to customer location data to third parties without consent. AT&T received a $57 million fine, and Verizon received nearly $47 million. The fines stem from an investigation prompted by reports that a Missouri sheriff obtained customer location data through a third-party service. The dispute reached the Supreme Court due to a circuit split on whether the FCC's forfeiture orders violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Second Circuit upheld the FCC's fine, ruling that an initial penalty assessment is constitutional as long as the party can later challenge collection efforts in court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that the FCC's initial assessment of wrongdoing and fine deprived AT&T of its constitutional right to a jury trial. The carriers argued that the FCC's in-house proceedings created a "penalty-now-trial-later" system. The FCC argued that its orders are not binding because if a company refuses to pay, the agency must file a collection lawsuit in federal court where the company gets a full jury trial. The case arrived shortly after the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy, which invalidated the SEC's in-house civil fraud enforcement system for violating the Seventh Amendment.

    1h 25m
  7. T. M. v. Univ. of MD Medical Sys. Corp.: Date Argued - 04/20/26

    APR 22

    T. M. v. Univ. of MD Medical Sys. Corp.: Date Argued - 04/20/26

    Facts Ongkaruck Sripetch ran penny-stock "pump-and-dump" schemes, artificially inflating prices before selling to unwitting investors. He pleaded guilty to criminal securities fraud and served 21 months in prison. In a parallel civil proceeding, a California district court ordered him to pay $2.251 million in disgorgement plus over $1 million in prejudgment interest—approximately $3.2 million total. The court did not require the SEC to prove that specific investors suffered financial (pecuniary) harm. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that proof of pecuniary harm is not required for disgorgement. This deepened a circuit split: Second Circuit (SEC v. Govil): Proof of pecuniary harm requiredFirst & Ninth Circuits: No such proof requiredThe Supreme Court granted review on January 9, 2026, with both parties agreeing that resolution was needed.

    1h 2m
  8. Sripetch v. SEC: Date Argued- 04/20/26

    APR 22

    Sripetch v. SEC: Date Argued- 04/20/26

    Background & Facts The case arises from an SEC civil enforcement action against Ongkaruck Sripetch, who orchestrated a series of fraudulent "pump-and-dump" schemes involving penny-stock companies. Sripetch artificially inflated stock prices through manipulative trading and scalping campaigns before selling shares to unwitting investors at inflated prices . Sripetch admitted to securities law violations and was sentenced to 21 months in prison in a related criminal case . In the civil proceeding, a California district court ordered him to pay over $2.251 million in disgorgement plus more than $1 million in prejudgment interest—totaling approximately $3.2 million . Critically, the court did not require the SEC to demonstrate that specific investors suffered pecuniary (financial) harm from Sripetch's conduct . The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that a showing of pecuniary harm to investors is not a precondition for disgorgement under the relevant statutory provisions. This deepened an existing circuit split: Second Circuit (SEC v. Govil): Requires proof of pecuniary harm because disgorgement is equitable relief "for victims"First & Ninth Circuits: No such showing required; disgorgement is measured by the wrongdoer's gain, not victim lossThe Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 9, 2026, with the SEC's support—an unusual circumstance where both parties agreed review was needed .

    1h 11m
See All (58)

About

This podcast is about the oral arguments of cases at the United States Supreme Court. My desire is to bring closer to you Supreme Court arguments that eventually lead to landmark decisions. Enjoy!

Information