Supreme Court Rulings Reshape Labor, Self-Defense, and Reproductive Rights Landscape

Hello and welcome to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. I'm Jason, your reporter for all the latest developments from the US Supreme Court.On Wednesday, March 26, the Supreme Court released several significant opinions. One of the key cases was _Bondi v. VanDerStok_, where the Court upheld the ATF's 2022 Rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ruling determined that the ATF's interpretation, which covers products that can be readily converted into operational firearms or functional frames or receivers, known as "ghost guns," is not facially inconsistent with the Act. The decision was supported by a majority of the justices, with Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson each filing concurring opinions, while Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.Another notable case decided on the same day was _United States v. Miller_, although details on this specific case are not as widely available as those for _Bondi v. VanDerStok_.Earlier in the week, on March 21, the Court issued an important decision in _Delligatti v. United States_. Here, the Court ruled that the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the "use" of "physical force" against another person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(A). This decision was unanimous among the participating justices, with Justice Gorsuch and Justice Jackson joining in a dissenting opinion.Also on March 21, the Court decided _Thompson v. United States_, where it was held that Title 18 U.S.C. §1014, which prohibits "knowingly mak[ing] any false statement," does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false. This decision was unanimous, with Justices Alito and Jackson filing concurring opinions.In addition to these decisions, the Supreme Court has several upcoming cases and hearings. For instance, the Court is set to hear oral arguments in disputes over which federal courts should handle lawsuits related to the Clean Air Act, specifically in the cases _Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC_ and _Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency_.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. For the latest updates and in-depth analysis, be sure to subscribe to our channel.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

28 Maalis 2min

As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is in the midst of its March argument session, which began on March 24 and will continue until April 2. This session is packed with significant cases that address a range of critical issues.On March 24, the Court heard arguments in two notable cases: *Louisiana v. Callais*, which involves a challenge to a lower court's decision to strike down a congressional voting map that created a second majority-Black district in Louisiana, and *Riley v. Bondi*, a dispute over the 30-day deadline to seek review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying withholding of deportation.The following day, March 25, the justices delved into environmental law with *EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining* and *Oklahoma v. EPA*. These cases focus on whether challenges to the EPA's decisions under the Clean Air Act must be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.Today, March 26, the Court is set to hear *FCC v. Consumers’ Research*, a case that challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. This case involves the validity of an FCC program aimed at improving internet and phone services in underserved areas, with the appeals court ruling that the program violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress’s power.In addition to these arguments, the Court is also expected to issue one or more opinions from the current term today. This could bring significant developments in various legal areas, although the specific cases to be decided have not been announced.The upcoming days will see the Court tackling more contentious issues, including a case on whether Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying a tax exemption to a religious organization, and another on the federal law governing second petitions for federal post-conviction relief.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

26 Maalis 2min

As of the latest updates, the U.S. Supreme Court has been involved in several significant developments, particularly surrounding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and other pending cases.Recently, the court's actions have paved the way for the reinstatement of the CTA's reporting obligations. On February 18, 2025, a court lifted the last remaining nationwide injunction that had prevented the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) from enforcing the CTA. This decision followed a January 23, 2025, order from the Supreme Court that allowed FinCEN to resume enforcement of the CTA's Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements while an underlying case, *McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop*, continues to be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.As a result, FinCEN has extended the CTA reporting deadlines for most companies until March 21, 2025. This new deadline applies to companies formed before, during, and in 2025, with some exceptions for entities that qualify for extensions due to disaster relief or other reasons. FinCEN has also indicated plans to modify certain CTA requirements to alleviate filing burdens on lower-risk entities.In addition to the CTA developments, the Supreme Court is set to issue one or more opinions from the current term on March 21, 2025. This is part of the court's regular schedule of releasing decisions, and it will be closely watched by legal observers and the public.On the appellate front, the Fifth Circuit is handling the appeals in both *McHenry* and *Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury*, with an expedited briefing schedule and oral arguments scheduled for March 25, 2025. These cases are crucial as they will determine the constitutionality and implementation details of the CTA.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on U.S. Supreme Court news.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

