Supreme Court Opinions Read

In episode 62 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in T. M. v University of Md. Medical System Corporation. At issue in this case, whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to challenges to state court judgements that are not final judgements of the "highest court of a State in which a decision could be had" under 28 U. S. C. §1257.Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-197_new_4g15.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus9:26 Justice Sotomayor, for the Court38:55 Justice Thomas, concurring59:53 Justice Barrett, dissenting1:17:37 Opinions of the host

In episode 61 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Keathley v Buddy Ayers Construction. At issue in this case, assuming the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies in bankruptcy proceedings and inadvertence is an exception to such application, whether a court may limit its analysis of inadvertence to just two circumstances or must consider the totality of the circumstances.Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r48_k53m.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus4:41 Justice Jackson, for the Court18:32 Justice Thomas, concurring25:55 Justice Sotomayor, concurring35:13 Opinions of the host

In episode 60 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in FS Credit Opportunities v Saba Capital Master Fund. At issue in this case, whether Section 47(b) of the ICA creates an implied right of action to sue for recission of a contract that allegedly violates the act.Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r47_m64o.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus6:55 Justice Barrett, for the Court29:35 Justice Kagan, dissenting30:23 Justice Jackson, dissenting1:04:32 Opinions of the host

In episode 59 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Abouammo v United States. At issue in this case, whether the trial venue for a violation of 18 USC §1519 (prohibiting falsification of documents with intent to obstruct federal investigations) must be the district where the document falsification occurred or may also be the district where the contemplated federal investigation takes place.Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r46_2c8f.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus6:17 Justice Kagan, for the Court22:26 Opinions of the host

In episode 58 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v Amarin Pharma. Hikma Pharmaceuticals is a generic drug manufacturer and makes a generic druc equivalent to Amarin Pharma's drug, Vascepa. Amarin sued Hikma, alleging a number of its statements induced medical providers to violate its method of use patents by prescribing the generic for patented uses. At issue in this case, whether Amarin's claim plausibly alleges induced infringement and survives a motion to dismiss. Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r45_i4dk.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus6:37 Justice Jackson, for the Court29:43 Opinions of the host

In episode 57 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Sripetch v SEC. At issue in this case, whether the SEC must show pecuniary loss to victims of violations of securities laws before a court may grant it a disgorgement award. Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r44_j42l.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus5:26 Justice Gorsuch, for the Court27:24 Justice Thomas, concurring43:01 Opinions of the host

In episode 56 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in FCC v AT&T. One of the means by which the FCC enforces federal communications laws is by issuing notices of apparent liability to alleged violators and, after considering their responses, determining liability and assessing penalties, all without the involvement of a jury. The FCC then issues them forfeiture orders, which, if unpaid, may be enforced by the Department of Justice in a civil jury trial de novo. At issue in this case, whether this enforcement scheme violates the Seventh Amendment jury trial right. Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r43_m648.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus9:50 Chief Justice Roberts, for the Court31:17 Justice Thomas, dissenting41:01 Opinions of the host

In episode 55 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Allen v Milligan. At issue in this case, whether Alabama is entitled to a stay of a federal District Court's injunction against it's 2023 redistricting plan. Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r42_q8l1.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus3:04 Per curiam9:01 Justice Sotomayor, dissenting37:32 Opinions of the host

In episode 54 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Whitton v Dixon. Whitton, a murderer convicted in Florida, brought a federal habeas petition after the Florida Supreme Court denied him postconviction relief. In denying Whitton relief, the Florida Supreme Court determined that the testimony he challenged under Giglio v United States was immaterial to the jury's verdict. The federal District Court denied his habeas petition, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that the Florida Supreme Court's determination was reasonable, relying in part on post-trial DNA evidence. At issue in this case, whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in considering said post-trial DNA evidence.Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/608us2r41_4gc5.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus3:21 Per curiam11:05 Justice Thomas, dissenting31:56 Opinions of the host

In episode 53 of the Supreme Court Opinions read podcast, we read the Supreme Court's opinion in Rutherford v United States. At issue in this case, whether a non-retroactive change in law reducing a sentence for which one was convicted and sentenced can be a basis for granting compassionate relief under §3582.Link to read the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-820_97be.pdfLinktree: https://linktr.ee/supremecourtopinionsread0:00 Introduction/Syllabus9:22 Justice Barrett, for the Court35:15 Justice Sotomayor, dissenting1:07:16 Opinions of the host