Case Preview: Hain Celestial v. Palmquist | Forum Fight: Can Courts Cure Their Own Jurisdictional Mistakes?
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Case No. 24-724 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal; and whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.OverviewThis episode examines a technical but consequential case about federal court jurisdiction that could affect thousands of removal cases nationwide. The dispute centers on whether federal courts can preserve judgments when they make jurisdictional errors, presenting a fundamental tension between judicial efficiency and strict adherence to jurisdictional limits in our federal court system.Episode RoadmapOpening: When Federal Courts Keep Cases They Shouldn'tNovember 4th, 2025 oral argument dateCircuit split requiring Supreme Court resolutionStakes: Balance between judicial efficiency and jurisdictional integrityAffects every lawsuit involving forum manipulation and removalBackground: A Family Tragedy Becomes a Jurisdictional MessThe Palmquist family's baby food poisoning lawsuit in TexasE.P.'s severe heavy-metal toxicity from Hain's Earth's Best productsComplete diversity destroyed by Texas plaintiffs suing Texas defendant Whole FoodsDefendants' removal strategy and fraudulent joinder claimConstitutional and Statutory Framework28 U.S.C. § 1332: Complete diversity requirement for federal jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1447(c): Mandatory remand when jurisdiction lacking"Completely diverse" means every plaintiff from different state than every defendantFederal courts as courts of limited jurisdictionProcedural Journey: From State Court to Supreme CourtDistrict court's fraudulent joinder ruling dismissing Whole FoodsTwo years of federal litigation and two-week jury trialFifth Circuit reversal: Whole Foods properly joined, judgment vacatedCase remanded to state court after years of federal proceedingsThe Central Legal QuestionsCan jurisdictional "cure" occur through erroneous dismissal?Voluntary versus involuntary party dismissalsWhen does jurisdictional defect "linger" through final judgment?Episode HighlightsPetitioners' Three-Pronged Strategy (Hain and Whole Foods)Caterpillar Cure Doctrine: Drawing on 1996 precedent arguing jurisdictional defects can be cured by dismissing non-diverse parties before final judgment, tracing principle to 19th-century casesEfficiency and Finality: Emphasizing "considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy become overwhelming" once diversity case tried in federal court with state lawNewman-Green Discretionary Authority: Arguing Fifth Circuit should have dismissed Whole Foods as "dispensable party" under Rule 21 to preserve final judgmentRespondents' Counter-Attack (The Palmquist Family)Voluntary vs. Involuntary Distinction: Emphasizing Caterpillar involved voluntary settlement dismissal while here "respondents opposed the dismissal of Whole Foods and never voluntarily abandoned their claims"Master of...
--------
14:40
--------
14:40
Case Preview: Rico v. United States | The Disappearing Defendant Dilemma: When Sentence Clocks Stop Ticking
Rico v. United States | Case No. 24-1234 | Oral Argument Date: 11/3/25 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.OverviewThis episode examines Rico v. United States, a Supreme Court case that challenges the boundaries between judicial power and congressional authority in criminal sentencing. The case asks whether federal courts can indefinitely extend supervised release terms for defendants who abscond, despite Congress never explicitly authorizing such extensions. Through Isabel Rico's story - a woman whose 42-month sentence ballooned to over 60 months due to a judge-made doctrine - the episode explores fundamental questions about separation of powers, statutory interpretation, and criminal justice fairness.Episode RoadmapOpening: From Hollywood Script to Constitutional CrisisFugitive imagery from popular culture versus legal realityIsabel Rico's five-year disappearance and its consequencesThe "time stands still" assumption challengedThe Question and Key Statutory TextFugitive-tolling doctrine definition and application18 U.S.C. § 3624(e): Congress's one explicit tolling ruleSupervised release versus parole distinctionsRico's Story: Facts2010 drug conviction and original sentencing2017-2018 supervised release violations and abscondment2021-2022 state crimes during fugitive periodLegal Arguments: Three-Way BattleRico's textual, historical, and common law challengesGovernment's supervision, tradition, and policy defensesReply brief rebuttals and constitutional