21 Maalis 2min

As we track the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, several significant cases and decisions have come to the forefront in the ongoing 2024-2025 term. The Court began hearing cases on October 7, 2024, and has already agreed to hear approximately 49 cases, with more expected to be added.One of the key cases involves a Texas law requiring websites with content harmful to minors to verify the age of their users. In *Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton*, the Court will determine whether this law should be subject to strict scrutiny or rational basis review under the First Amendment.Another critical area is firearms regulation. The Court is set to decide on the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to regulate ghost guns in *Garland v. VanDerStok*. This case delves into whether certain firearm parts kits and frames or receivers fall under the Gun Control Act of 1968.The Court is also addressing issues related to youth transgender care. In *United States v. Skrmetti*, it will consider the constitutionality of a Tennessee law that prohibits medical treatments for minors aimed at aligning their gender identity with their sex.Environmental issues are also on the agenda, particularly in *City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency*, where the Court will examine the EPA's authority to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.In addition, the Court has recently made a decision regarding the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. In *TikTok Inc. v. Garland* and *Firebaugh v. Garland*, the Court upheld a federal law that makes it unlawful for companies in the US to provide services to, distribute, maintain, or update TikTok unless its US operations are severed from Chinese control. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, finding the law content-neutral and justified by the government's interest in preventing China from collecting sensitive data from US users.These cases highlight the Court's ongoing engagement with a wide range of critical issues, from First Amendment rights and firearms regulation to environmental policy and national security concerns.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

19 Maalis 2min

In the latest developments from the US Supreme Court, a significant issue has emerged regarding the use of nationwide injunctions. President Donald Trump has filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking to limit or eliminate the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions against his policies. Specifically, Trump is challenging three nationwide injunctions issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state, which have blocked his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants or those on short-term visas. Trump's acting solicitor general argues that these injunctions, which have been used extensively to block various aspects of his agenda, give too much power to individual district judges and hinder the Executive Branch's ability to implement policies.This move is part of a broader critique of nationwide injunctions, which have been a contentious issue. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have criticized these injunctions, and some Supreme Court justices, including Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, have questioned their constitutionality. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications, not only for Trump's policies but also for the general practice of judicial oversight of executive actions.In other news, the Supreme Court is set to tackle several high-profile cases in its current term. One notable case involves a death penalty appeal from Oklahoma, where the court will decide whether a man, Richard Glossip, should be executed despite the state acknowledging his prosecution was "deeply flawed." This case highlights ongoing debates about the justice system and capital punishment.Additionally, the Supreme Court has recently declined to hear an appeal from Elon Musk’s X platform regarding a search warrant in the election-interference case against former President Donald Trump. This decision reflects the court's selective approach to the cases it chooses to hear, particularly those involving high-profile figures and sensitive legal issues.The court is also preparing to address several other critical issues, including medical marijuana, "ghost guns," and transgender care bans. These cases are part of a fraught new term for the Supreme Court, with the nation closely watching the justices' decisions amidst concerns about their ethics and impartiality.President Joe Biden has also been in the news for calling for significant reforms to the Supreme Court, including term limits for justices and an enforceable ethics code. However, any such changes would require congressional approval, making them a long shot.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis on the US Supreme Court.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

