Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Latest Episodes
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
Chevron has plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged crude-oil production and the performance of its federal avgas refining duties—not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one—and has therefore satisfied the “relating to”...
Chiles v. Salazar (First Amendment & talk therapy)
The Court held that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy,” as applied to a licensed counselor providing only talk therapy, likely violates the First Amendment because it regulates speech based on content and viewpoint. Writing for the majority...
Rico v. United States (tolling supervised release)
The Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not permit courts to automatically extend a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant absconds, reversing the Ninth Circuit’s rule that treated time on the run as ...
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment (Secondary Copyright infringment--Contributory Liablity)
The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailor...
Zorn v. Linton (Qualified Immunity)
2nd Circuit held an officer was not entitled to qualified immunity, the Supreme Court Disagrees and Reverses the order of the 2nd Circuit.By the Supreme Courts facts (which it was required to consider in the light least favora...
