Free Daily Podcast Summary
Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Daily Summaries Delivered
by scotusstats.com
A podcast feed of the audio recordings of the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. * Podcast adds new arguments automatically and immediately after they become available on supremecourt.gov * Detailed episode descriptions with facts about the case from oyez.org and links to docket and other information. * Convenient chapters to skip to any exchange between a justice and an advocate (available when an aligned transcript is ready). Also available in video form at https://www.youtube.com/@SCOTUSOralArgument
Latest Episodes
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
- 2 weeks ago1h 24m
[25-459] Salazar v. Paramount Global
Oral argument for Salazar v. Paramount Global, argued on October 14, 2026.
- 2 weeks ago1h 54m
[25-5343] Beaird v. United States
Beaird v. United States Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 13, 2026. Petitioner: Kendrick Jarrell Beaird.Respondent: United States of America. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Kendrick Jarrell Beaird pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. During sentencing, the district court applied a penalty enhancement under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines because Beaird possessed a “large capacity magazine.” While the text of the Guidelines does not define that term, the accompanying official Commentary specifies that any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds triggers the increased penalty. Beaird possessed a magazine that held 17 rounds. He argued that the district court erred by relying on the Commentary to define a term missing from the actual Guidelines. This challenge focuses on the level of deference courts must grant to supplemental Commentary, especially when that Commentary expands the scope of sentencing enhancements beyond the written text of the Guidelines. The district court sentenced Beaird to 72 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence, holding that prior circuit precedent foreclosed Beaird’s challenge to the court’s reliance on the Guidelines commentary. Question Does Stinson v. United States still correctly state the rule for deference that courts must give the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?
- 3 weeks ago1h 15m
[25-579] Department of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan
Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan Justia · Docket · oyez.org Petitioner: Department of the Air Force.Respondent: Prutehi Guahan. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The U.S. Air Force operates Andersen Air Force Base at the northern tip of Guam, adjacent to Tarague Beach—a coastal area that sits above Guam's sole-source drinking-water aquifer and serves as habitat for endangered sea turtles. Since 1982, the Air Force has disposed of hazardous waste munitions at Tarague Beach through open burning and open detonation (OB/OD) operations, a method that involves igniting or exploding ordnance in open air. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Air Force must obtain a permit every three years from the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Guam EPA), which has administered RCRA on the island since 1986. The Air Force has renewed that permit on a triennial cycle without interruption. When its most recent permit approached expiration in September 2021, the Air Force submitted a renewal application to Guam EPA in May 2021—without first preparing any environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The application described planned OB/OD operations for 2021 through 2024 and proposed restarting open burning, which had been inactive since at least the early 2000s. The Air Force conducted no environmental impact statement, no environmental assessment, and offered no public comment opportunity before committing to that plan. Guam EPA accepted the application, held a public comment period, and issued a preliminary notice neither approving nor denying the application while it reviewed public comments. Meanwhile, under RCRA's automatic-extension provision, the Air Force continued OB/OD operations under its 2018 permit while the renewal remained pending. Prutehi Litekyan filed suit in the District Court of Guam in January 2022, alleging that the Air Force violated NEPA by submitting its RCRA permit renewal application without conducting the required environmental review; the district court granted the Air Force's motion to dismiss on three grounds—lack of standing, absence of final agency action, and failure to state a claim—and Prutehi Litekyan timely appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed all three holdings. Question 1. When the federal government submits a permit application to continue disposing of hazardous waste, does that submission count as a final, reviewable government decision under federal law? 2. Before submitting that permit application, must the federal government first conduct the broad environmental review that federal law generally requires—even though the hazardous waste permitting process already includes its own, more limited environmental review?
- 3 weeks ago1h 1m
[25-498] Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee
Oral argument for Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, argued on October 06, 2026. Once a transcript is available on oyez.org, the recording and this description will be replaced by more detailed information.
