The High Court Report10 Jan 2024

Oral Argument: Smith v. Arizona | Case No. 22-899 | Date Argued: 1/10/24 | Date Decided: 6/21/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst's statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert's opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.

Holding: When an expert conveys an absent lab analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth, and thus implicate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined, and in which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined as to Parts I, II, and IV. Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch filed opinions concurring in part. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Chief Justice Roberts joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Hari Santhanam, Chicago, Ill.
For United States, as Amicus Curiae: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Alexander W. Samuels, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Phoenix, Ariz.

Det här avsnittet är hämtat från ett öppet RSS-flöde och publiceras inte av Podme. Det kan innehålla reklam.

Avsnitt(500)

Opinion Summary: Monsanto v. Durnell | Court Axes Roundup Cancer Suits

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell | Case No. 24-1068 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 27, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026Overview: Federal pesticide law blocks a Missouri cancer patient's failure-to-warn lawsu...

2 Juli 15min

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Doe | No Judge. No TPS. No Way Back.

Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Doe, et al. | No. 25-1083 (consolidated with Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Miot, et al., No. 25-1084) | Docket: Here | ...

1 Juli 16min

New Opinions: June 30th | 3 Blockbusters End the Term

OVERVIEWThree opinions released June 30th, 2026 — the final day of the October 2025 Term — spanning birthright citizenship, transgender athletes in school sports, and political party campaign spending...

30 Juni 13min

Opinion Summary: Mullin v. Al Otro Lado | The Inch That Changed Immigration Law

Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Al Otro Lado, et al. | Case No. 25-5 | Docket Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5.html | Argu...

30 Juni 14min

New Opinions: June 29th | Phones, the Fed, the FTC, and the Ballot Box

OVERVIEWFour opinions released June 29th, 2026 — one day, across digital privacy, presidential removal power at two federal agencies, and absentee ballot receipt deadlines.Two decisions split 6-3 alon...

29 Juni 18min

Opinion Summary: Wolford v. Lopez | Permission Slip Flopped

Wolford v. Lopez | Case No. 24-1046 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: January 20, 2026 | Decided: June 25, 2026Overview: After Bruen recognized the right to public carry, Hawaii required licensed gun carr...

29 Juni 13min

Opinion Summary: Blanche v. Lau | Seize Green Cards First and Prove Why Later

Blanche, Acting Attorney General v. Muk Choi Lau | Case No. 25-429 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 22, 2026 | Decided: June 23, 2026Overview: The Court addressed whether border officers must posse...

28 Juni 15min

Opinion Summary: Pung v. Isabella County | Small Debt, Tiny Check

Pung v. Isabella County | Case No. 25-95 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 02/25/2026 | Decided: 06/23/2026Overview: A Michigan family lost their $194,400 home at a tax auction for $76,008 over a disputed...

27 Juni 19min