principlesOral Argument PreviewKey dynamics to watch on November 3rdJustice personalities and criminal law philosophiesPractical implementation questionsBroader Constitutional StakesSeparation of powers implicationsImpact on federal supervised release practiceCriminal law interpretation principlesEpisode Highlights"Time Stood Still" Myth ExposedRico's case reveals that the popular assumption about fugitive time - that sentence clocks pause when defendants flee - has no basis in federal supervised release statutes.Congressional Intent Detective WorkDetailed exploration of how Congress explicitly authorized fugitive tolling for parole in 1976 but deliberately omitted it when creating supervised release in 1984.Sentencing Consequences BreakdownRico's violations jumped from 8-14 months to 33-36 months purely based on a judicial doctrine, demonstrating real-world impact of legal technicalities.Separation of Powers TensionThe case crystallizes fundamental questions about whether courts can enhance criminal punishments that Congress hasn't explicitly authorized.Common Law Versus Statute BattleGovernment's claim of "ancient tradition" meets Rico's challenge: "Show me the cases" - revealing potential gaps in historical precedent.Rule of Lenity ApplicationA canon providing that ambiguous criminal statutes should be interpreted in favor of defendants when Congress hasn't spoken clearly.Key Legal Concepts ExplainedSupervised Release: Post-prison supervision distinct from paroleFugitive Tolling: Judge-made doctrine extending sentence terms for...
--------
15:32
--------
15:32
Case Preview: Hencely v. Fluor | Battlefield Immunity Battle: When Contractors Breach and Soldiers Bleed
Hencely v. Fluor | Case No. 24-924 | Docket Link: HereQuestion Presented: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?OverviewThis episode examines Hencely v. Fluor Corporation, a case that could dramatically reshape government contractor immunity law by determining whether the Supreme Court's narrow Boyle defense should be expanded to protect military contractors who breach their contracts and violate military orders during wartime operations.Episode RoadmapOpening: Constitutional Clash Over Contractor AccountabilityTragic 2016 terrorist attack at Bagram Airfield killing Army Staff Sergeant Ryan HencelySon's lawsuit against Fluor Corporation under South Carolina tort lawCore tension: contractor immunity versus accountability for contract violationsThe Factual FoundationAfghan national Nayeb's attack facilitated by Fluor's supervision failuresArmy investigation: Fluor's "lack of reasonable supervision" was "primary contributing factor"Army Contracting Command finding: Fluor "indisputably did not comply with key contractual requirements"Escort and supervision protocol violations despite clear contractual obligationsThe Legal Landscape: Boyle's Boundaries1988 Boyle decision: narrow three-part test for contractor immunityRequired contractor conformance to government specificationsCurrent case: contractor violated rather than followed government directionsCircuit split over extending Boyle beyond specification-following scenariosProcedural Journey Through the Courts2019 federal district court filing in South CarolinaPolitical question doctrine rejected - claims about "Fluor, not military decisions"Summary judgment for Fluor based on "uniquely federal interests" preemptionFourth Circuit affirmance despite acknowledging FTCA "does not apply to government contractors"Judge Heytens partial dissent noting factual disputes over military "command authority"The Constitutional QuestionFTCA combatant activities exception: governs suits against government, not contractorsArticle I war powers versus state tort law authoritySupremacy Clause analysis: when does federal interest preempt state law?Distinction between express congressional preemption and judicial policy-makingPetitioner's Three-Pronged AttackStatutory Argument: FTCA text addresses government suits, not contractor liabilityConstitutional Argument: Boyle violates Supremacy Clause through "freewheeling judicial inquiry"Factual Distinction: No immunity for contractors who breach contracts and violate ordersRespondent's Constitutional DefenseWar Powers: Exclusive federal authority over battlefield operationsFTCA Guidance: Combatant activities exception reflects congressional policy against battlefield tort liabilityBroad Immunity: Preemption regardless of contractor compliance with government directionsGovernment's Structural ArgumentConstitutional war powers create "uniquely federal interests"State tort regulation conflicts with exclusive federal battlefield...