- 3 weeks ago1h 6m
[25-735] Johnson v. United States Congress
Johnson v. United States Congress Justia · Docket · oyez.org Petitioner: Floyd D. Johnson.Respondent: United States Congress. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Floyd D. Johnson, a United States Army veteran, began receiving disability benefits for service-related post-traumatic stress disorder while serving a 40-year prison sentence in Florida. Although the Veterans Benefits Administration initially approved a high level of compensation, it later reduced Johnson’s monthly payments to a 10 percent rate. The agency cited a federal law, 38 U.S.C. § 5313, which limits disability compensation for veterans incarcerated for more than 60 days following a felony conviction. Johnson filed a lawsuit against the United States Congress in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of the benefits reduction law. He argued that the statute acted as an unconstitutional “bill of attainder”—a law that unfairly targets specific individuals for punishment—and violated the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Johnson requested a court order to stop the government from reducing benefits for incarcerated veterans and sought retroactive pay for the withheld funds. The district court dismissed Johnson’s complaint as frivolous after assuming it had jurisdiction to hear his constitutional claims. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated that judgment and ordered the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act strips district courts of the power to hear such challenges. Question Did the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act stripp district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this court in Johnson v. Robison, to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits?
- 3 weeks ago1h 46m
[25-170] Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County
Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County Justia · Docket · oyez.org Petitioner: Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.Respondent: County Commissioners of Boulder County. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Boulder County and the City of Boulder (collectively, "Boulder") sued Exxon Mobil Corporation and three Suncor Energy entities, alleging that the companies' decades-long production, promotion, refining, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels knowingly drove climate change and caused concrete harm to Boulder's property and residents. Boulder further alleges that the defendants compounded this harm by intentionally misleading the public about fossil fuels' role in accelerating climate change. The alleged injuries include flood damage, increased wildfire risk, drought, and physical damage to public buildings and infrastructure—costs Boulder claims it has absorbed and will continue to absorb. To recover those costs, Boulder asserts state common law claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Critically, Boulder seeks only monetary damages—not an injunction against fossil fuel operations or any form of emissions regulation. The defendants argue that these state-law claims are precluded because federal law—specifically the Clean Air Act, the federal common law of interstate pollution, and the federal foreign affairs power—occupies the field and bars state courts from adjudicating harms rooted in interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions. Boulder filed suit in state court; the defendants removed the case to federal court, but after extensive litigation that included appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and two certiorari petitions in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the remand order and the case returned to the Boulder County District Court, which denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on preemption grounds. The defendants then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado for extraordinary review under C.A.R. 21, which that court accepted and resolved in Boulder's favor on May 12, 2025. Question 1. Does the Court have statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case? 2. Does federal law preclude state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate?
- Apr 29, 20261h 46m
[25-1083] Mullin, Sec. of Homeland Security v. Doe
Mullin v. Doe Justia · Docket · oyez.org Petitioner: Markwayne Mullin, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.Respondent: Dahlia Doe. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Congress created the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program to allow foreign nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to live and work legally in the United States on a temporary basis. Federal law requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to periodically review conditions in each designated country and, after consulting with other government agencies, determine whether those conditions still justify protection. Syria has held TPS designation for years, shielding its nationals from deportation to a country ravaged by civil war and humanitarian crisis. Shortly after taking office in January 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, directing the Secretary to aggressively limit TPS designations. Secretary Kristi Noem then terminated TPS for Syria on September 19, 2025, with an effective date of November 21, 2025 — giving roughly 6,100 Syrian TPS holders weeks to lose their legal status, work authorization, and protection from deportation. Seven Syrian nationals with family ties in the United States sued, arguing that the termination violated federal immigration law, was arbitrary and capricious, and reflected discriminatory animus rather than a genuine, good-faith review of conditions in Syria. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion and postponed the termination effective November 19, 2025; the government appealed and moved to stay that order, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the stay on February 17, 2026, concluding that the government had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. Question Did the Trump administration lawfully end the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals?
