Case Preview: NRSC v. FEC | Money, Messaging, and Muzzling: The First Amendment Fight Over Party Coordination | Argument Date: 12/9/15
NRSC v. FEC | Money, Messaging, and Muzzling: The First Amendment Fight Over Party Coordination | Argument Date: 12/9/15 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the First Amendment permits limits on the amount of money that the national committee of a political party may contribute to political candidates in the form of coordinated expenditures.OverviewThis episode examines National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission, a landmark campaign finance case that could fundamentally reshape how political parties operate in federal elections, featuring the extraordinary situation where the Federal Election Commission itself now agrees with the challengers that coordinated party expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. The case centers on limits that cap how much money party committees can spend in coordination with their candidates, creating a constitutional clash over political speech rights and anti-corruption measures. With the government switching sides post-election, the Court appointed an outside lawyer to defend the law while Democratic Party committees intervened to provide the opposition the case desperately needed.Episode RoadmapOpening: Constitutional Chaos in Campaign Finance• Extraordinary procedural posture: FEC agrees with challengers after Trump administration• Court-appointed amicus defending law that government attacks• Democratic Party committees intervene to create adversityBackground: The Law Under Attack• Section 30116(d) limits coordinated expenditures by national party committees• Distinction between coordinated spending (capped) versus independent expenditures (unlimited)• Republican committees challenge limits as First Amendment violationsConstitutional Framework: Political Speech Rights• First Amendment's protection of political speech as "core" protected expression• Tension between anti-corruption interests and political participation rights• Role of Colorado II precedent from 2001 in current doctrineProcedural History: From Ohio to the Supreme Court• 2022 filing by NRSC, NRCC, Vance, and Chabot• Sixth Circuit en banc ruling 10-1 upholding limits under Colorado II• Multiple judges expressing doubt about precedent's continued validityThe Cert Grant and Unusual Alignment• June 2025 certiorari grant with intervention allowed• Government position reversal creates constitutional anomaly• Roman Martinez appointed as court-appointed amicus curiaeEpisode HighlightsPetitioners' Arguments (NRSC, NRCC, Vance, Chabot):• Core Speech Violation: Coordinated expenditure limits severely burden political speech at the heart of First Amendment protection, creating "stifling effect on the ability of the party to do what it exists to do"• Colorado II Must Fall: 2001 precedent became "outlier in First Amendment jurisprudence" after Citizens United, McCutcheon, and Cruz strengthened political speech protection• No Anti-Corruption Basis: Limits serve no legitimate corruption prevention purpose since parties cannot "bribe" their own candidates whose platform they shareRespondent-Intervenors' Arguments (DNC, DSCC, DCCC):• Precedent Preservation: Colorado II remains "rock solid" because coordinated expenditures function as contributions, which receive lesser constitutional protection under established doctrine• Circumvention Prevention: Modern joint fundraising committees allow mega-donors to route "six- or seven-figure checks" through parties to specific candidates, creating corruption potential• Systemic Stability: Overruling Colorado II would destabilize entire campaign finance framework and potentially eliminate...
--------
17:28
--------
17:28
Case Preview: FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal Lawsuits | Argument Date: 12/10/25
Case Preview: FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal Lawsuits | Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 gives private plaintiffs a federal cause of action to seek rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act.OverviewThe Supreme Court will decide whether activist investors can sue investment funds directly in federal court when funds adopt governance provisions that allegedly violate federal securities law. Four closed-end funds adopted Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act provisions to strip voting rights from shareholders acquiring more than 10% ownership, prompting Saba Capital to seek rescission under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act. The case creates a fundamental clash over private enforcement of securities laws versus exclusive SEC regulatory authority, with implications for millions of Americans who invest in mutual funds and closed-end funds.Episode RoadmapOpening: Investment Fund Warfare• Circuit split: Second Circuit allows private suits vs. Third/Ninth Circuits reject them• Core constitutional tension over implied private rights of action• Stakes for investor activism and fund governance nationwideBackground: The Players and the Poison Pill• Four underperforming closed-end funds trading 26% below asset value• Saba Capital as activist hedge fund targeting mismanaged funds• Funds adopt MCSAA to neutralize activist shareholders above 10% threshold• District court orders rescission following Second Circuit precedentThe Central Legal Question• Section 47(b)(2): Does "rescission at the instance of any party" create individual rights?• Section 18(i): Equal voting rights requirement allegedly violated• Modern Supreme Court hostility to implied private enforcement under SandovalLegal Arguments Analysis• Petitioners argue constitutional separation of powers violations• Respondents emphasize individual-rights statutory language• United States supports limiting private enforcement to SEC authorityEpisode HighlightsFS Credit's Arguments (Petitioners):• Constitutional Separation of Powers: Courts usurp legislative authority when creating private rights Congress never explicitly authorized; Sandoval demands clear congressional intent in statutory text and structure• Statutory Structure Argument: Congress knew how to create private rights when intended them (Sections 30(h) and 36(b)); comprehensive scheme delegates remaining enforcement exclusively to SEC• Policy Disruption Concerns: Implied private rights would undermine SEC's regulatory authority and enable short-term activists to hijack funds designed for long-term investor stabilitySaba's Arguments (Respondents):• Individual Rights Language: Section 47(b)(2)'s "rescission at the instance of any party" constitutes "indisputably rights-creating" individual-centric language distinguishable from generic regulatory provisions rejected in Sandoval• TAMA Precedent Support: Transamerica Mortgage Advisors v. Lewis (1979) directly endorses implied rescission rights; limited rescission remedies fundamentally differ from broad damage claims without raising equivalent policy concerns• Beneficial Activism Defense: Saba serves beneficial shareholder protection function by identifying mismanaged funds; funds' poor performance and excessive fees demonstrate urgent need for activist accountability