--------
15:50
--------
15:50
Oral Argument: Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25
Oral Argument: Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 Link to Docket: HereCase Preview: HereQuestion 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.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Los AngelesFor Respondent: Christian B. Corrigan, Solicitor General, MontanaUnited States as Amicus Curiae: Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of JusticeLink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Episode Preview[00:00:50] Argument Begins[00:01:02] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:12] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:27:25] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:39:50] Respondent Opening Statement[00:41:41] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:55:44] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:00:52] United States as Amicus Curaie Opening Statement[01:02:01] United States as Amicus Curaie Free for All Questions[01:09:15] United States as Amicus Curaie Sequential Questions[01:10:40] Petitioner Rebuttal
--------
1:15:55
--------
1:15:55
Oral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25
Oral Argument: Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 Link to Docket: HereConsolidated with: Robinson v. Callais | Case No. 24-110 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: HereCase Preview: HereBackground: Over the State's strenuous objections, the Middle District of Louisiana held, Robinson v. Ardoin , 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022)-and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Robinson v. Ardoin , 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023)-that Louisiana likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by failing to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The Fifth Circuit gave the Legislature a small window of time to adopt its own remedial plan, or else the State would have to go to trial, which would almost certainly end in the Middle District imposing its own preferred map. Rather than acquiesce in the Middle District's preferences, the Legislature reclaimed its sovereign redistricting pen and passed S.B. 8, which created a second majority-Black district as the courts demanded, protected the Legislature's sovereign prerogatives, and achieved its political goals. In this case, a majority of a three-judge court sitting in the Western District of Louisiana enjoined S.B. 8 as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.Question Presented: Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8? Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny? Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions? Is this action non-justiciable?Oral Advocates:For Petitioner Press Robinson: Janai Nelson, New YorkFor Petitioner Louisiana: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, LouisianaFor Appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Missouri For United States, as Amicus Curiae, in Support of Appellees: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of JusticeLink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Preview[00:01:00] Argument Begins[00:01:09] Appellant Press Robinson Opening Statement[00:03:32] Appellant Press Robinson Free for All Questions[00:26:15] Appellant Press Robinson Sequential Questions[00:47:32] Appellant Louisiana Opening Statement[00:49:02] Appellant Louisiana Free for All Questions[00:57:59] Appellant Louisiana Sequential Questions[01:20:21] Callais Appellees Opening Statement[01:21:47] Callais Appellees Free for All Questions[01:31:11] Callais Appellees Sequential Questions[01:40:35] United States as Amicus Curaie Opening Statement[01:41:42] United States as Amicus Curaie Free for All Questions[01:51:08] United States as Amicus Curaie Sequential Questions[02:25:32] Appellant Press Robinson Rebuttal
SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions delivers comprehensive Supreme Court coverage that meets you wherever you are—whether you're a lawyer, journalist, law student, or engaged citizen who wants to understand what's really happening at the Court.
Hosted by a practicing attorney who follows the Supreme Court closely, each episode brings you the full story: raw oral argument audio so you can hear directly from the justices and advocates, curated clips highlighting key exchanges, detailed breakdowns of opinions, and clear analysis of cases as they move through both the regular and emergency dockets. You'll find rigorous examination of the legal issues without the partisan spin—just substantive analysis grounded in the briefs, transcripts, and arguments themselves.
The archive keeps expanding, with oral arguments now reaching back to 2020 and growing, giving you access to hear how major cases unfolded and compare the Court's approach across terms. Whether you need a focused 10-minute case update or a deep dive into the state of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, you'll find episodes that work for your schedule and interest level.
Published 3-5 times weekly during the October-to-June term, with regular summer updates covering orders, emergency applications, and retrospective analysis.
Your direct line to understanding the Supreme Court—accessible, thorough, and grounded in the law.
Australia