Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• [24-249] A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools

  A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 28, 2025. Petitioner: A.J.T.Respondent: Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) A.J.T., a student with epilepsy, experiences seizures so severe in the morning that she cannot attend school until noon. Her parents repeatedly requested evening instruction from Osseo Area Schools to give her a school day length more comparable to her peers. Despite the District providing some accommodations, including one-on-one instruction, a slightly extended school day, and summer home instruction sessions, they denied the requests for evening instruction. The District’s Director of Student Services, responsible for Section 504 compliance, was unaware of the parents’ complaints and did not know that District policies allowed at-home schooling as an accommodation. A.J.T., through her parents, sued the District for disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the District, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Question Do the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education?

  --------  

  1:26:03
• [24-320] Soto v. United States

  Soto v. United States Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 28, 2025. Petitioner: Simon A. Soto.Respondent: United States of America. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Simon Soto, a Marine Corps veteran with a combat-related disability, was medically retired in 2006 with less than 20 years of service. Although he became eligible for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) in 2009 when he received his disability rating, he did not apply until 2016. The Navy used the Barring Act’s six-year limitation period to calculate his retroactive payments, giving him payments dating back only to 2010 instead of to 2008 when Congress had expanded CRSC eligibility to veterans with less than 20 years of service. Soto filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated veterans who received only six years of back payments, arguing that the CRSC statute’s own procedures should apply instead of the Barring Act’s six-year limit. The district court granted summary judgment to Soto’s class, holding that the CRSC statute was more specific and therefore superseded the Barring Act. The court also applied the pro-veteran canon of statutory interpretation, resolving any doubt in favor of the veterans. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. Question When disabled combat veterans claim past-due compensation, should the military use the CRSC statute's rules to calculate how far back they can be paid, or should it use the Barring Act's six-year limit?

  --------  

  1:02:50
• [24-7] Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency

  Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 23, 2025. Petitioner: Diamond Alternative Energy LLC.Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency. Advocates: Jeffrey B. Wall (for the Petitioners) Edwin S. Kneedler (for the Federal Respondents) Joshua A. Klein (for the State Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2012, California applied for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program, which included two key components: a Low Emission Vehicle Program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 34% for new cars in Model Years 2017-2025, and a Zero Emission Vehicle Program requiring about 15% of manufacturers’ fleets to be electric cars by 2025. The EPA granted this waiver in 2013, and automobile manufacturers began investing to meet these requirements. However, in 2019, under a different administration, the EPA withdrew the 2013 waiver, arguing that state greenhouse gas regulations were preempted by federal fuel economy standards, that California’s standards weren’t necessary to meet “compelling and extraordinary conditions,” and that California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and its air pollution problems. After this withdrawal, several automakers like Honda, Ford, and BMW voluntarily agreed to continue meeting California’s standards due to their existing investments and growing consumer demand for electric vehicles. In 2022, under yet another administration, the EPA reversed course again and reinstated the 2013 waiver, prompting challenges from various states and fuel industry groups who argued that California should not receive special treatment and that climate change is not a “compelling and extraordinary condition” justifying state-specific standards. California, environmental organizations, and automobile manufacturers intervened to defend the EPA’s decision. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of the claims for lack of standing, finding that challengers had not shown that their injuries were redressable by a favorable decision. Question May a party establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties?

  --------  

  1:04:52
• [24-416] Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch

  Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 22, 2025. Petitioner: Commissioner of Internal Revenue.Respondent: Jennifer Zuch. Advocates: Erica L. Ross (for the Petitioner) Shay Dvoretzky (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2010 and 2011, while still married, Jennifer Zuch and Patrick Gennardo made two estimated tax payments totaling $50,000 for their 2010 taxes, without specifying how to allocate the payments between them. In September 2012, after filing separate tax returns, Gennardo reported owing $385,393 while Zuch reported an overpayment. The IRS applied the entire $50,000 in estimated payments to Gennardo’s liability. When Zuch later filed an amended return reporting additional income and claiming her share of the $50,000, the IRS assessed the additional tax but did not credit her for any portion of the estimated payments, even after Gennardo filed his own amended return indicating the payments should be allocated to Zuch. In August 2013, the IRS notified Zuch of its intent to levy her property to collect approximately $36,000 in unpaid 2010 taxes. During the ensuing Collection Due Process hearing, Zuch challenged her underlying tax liability, arguing she was entitled to credit for the estimated payments. Meanwhile, over several years while Zuch was disputing her 2010 liability, the IRS repeatedly took her tax refunds from other years and applied them to what it calculated as her 2010 liability, eventually reducing the balance to zero by April 2019. The case went through the Tax Court, which initially denied summary judgment and remanded to the IRS Office of Appeals. When the balance was reduced to zero through the IRS’s seizure of Zuch's later tax refunds, the Tax Court dismissed the case as moot. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the IRS cannot eliminate Tax Court jurisdiction over a disputed tax liability simply by seizing a taxpayer’s refunds to cover the contested debt. Question Does a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes become moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding?

  --------  

  47:32
• [24-297] Mahmoud v. Taylor

  Mahmoud v. Taylor Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 22, 2025. Petitioner: Tamer Mahmoud.Respondent: Thomas W. Taylor. Advocates: Eric S. Baxter (for the Petitioners) Sarah M. Harris (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners) Alan E. Schoenfeld (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In October 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved LGBTQ-inclusive books for its English Language Arts curriculum. These “Storybooks” featured characters and themes related to sexual orientation and gender identity, including books like “Pride Puppy!” for pre-K students and “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” for K-5 students. Initially, the school board allowed parents to receive notice and opt their children out of lessons involving these books, in line with the district’s guidelines for religious accommodations. However, in March 2023, the Board abruptly reversed this policy, eliminating all notice and opt-out options without explanation, though they later cited concerns about high student absenteeism, classroom disruption, administrative burden, and potential stigmatization of individuals represented in the books. Several parents of different religious backgrounds (Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox) sued the Board, arguing that the denial of notice and opt-out options violated their religious freedom and parental rights. The parents did not seek to ban the books or challenge their adoption into the curriculum; rather, they sought to maintain control over how and when their children would be exposed to content they believed conflicted with their religious duties to train their children according to their faiths on matters of gender, marriage, and sexuality. The district court denied the parents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding the parents failed to demonstrate a cognizable burden to their religious freedom, and the parents filed an interlocutory appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial. Question Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?

  --------  

  2:29:20

Más podcasts de Gobierno

Podcasts a la moda de Gobierno

Acerca de Supreme Court Oral Arguments