- Apr 29, 20261h 0m
[24-889] Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. Justia · Docket · oyez.org Petitioner: Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.Respondent: Amarin Pharma, Inc. Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Amarin Pharma markets icosapent ethyl under the brand name Vascepa. In 2012, the FDA approved Vascepa for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia (the SH indication), which affects patients with blood triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg/dL. In 2019, following additional research and clinical trials, the FDA approved Vascepa for a second use: reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL (the CV indication). Amarin listed two patents covering the CV indication in the FDA’s Orange Book. In 2016, Hikma Pharmaceuticals submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval for a generic version of icosapent ethyl. When the CV indication was approved in 2019, Hikma filed a “section viii statement” seeking FDA approval only for the SH indication by “carving out” the patented CV indication from its label—creating a “skinny label.” The FDA approved Hikma’s ANDA in May 2020. Throughout 2020, Hikma issued press releases referring to its product as the “generic version” or “generic equivalent” of Vascepa, describing Vascepa as indicated “in part” for the SH indication, and citing Vascepa sales figures (over $1 billion annually) that were attributable primarily to the CV indication. Hikma also marketed its product on its website under the therapeutic category “Hypertriglyceridemia” and as “AB” rated, though with a disclaimer that it was approved for fewer indications than Vascepa. In November 2020, Amarin sued Hikma for induced infringement of its CV indication patents. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Hikma’s motion to dismiss. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Amarin’s allegations—based on Hikma’s skinny label combined with its press releases and marketing materials—plausibly stated a claim for induced infringement. Question 1. When a generic drug manufacturer excludes a patented use from its label, can it still be liable for inducing infringement if it calls its product a “generic version” of the brand-name drug and cites publicly available information about the brand-name drug’s sales? 2. Can a patent infringement complaint survive dismissal if it does not allege that the defendant made any statement specifically instructing or encouraging the patented use?
Get Supreme Court Oral Arguments summaries in your inbox
Free AI-powered daily recaps. Key takeaways, quotes, and mentions — in a 5-minute read.
Get Free Summaries →Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
You Might Also Like
Listeners also like.
The High Court Report
Clear, jargon-free analysis of Supreme Court decisions and oral arguments, explained by an experienced attorney.
Audio Arguendo
Raw recordings of Supreme Court oral arguments and notable global cases, presented for public access.
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Oyez
Supreme Court Brief
A weekly breakdown of U.S. Supreme Court cases and their impact on law, business, and policy, featuring expert analysis and interviews.
Strict Scrutiny
Constitutional law professors analyze Supreme Court rulings, legal culture, and their impact on daily life.
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
A weekly exploration of the U.S. Supreme Court, its justices, and the legal issues shaping American law and society.
5-4
A progressive critique of the U.S. Supreme Court and the political forces behind its landmark decisions.
Advisory Opinions
Legal analysis and court discussions with insights into how law intersects with politics.
Stanford Legal
Experts from Stanford Law explore constitutional law, voting rights, and landmark Supreme Court cases shaping democracy and civil rights.
Let The Record Show
Explores the history and impact of major U.S. court cases that shape modern life.
The Just Security Podcast
Expert analysis of national security, foreign policy, and rights from practitioners, academics, and affected individuals.
UNBIASED Politics
A former attorney provides impartial summaries of U.S. political news, elections, and legal developments with clear explanations of constitutional issues.
About Supreme Court Oral Arguments
A podcast feed of the audio recordings of the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. * Podcast adds new arguments automatically and immediately after they become available on supremecourt.gov * Detailed episode descriptions with facts about the case from oyez.org and links to docket and other information. * Convenient chapters to skip to any exchange between a justice and an advocate (available when an aligned transcript is ready). Also available in video form at https://www.youtube.com/@SCOTUSOralArgument
Customized Recaps
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Straight to Your Inbox
Get key takeaways from Supreme Court Oral Arguments in a 5-minute read.
Save Hours Every Week
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Podzilla's Supreme Court Oral Arguments daily summary?
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of Supreme Court Oral Arguments as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
How does the Supreme Court Oral Arguments podcast summary work?
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
Is this an official Supreme Court Oral Arguments product?
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by scotusstats.com.
Can I get summaries of other podcasts too?
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts, any in the catalog. Basic raises that to 15, Pro to 40 and Max to 100. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
How often does Supreme Court Oral Arguments release new episodes?
Supreme Court Oral Arguments publishes daily. Our AI generates a summary within hours of each new episode.
What topics does Supreme Court Oral Arguments cover?
Supreme Court Oral Arguments covers topics including News, Government, Politics. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Start getting Supreme Court Oral Arguments summaries tomorrow morning.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.