--------
13:03
--------
13:03
Case Preview: Hamm v. Smith | IQ Score Showdown: When Multiple Tests Determine Life or Death | Argument Date: 12/10/25
Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Oral Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: When someone takes multiple IQ tests to prove intellectual disability in a capital case, do courts look at all the scores together, or can one low score alone save their life?OverviewThe Supreme Court will decide whether courts must evaluate multiple IQ scores collectively or whether a single qualifying score triggers constitutional protection in death penalty cases. This decision affects hundreds of current death row inmates and reshapes capital litigation nationwide.Episode RoadmapOpening: Life-or-Death Numbers Game• Decision by June 2025 with immediate nationwide implementation• Smith's five IQ scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74) create constitutional conflict• Alabama courts denied protection; federal courts granted it based on single low scoreBackground: Murder and Testing Battle• 1997: Smith murdered Van Dam for suspected cash, received death sentence• Federal habeas relief sought based on intellectual disability claim• Five IQ tests created evidentiary puzzle for courtsConstitutional Question• Collective evaluation vs. holistic assessment approaches• State discretion in implementing federal constitutional mandates• Burden of proof when test results create uncertaintyEpisode HighlightsAlabama's Arguments (Supporting Execution):State Discretion• Atkins left states "task of developing appropriate ways to enforce" constitutional prohibition• Supreme Court provided no specific implementation guidelines• Alabama's preponderance standard considering all scores fits constitutional frameworkRejecting "One-Low-Score" Rule• Eleventh Circuit misread precedents, improperly shifted burden to state• Four out of five scores above 70 should control determination• Multiple scores provide more accurate assessment than isolated measurementsNo Constitutional Expansion• Atkins protected only those "known to have IQ under 70"• Extending protection to borderline cases exceeds national consensusSmith's Arguments (Opposing Execution):Holistic Assessment Required• Courts must evaluate scores "holistically" with expert interpretation, not mechanical counting• Hall v. Florida mandates "additional evidence" beyond raw scores• Alabama law requires considering "all relevant evidence"Proper Application• District court correctly held evidentiary hearing and credited Smith's experts• Expert testimony showed measurement error creates genuine uncertainty• Prevents mechanical application of arbitrary cutoffsScientific Reality• IQ tests contain measurement error, particularly for borderline functioning• Constitutional protections require considering scientific testing limitationsUnited States' Arguments (Supporting Alabama):Preserve State Discretion• Atkins preserves "traditional legislative role in setting criminal sanctions"• Maintains federalism principles and constitutional structureMultiple Scores More Reliable• "Multiple IQ scores often say more collectively than any one does alone"• Statistical reliability improves with comprehensive testingPrecedent Limitation• Hall and Moore corrected specific state misuse of IQ tests• Did not mandate "one-low-score rule" as circuits interpretedStakes and ImplicationsImmediate...
--------
16:50
--------
16:50
Case Preview: Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25
Olivier v. City of Brandon | Sidewalk Sermons and Section 1983: The Prospective Relief Puzzle | Argument Date: 12/3/25CASE OVERVIEWGabriel Olivier, a Christian who shares his faith on public sidewalks, gets convicted under a Mississippi ordinance restricting demonstrations near a city amphitheater. He sues in federal court seeking only prospective relief to prevent future enforcement against his religious expression. The Fifth Circuit blocks his lawsuit entirely under Heck v. Humphrey, but eight judges dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, setting up a Supreme Court showdown over whether prior convictions permanently bar constitutional challenges.EPISODE ROADMAPPreview (1 minute): Constitutional tension between religious expression and procedural barsQuestions & Text (2 minutes): Two cert questions and relevant constitutional frameworkFacts & History: Olivier's story from sidewalk preaching to federal litigationCert Grant: Supreme Court takes the case, oral arguments December 3rdLegal Arguments: Three-way battle between Olivier, Brandon, and United StatesOral Argument Preview: Key questions and judicial reactions to watchPractical Implications: What this means for practitioners and constitutional enforcementTakeaways: Action items and timeline for practitionersEXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTSPETITIONER OLIVIER'S POSITION• Heck Doesn't Apply: Prior conviction bars don't extend to purely prospective relief claims seeking future protection• Constitutional Dead Zone: Fifth Circuit's rule creates permanent immunity for questionable laws after any enforcement• Wrong Analogy: Prospective relief differs from malicious prosecution because it doesn't challenge past proceedings• Stakes: Preserves federal court access for constitutional challenges despite prior convictionsRESPONDENT BRANDON'S POSITION• Direct Impact: Olivier's probation sentence means prospective relief would shorten actual punishment duration• Common Law History: Criminal convictions traditionally barred tort claims since 17th century England• Demonstrable Violation: Olivier's conduct clearly violated ordinance through amplification, signs, and group activity• Stakes: Maintains criminal justice finality and prevents collateral attacks on convictionsUNITED STATES AMICUS POSITION• No Malicious Prosecution: Prospective relief claims don't challenge prosecution propriety requiring favorable termination• No Habeas Conflict: Case poses no conflict between Section 1983 and federal habeas because plaintiff seeks no release• Custody Irrelevant: Heck requirements flow from claim elements, not whether plaintiff accessed habeas relief• Stakes: Supports constitutional enforcement while maintaining appropriate procedural barriersBROADER STAKESFor Practitioners: Determines whether clients with prior convictions can challenge laws prospectively in federal courtFor Constitutional Law: Shapes balance between criminal justice finality and civil rights enforcement nationwideFor Religious Liberty: Affects ability to challenge speech restrictions through federal litigation after any enforcementFor Government Entities: Impacts litigation strategy for defending constitutional challenges from previously prosecuted plaintiffsORAL ARGUMENT PREVIEW - DECEMBER 3RDKEY QUESTIONS TO WATCH• Framing Battle: Do...
