![City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, No. 23-175 [Arg: 4.22.2024]](https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts115/v4/7b/cd/b1/7bcdb15b-5519-aaa2-5cef-5369561e44c2/mza_9688755129811309419.jpg/250x250bb.jpg)
Bölümler
-
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho’s Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
Eksik bölüm mü var?
-
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; andwhether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
Whether the proceeds of a life-insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax. -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. -
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether respondents have Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 actions with respect to mifepristone’s approved conditions of use;whether the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions were arbitrary and capricious; andwhether the district court properly granted preliminary relief. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the court should deny the motion by Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado for entry of a proposed consent decree that would resolve this dispute over the United States' claim as intervenors that New Mexico violated the Rio Grande Compact without the United States’ consent.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) Whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and (2) whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking — where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs — Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ -
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy.
★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ - Daha fazla göster
![Trump v. U.S., No. 23-939 [Arg: 4.25.2024]](https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts115/v4/7b/cd/b1/7bcdb15b-5519-aaa2-5cef-5369561e44c2/mza_9688755129811309419.jpg/80x80bb.jpg)