The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

• Case v. Montana

  Case v. Montana | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-624 24-624 CASE V. MONTANA DECISION BELOW: 553 P.3d 985 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: DA 23-0136

  --------  

  --------
• Louisiana v. Callais

  Louisiana v. Callais | 10/15/25 | Docket #: 24-109 Background: Louisiana was ordered by federal courts to create a second majority-Black congressional district to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The Louisiana Legislature responded by passing S.B. 8, which created the required second majority-Black district. However, a different federal court then ruled that S.B. 8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and blocked its implementation. The Core Issue: Can a state be required to create a majority-minority district under the Voting Rights Act, but then have that same district struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering? Louisiana argues this creates an impossible legal bind. Questions Before the Court: Whether the lower court erred in finding that race predominated in drawing S.B. 8, whether the map fails strict scrutiny review, whether certain legal tests were properly applied, and whether courts should even be deciding these redistricting disputes. Current Status: The case has been restored for reargument. The Court has ordered supplemental briefing on whether intentionally creating majority-minority districts violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. Significance: This case could reshape how states balance Voting Rights Act compliance with constitutional requirements, potentially affecting redistricting nationwide.

  --------  

  --------
• Ellingburg v. United States

  Ellingburg v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-482 24-482 ELLINGBURG V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 113 F.4th 839 JOHN F. BASH, ESQUIRE, OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE , IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-3129

  --------  

  --------
• Bowe v. United States

  Bowe v. United States | 10/14/25 | Docket #: 24-5438 24-5438 BOWE V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: CA 11 ORDER 6/27/2024 KASDIN M. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE, OF DALLAS, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW AS TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. CERT. GRANTED 1/17/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[ a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed. ” (emphasis added). The first question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. * * * Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[ t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari. ” (emphasis added). The second question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-11704

  --------  

  --------
• USPS v. Konan

  USPS v. Konan | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-351 24-351 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE V. KONAN DECISION BELOW: 96 F.4th 799 CERT. GRANTED 4/21/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), ch. 753, 60 Stat. 842 (28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq .), generally waives the United States' sovereign immunity for suits seeking damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of an employee of the federal government "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1). The FTCA, however, excepts from that waiver of immunity "[a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." 28 U.S.C. 2680(b). The question presented is as follows: Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter. 28 U.S.C. 2680(b). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10179

  --------  

  --------

Acerca de The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments