Oral Argument Re-Listen: Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question 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:

1. For Petitioner: Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Los Angeles
2. For Respondent: Christian B. Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana
3. United States as Amicus Curiae: Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice

Holding: Brigham City’s objective reasonableness standard for warrantless home entries to render emergency aid applies without further gloss and was satisfied in this case.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions.

Link to Opinion: Here.

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

Oral Argument Re-Listen: Berk v. Choy | Case No. 24-440 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25

Link to Docket: Here

Episode Preview: Here

Background:

Question Presented: Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D.C.
2. For Respondent: Frederick R. Yarger, Denver, CO.

Holding: Delaware’s affidavit law does not apply in federal court.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion. Justice Jackson wrote an opinion concurring in the result.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Intro

[00:00:33] Argument Begins

[00:00:39] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:02:57] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:25:46] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:31:36] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:33:52] Respondent Free For All Questions

[00:59:19] Respondent Sequential Questions

[01:00:05] Petitioner Rebuttal

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | Case No. 24-808 | Oral Argument Date: 11/5/25 | Docket Link: Here

Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts versus Burton, a time trap tangle examining when void verdicts gain validity. Coney Island's bank account gets frozen for nearly $100,000 based on a 2015 Tennessee judgment they claim they never knew about. When Coney finally fights back seven years later, the Sixth Circuit dismisses the case, saying that you waited too long to challenge the judgment Coney didn’t even know about. "If something never existed in the first place, does waiting too long to challenge it make it real?

Question Presented: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner (Coney): Daniel Ginzburg, Freehold, N.J.
2. For Respondent (Burton): Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D.C.

Holding: Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time limit applies to a motion alleging that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Majority's Rationale: Rule 60(c)(1) clearly requires all Rule 60(b) motions within reasonable time, including void judgment challenges. Even void judgments face timing limits because no constitutional principle grants unlimited challenge time. Allowing indefinite challenges would create extreme consequences like ignoring appeal and certiorari deadlines.

Concurring Rationale: Rule 60's text and structure clearly require reasonable time limits for all motions. The majority unnecessarily addressed constitutional questions that no party raised or argued. Courts should stick to deciding actual disputes, not inventing constitutional theories.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Timestamps:

[00:00:00] Argument Preview

[00:00:58] Argument Begins

[00:01:07] Petitioner Opening Statement

[00:03:17] Petitioner Free for All Questions

[00:19:12] Petitioner Sequential Questions

[00:19:15] Respondent Opening Statement

[00:20:33] Respondent Free for All Questions

[00:34:10] Petitioner Rebuttal

Oral Argument Re-Listen: Bost v. Illinois State Bd. of Elections | Case No. 24-568 | Oral Argument Date: 10/8/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: https://scotus-oral-arguments.captivate.fm/episode/upcoming-oral-argument-bost-v-illinois-ballot-box-bout-when-can-candidates-challenge-election-rules/

Background: Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7; and 3 U.S.C. § 1. Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. Petitioners contend these state laws are preempted under the Elections and Electors Clauses. Petitioners sued to enjoin Illinois' law allowing ballots to be received up to fourteen days after Election Day.

Question Presented: Whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.;
2. United States, as Amicus Curiae: Michael Talent, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
3. For Respondent: Jane E. Notz, Solicitor General, Chicago, Ill.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Holding: As a candidate for office, Congressman Bost holds standing to challenge the laws that govern the counting of votes in his election.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court in which Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Sotomayor joined.

Overview:

This episode offers six critical insights from last week's opinions.

Six Pack Roadmap:

1. Deceptive Unanimity Statistics Court achieves 71% unanimity rate (versus 42% last year) by clearing uncontested low hanging fruit cases; rate will drop as complex constitutional questions arrive later this term.

2. Fractures Behind Unanimous Results: Two cases feature justices concurring only in judgment—agreeing with outcomes but rejecting majority reasoning; Jackson splits on procedural methodology in Berk v. Choy; Sotomayor objects to unnecessary constitutional analysis in Coney Island v. Burton.

3. Strategic Opinion Authorship Pattern: Each majority opinion authored by different justice; only Gorsuch and Thomas remain without majority opinions this term, suggesting strategic distribution of constitutional precedent-setting opportunities.

4. Thomas's Doctrinal Attack Signal: Thomas writes Ellingburg concurrence (joined by Gorsuch) targeting current Ex Post Facto jurisprudence, continuing his pattern of using separate opinions to undermine established legal frameworks.

5. Ex Post Facto Originalism: Thomas advocates abandoning modern twelve-factor balancing tests for 1798 Calder v. Bull approach; would subject civil penalties, administrative enforcement, and regulatory sanctions to constitutional scrutiny regardless of legislative labeling.

6. Emergency Docket Constitutional Chaos: Trump v. Cook oral arguments reveal dangers of rushed litigation creating inadequate factual records; Justice Alito highlights how time pressure forces courts into constitutional holdings rather than narrower statutory grounds.