14 Maalis 3min

As of the latest updates, the US Supreme Court is gearing up for its March argument session, which is set to begin on March 24 and conclude on April 2. During this period, the justices will hear arguments in nine significant cases spread over six days.One of the notable cases is *Louisiana v. Callais*, consolidated with *Robinson v. Callais*, scheduled for March 24. This case involves a challenge to a lower court's decision to strike down a congressional voting map that created a second majority-Black district in Louisiana.Another important case is *EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining*, set for March 25, which addresses whether challenges to the EPA's denial of exemptions from the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standards program must be litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. This is part of a broader scrutiny of EPA actions, as seen in *Oklahoma v. EPA*, also scheduled for March 25, which questions the EPA’s denial of states’ plans to implement national air quality standards.The court will also hear *FCC v. Consumers’ Research* on March 26, a case that challenges a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that invalidated parts of an FCC program aimed at improving internet and phone services in underserved areas. This case raises constitutional questions about the delegation of Congress’s power to the FCC.Other significant cases include *Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission* on March 31, which examines whether Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by denying a tax exemption to a religious organization, and *Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic* on April 2, which involves a challenge to South Carolina’s decision to end Planned Parenthood’s participation in its Medicaid program.In addition to these upcoming arguments, the Supreme Court has recently been involved in other notable legal disputes. For instance, the court turned down the Trump administration’s request to pause the briefing in several cases related to EPA regulations and agency actions, indicating that these cases will move forward as scheduled.For now, these cases highlight the diverse and critical issues that the Supreme Court will be addressing in the coming weeks.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don’t forget to subscribe for the latest updates and in-depth analysis of Supreme Court news.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

12 Maalis 2min

In recent developments, the US Supreme Court has been involved in several significant events and decisions. One of the most notable recent rulings came on March 5, when the Supreme Court rebuffed the Trump administration's request to lift a lower-court order. This order required the government to quickly pay nearly $2 billion to contractors and aid groups for U.S.-backed foreign-aid projects. The court's 5-4 decision upheld the lower judge's order, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberal justices. This ruling is part of a broader legal fight over the president's power to halt spending on foreign aid programs despite congressional appropriation of the funds.On the docket, several important cases are set for oral arguments in the coming months. For instance, the case of *Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond*, scheduled for oral argument on January 24, 2025, will address whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from its charter-school program. Another significant case, *Oklahoma v. EPA*, set for oral argument on October 21, 2024, will determine whether EPA actions under the Clean Air Act can be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit.Additionally, the Supreme Court is preparing to hear other critical cases, such as *United States v. Skrmetti*, which questions the constitutionality of Tennessee Senate Bill 1 regarding medical treatments for minors, and *Parrish v. United States*, which deals with the procedural requirements for filing appeals.In terms of upcoming events, while there are no special sessions announced for the immediate future, the Supreme Court continues to manage its robust schedule of hearings and decisions.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. Don't forget to subscribe for the latest updates and analysis on the US Supreme Court.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

10 Maalis 2min

In a significant development, the US Supreme Court has made a pivotal decision regarding the Trump administration's attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Trump administration must comply with a lower court order and pay out the nearly $2 billion in foreign assistance funds to nonprofit aid groups and contractors for work already completed.This decision came after the Trump administration had issued an executive order to freeze these funds, citing the need to review and potentially cancel what they deemed as wasteful programs that did not align with the administration's foreign policy goals. However, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, issued a temporary restraining order requiring the administration to resume the payments, which the administration failed to comply with.The Supreme Court's majority, which included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberal justices, upheld Judge Ali's order. This ruling mandates the government to honor its financial obligations for the completed work, despite the administration's arguments that the deadline set by the lower court was not feasible and that the order intruded on the executive branch's prerogatives in foreign affairs.Justice Samuel Alito, in a strong dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, expressed his astonishment at the majority's decision. Alito argued that a single district court judge should not have the power to compel the government to pay out such a large sum of taxpayer dollars, labeling it an act of "judicial hubris."The impact of this decision is substantial, as many foreign aid groups and contractors had been on the brink of bankruptcy due to the frozen funds. These organizations have been forced to cut services and lay off thousands of workers. The ruling, while a short-term victory for these groups, does not resolve the broader issue, as the court left open the possibility of further legal battles over the administration's broader efforts to reshape foreign aid policies.Judge Ali is set to hold a hearing to consider a more lasting preliminary injunction against the foreign aid freeze, indicating that this case is far from over. The Trump administration's actions, including the cancellation of thousands of USAID contracts and State Department grants, continue to be a point of contention, with the administration arguing that these changes are necessary for radical reforms in foreign aid.Thank you for listening to the SCOTUS News Tracker podcast. For more updates and in-depth analysis, be sure to subscribe to our channel.This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

7 Maalis 3min