--------
10:25
--------
10:25
Case Preview: Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter | Presidential Power Play: Trump's Total Takedown of Independent Agencies | Argument Date: 12/8/25
Trump v. Slaughter | Case No. 25-332 | Oral Argument Date: 12/8/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether Congress can require the President to show cause before removing commissioners of independent agencies, or whether Article II grants the President absolute removal power over all executive officers.OverviewThis episode examines a case that could trigger the most dramatic restructuring of federal power since the New Deal. President Trump removes FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, challenging the constitutional foundation of independent agencies. The Court confronts whether two dozen independent agencies that control $47 trillion in economic activity can maintain protection from at-will presidential removal.Episode RoadmapOpening: Constitutional Crisis Brewing• December 8th oral argument creates immediate urgency• Potential elimination of independent agency protections• Stakes include Federal Reserve, FTC, SEC, and two dozen other agenciesHousekeeping Matters• Black Friday mailbag episode announcement• December calendar overview with mega cases• Thanksgiving week content roadmapConstitutional Framework: Article II Powers• "Executive Power shall be vested in a President" - Article II, Section 1• Take Care Clause mandates faithful execution of laws• Appointments Clause divides officers into principal and inferior classes• Constitution grants no explicit removal authorityBackground: The Slaughter Removal• 1914: Congress creates FTC with removal protection for cause only• 2018: Trump nominates Slaughter; Senate confirms unanimously• 2024: Biden renominates; Senate again confirms unanimously• March 2025: Trump fires Slaughter via email without causeProcedural History: Courts Block Trump• DC federal court grants summary judgment for Slaughter• Courts issue injunctions preventing interference with duties• Appeals courts affirm lower court rulings• Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve government structure crisisLegal ArgumentsPresident Trump's Constitutional Case• Article II grants conclusive removal power over all executive officers• "Decision of 1789" from First Congress supports absolute presidential authority• Modern FTC exercises "quintessentially executive powers" unlike 1935 version• Humphrey's Executor has become "doctrinal dinosaur" requiring overruleCommissioner Slaughter's Defense• Two centuries of congressional practice creating independent agencies• Multimember structure prevents arbitrary decision-making and protects liberty• Constitution requires no absolute removal power under Take Care Clause• Historical tradition supports agency independence with cause requirementsKey Precedents Battle• Humphrey's Executor (1935): Upheld FTC removal protections as quasi-legislative• Recent cases confine Humphrey's without overruling: Free Enterprise Fund, Seila Law, Collins• Historical precedents from founding era support both positionsConstitutional Stakes and ImplicationsIf President Wins• Every independent agency becomes at-will political appointment• Regulatory whiplash could destabilize economic sectors• Federal Reserve exception creates constitutional inconsistency• Two dozen agencies face immediate restructuringIf Slaughter Wins• Independent agencies maintain...
The High Court Report makes Supreme Court decisions accessible to everyone.
We deliver comprehensive SCOTUS coverage without the legal jargon or partisan spin—just clear analysis that explains how these cases affect your life, business, and community.
What you get: Case previews and breakdowns, raw oral argument audio, curated key exchanges, detailed opinion analysis, and expert commentary from a practicing attorney who's spent 12 years in courtrooms arguing the same types of cases the Supreme Court hears.
Why it works: Whether you need a focused 10-minute update or a deep constitutional dive, episodes are designed for busy professionals, engaged citizens, and anyone who wants to understand how the Court shapes America.
When we publish: 3-5 episodes weekly during the Court's October-June term, with summer coverage of emergency orders and retrospective analysis.
Growing archive: Oral arguments back to 2020 and expanding, so you can hear how landmark cases unfolded and track the Court's evolution.
Your direct line to understanding the Supreme Court—accessible, thorough, and grounded in real legal expertise.**
UK