Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Attorney RJ Dieken, Loki Esq Law, Montana
  • 4.5 (50)
  • Government
  • Updated Daily

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.

  1. 9h ago

    Abouammo v. United States (venue)

    Send us Fan Mail In a unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that a prosecution for falsifying a document in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1519 must be brought in the district where the falsification occurred, not where the federal investigation that the defendant intended to obstruct was located. Ahmad Abouammo, while in Seattle, created and emailed a fake invoice to FBI agents conducting an investigation based in San Francisco, and was subsequently tried and convicted in the Northern District of California. The Court reversed, explaining that constitutional venue rules focus on the location of the offense’s “essential conduct elements,” and §1519 criminalizes only the act of falsifying a document with obstructive intent. Because the statute does not require any actual obstruction or effect on an investigation, the location of the investigation and any contemplated consequences are irrelevant to venue. Rejecting both the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on the statute’s intent element and the Government’s argument that §1519 is an inchoate obstruction offense, the Court concluded that the only conduct constituting the crime occurred in Seattle, making the Western District of Washington the proper venue for trial. Support the show

    6 min

  2. 1d ago

    Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Amarin Pharma Inc. (Patent infringement)

    Send us Fan Mail In a unanimous opinion by Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court held that Amarin failed to plausibly allege that Hikma actively induced infringement of Amarin’s patented cardiovascular-use methods for Vascepa. Although Hikma marketed a generic version of the drug using an FDA-approved “skinny label” that omitted the patented cardiovascular indication, Amarin argued that various statements in Hikma’s labeling, website, patient materials, and press releases nevertheless encouraged doctors to prescribe the drug for the patented use. The Court rejected that theory, emphasizing that inducement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) requires affirmative, purposeful steps designed to encourage infringement, not merely statements that could conceivably lead someone to infringe. Many of Hikma’s challenged statements reflected legal requirements or standard industry practices, while others were omissions or vague references that did not plausibly show an intent to promote infringing use. Because Amarin’s allegations relied on speculation and attenuated chains of inference rather than concrete acts encouraging infringement, the complaint failed to state a claim, and the Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s decision allowing the suit to proceed. Support the show

    6 min

  3. 1d ago

    FCC v. AT&T (Seventh Amendment)

    Send us Fan Mail The Supreme Court held that the FCC’s procedure for assessing monetary forfeitures against regulated entities does not violate the Seventh Amendment because the agency’s forfeiture orders do not themselves impose a legally enforceable obligation to pay and do not conclusively determine the facts underlying liability. Although the FCC may investigate alleged violations and issue forfeiture orders under 47 U.S.C. §503, payment can only be compelled through a separate enforcement action brought by the Department of Justice under §504, where the defendant is entitled to a de novo trial and a jury may make the ultimate factual determinations. Distinguishing its recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, where agency-imposed penalties were immediately enforceable without a jury determination, the Court emphasized that FCC forfeiture orders are merely preliminary steps that neither bind the recipient nor carry legal consequences absent a subsequent court proceeding. Because the statutory scheme preserves the opportunity for a jury trial before any enforceable obligation is imposed, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, which had found the scheme unconstitutional, and affirmed the Second Circuit, which upheld it.  Support the show

    10 min

  4. 1d ago

    SRIPETCH v. SEC (Disgorgement)

    Send us Fan Mail  A showing of pecuniary loss to investors is not required before the SEC may obtain a disgorgement award.   Support the show

    7 min

  5. 1d ago

    FLOWERS FOODS, INC. v. BROCK (FAA / Interstate Commerce)

    Send us Fan Mail Support the show

    7 min

  6. Jun 6

    Allen v. Milligan (Voting Rights)

    Send us Fan Mail In a brief per curiam order, the Supreme Court stayed a federal district court injunction that would have prevented Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map in the 2026 elections. The Court held that Alabama was likely to succeed on appeal because the district court failed to apply the standards the Supreme Court recently announced in Louisiana v. Callais. Under Callais, plaintiffs challenging a map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act must show that their proposed alternative map satisfies all of the State’s legitimate districting objectives just as well as the State’s map and must demonstrate racial bloc voting independent of partisan affiliation. The Court found that the district court nevertheless concluded Alabama’s map violated both Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment even though the plaintiffs’ alternative map did not perform as well on some of Alabama’s stated districting goals, including preserving the Gulf Coast community of interest and avoiding pairing incumbents. The Court also criticized the district court for treating Alabama’s disagreement with an earlier remedial order as evidence of discriminatory intent and for failing to account for the distinction between racial and partisan voting patterns required by Callais. Finally, the Court emphasized the principle that federal courts should avoid changing election rules close to an election and concluded that the balance of harms and public interest favored allowing Alabama to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under the map enacted by its legislature while the litigation continues. Support the show

    7 min

  7. Jun 6

    Whitton v. Dixon (Habeas Corpus)

    Send us Fan Mail If anyone thinks I am pronouncing Giglio incorrectly, please see: https://documents.law.yale.edu/pronouncing-dictionary In a brief per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated an Eleventh Circuit decision denying federal habeas relief to Florida death-row inmate Gary Whitton. Whitton argued that prosecutors violated Giglio v. United States by allowing jailhouse informant Jake Ozio to falsely testify that he had no prior criminal history, despite the State possessing juvenile records showing prior assault, threats, and burglary charges. The Eleventh Circuit agreed that Ozio’s testimony was false and that prosecutors knew it was false, but nevertheless found no prejudice because the evidence against Whitton was overwhelming. In reaching that conclusion, however, the court relied in part on DNA test results obtained years after Whitton’s trial showing that blood on Whitton’s boots matched the victim. The Supreme Court held that this was error: because the post-trial DNA evidence was never presented to the jury, it could not be considered when assessing whether the alleged constitutional violation had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s verdict. The Court did not decide whether Whitton is entitled to relief, whether the Florida Supreme Court’s harmless-error determination was reasonable based on the trial record alone, or whether Whitton properly exhausted his claim in state court. Instead, it sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider those issues without relying on evidence the jury never saw. Support the show

    8 min

  8. Jun 6

    Rutherford v. United States (Compassionate Relief)

    Send us Fan Mail Held: When Congress declines to make a sentencing amendment retroactive—as with the change to §924(c)—the resulting sentencing disparity cannot serve as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason that warrants a sentence reduction under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i).  Pp. 8–17. Support the show

    14 min
See All (553)

4.5
out of 5
50 Ratings

About

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.

Information

You Might Also Like