Referenced Cases:

• Berk v. Choy - Unanimous decision on Delaware affidavit requirements conflicting with federal civil procedure rules; Jackson concurrence only in judgment preferring Rule 3 over Rule 8 analysis

• Coney Island v. Burton - Unanimous decision with Sotomayor concurrence only in judgment objecting to unnecessary due process constitutional analysis

• Ellingburg v. United States - Thomas concurrence (joined by Gorsuch) advocating originalist Ex Post Facto interpretation based on Calder v. Bull (1798)

• Trump v. Cook - Emergency docket case involving Federal Reserve governor removal; oral arguments criticized rushed litigation timeline creating inadequate factual development

Overview

The High Court Report covers three major oral arguments from this past week, analyzing constitutional clashes over Second Amendment rights, pension plan calculations, and presidential removal powers. Each case presents fundamental questions about constitutional interpretation, federal authority, and the balance between individual rights and government power.

Takeaways:

Wolford v. Lopez

• Second Amendment treated as second-class right compared to First Amendment protections

• Historical evidence battle focuses on colonial anti-poaching laws and Black Codes versus modern concealed carry contexts

• Justices skeptical that 1771 hunting regulations justify modern permission slip requirements for constitutional rights

M&K Employee Solutions v. IAM

• Pension liability calculation dispute centers on timing of actuarial assumptions versus measurement dates

• Built-in statutory safeguards include professional ethics requirements and mandatory arbitration processes

• Court likely to rule that "as of" creates reference point rather than deadline for calculations

Trump v. Cook

• Presidential removal authority clashes with Federal Reserve independence principles

• "For cause" standard requires judicial review to prevent arbitrary executive actions

• Procedural defects provide potential narrow ruling path without resolving broader constitutional questions

Attribution

1. Episode analysis draws from Daniel Thompson's Substack piece "Litigating Originalism in Bruen: A Brief-Level Coding Study of History, Evidence, and Argument Form" available at https://legalytics.substack.com/p/litigating-originalism-in-bruen-a

Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Docket Link: Here

1. Opinion: Here.
2. Oral Argument: Here
3. Case Preview: Here

Overview: Ellingburg committed a crime in 1996 before Congress enacted a new law requiring convicted defendants to pay restitution to victims. Courts later sentenced Ellingburg under this new law and ordered him to pay $7,567.25 - money he never paid. Ellingburg challenged this restitution order as unconstitutional retroactive punishment, arguing the government cannot apply new penalties to old crimes. The case forces the Supreme Court to determine whether victim restitution constitutes criminal punishment protected by the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws.

Question Presented: Whether restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Holding: The Supreme Court held that restitution under the MVRA constitutes criminal punishment subject to Ex Post Facto Clause analysis.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch.

Majority's Rationale: Congress explicitly labeled MVRA restitution as a "penalty" for criminal offenses imposed during sentencing alongside imprisonment and fines. The statute appears in the criminal code and requires courts to follow criminal procedure rules when ordering restitution. Defendants who refuse to pay face potential imprisonment for punishment and deterrence purposes, confirming the criminal nature.

Concurring Rationale: Justice Thomas argued the Court should abandon its current twelve-factor test for determining criminal punishment. The original 1798 understanding of ex post facto laws protected against any retroactive government penalties for public wrongs. Modern courts should focus on whether laws impose coercive sanctions for offenses against government authority, regardless of civil labels.

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D.C. argued for petitioner.
2. For Respondent in Support of Vacatur: Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice argued for respondent in support of vacatur.
3. For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: John F. Bash, Austin, Texas.

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | Date Decided: 1/21/26 | Case No. 24-808

Docket Link: Here

This case involves a time trap tangle examining when void verdicts gain validity. Coney Island's bank account gets frozen for nearly $100,000 based on a 2015 Tennessee judgment they claim they never knew about. When Coney finally fights back seven years later, the Sixth Circuit dismisses the case, saying that you waited too long to challenge the judgment Coney didn’t even know about. If a judgment was invalid from the start, does waiting too long make it become valid?

Question Presented: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Holding: Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time limit applies to a motion alleging that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Majority's Rationale: Rule 60(c)(1) clearly requires all Rule 60(b) motions within reasonable time, including void judgment challenges. Even void judgments face timing limits because no constitutional principle grants unlimited challenge time. Allowing indefinite challenges would create extreme consequences like ignoring appeal and certiorari deadlines.

Concurring Rationale: Rule 60's text and structure clearly require reasonable time limits for all motions. The majority unnecessarily addressed constitutional questions that no party raised or argued. Courts should stick to deciding actual disputes, not inventing constitutional theories.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

1. For Petitioner (Coney): Daniel Ginzburg, Freehold, N.J.
2. For Respondent (Burton): Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D.C.