Snyder v. United States (Corruption)

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

#Government #RJ Dieken #Supreme Court #Legal #Supreme Court Opinion #Slip Opinion #Scotuscast #Court #Law #News #Politics #Podcasting Education #SCOTUS #Supreme Court Decision

28:39

For centuries, members of the B’doul Bedouin tribe lived in the caves around the ancient city of Petra, Jordan. Then, in the 1980s, the government forced the tribe to move in the name of preserving the geological site for tourists. But if the residents are forced to leave, and if their heritage has been permanently changed, then what exactly is being preserved? SHOW NOTES: Meet The Man Living in The Lost City Carved in Stone Jordan: Petra's tourism authority cracks down on Bedouin cave dwellers The tribes paying the brutal price of conservation “There is no future for Umm Sayhoun” Jordan’s Young Bedouins Are Documenting Their Traditions on TikTok Check out Sami's company Jordan Inspiration Tours Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices…

about a year ago 10:59

MP3•एपिसोड होम

Send us a text

Snyder v. United States
Snyder served as the Mayor in a town in Indiana. After the town awarded a $1.2 million contract to a trucking company, he received a $13,000 payment from that company, he said this was for consulting services. He was prosecuted by the federal government and convicted for taking an illegal gratuity. He said that Section 666, which is what the charges were brought under, only prohibited bribes, not gratuities after the fact. The district court rejected this argument. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court reversed, stating that for six reasons, the statute does not apply gratuities -- only bribes. Reversed and remanded. Kavanagh writing for the 6-3 majority, with Gorsuch concurring. Jackson writing for the dissent, joined by Kagan and Sotomayor.

475 एपिसोडस

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Snyder v. United States (Corruption)

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

92 subscribers

published about a year ago

साझा करें

MP3•एपिसोड होम

Send us a text

475 एपिसोडस

#Government #RJ Dieken #Supreme Court #Legal #Supreme Court Opinion #Slip Opinion #Scotuscast #Court #Law #News #Politics #Podcasting Education #SCOTUS #Supreme Court Decision

सभी एपिसोड

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Trump v. J. G. G. (Immigration / Habeas) 8:27

4 days ago8:27

8:27

Send us a text In Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. J.G.G., et al. , the Supreme Court granted the government’s application to vacate temporary restraining orders issued by the District Court for the District of Columbia, which had blocked the removal of several Venezuelan detainees allegedly affiliated with the foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). The detainees challenged President Trump’s Proclamation No. 10903, issued under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which authorized their detention and removal. The Court construed the TROs as appealable injunctions and held that the detainees’ claims must be brought in habeas corpus. Because the claims necessarily challenged the legality of confinement and removal under the AEA, they fell within the “core” of habeas jurisdiction. As such, jurisdiction and venue lay solely in the district of confinement—Texas—not in the District of Columbia. The Court emphasized that equitable relief cannot be sought outside habeas in this context, relying on precedents such as Ludecke v. Watkins and Heikkila v. Barber . Although the detainees are entitled to judicial review regarding their classification and removal under the AEA—including notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief—the proper venue to litigate those claims is the district of confinement. The Court clarified that such notice must be given promptly to allow detainees to exercise those rights before removal occurs. Read by RJ Dieken.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Department of Education v. California (TRO) 5:41

4 days ago5:41

5:41

Send us a text In Department of Education, et al. v. California , the Supreme Court in a per curiam decision granted the federal government’s application to stay a district court order that had mandated continued payment of certain education-related grants. The District Court for the District of Massachusetts had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 10, 2025, barring the termination of grant payments and requiring the government to pay both past-due and ongoing obligations. The lower court found that the states challenging the terminations were likely to succeed on their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court, however, treated the TRO as a de facto preliminary injunction and concluded that the district court likely lacked jurisdiction to order monetary payments under the APA. Citing precedents such as Sampson v. Murray and Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson , the Court emphasized that the APA does not waive sovereign immunity for claims that essentially seek money damages or enforce a contractual obligation to pay money—relief instead governed by the Tucker Act and reserved to the Court of Federal Claims. The Court also held that the government demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal and that the balance of equities favored a stay. Respondents had not shown they would suffer irreparable harm, particularly because they had the resources to continue their programs and could seek recovery in another forum if successful. The Court concluded that any harm resulting from program shutdowns would be self-imposed. Read by RJ Dieken.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn (Civil RICO) 11:24

9 days ago11:24

11:24

Send us a text In Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn , the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit and held that a plaintiff may seek treble damages under the civil RICO statute for injuries to business or property, even if those injuries stem from a personal injury. Douglas Horn was fired after testing positive for THC, allegedly caused by using a CBD product marketed as THC-free. He sued the manufacturer under RICO, claiming his job loss constituted a business injury. The district court dismissed the case, applying the so-called “antecedent personal injury bar,” which precludes recovery under RICO for business losses resulting from personal injury. The Second Circuit reversed. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett rejected the categorical bar. The Court held that while civil RICO does not authorize damages for personal injuries themselves, it does not exclude claims for business or property losses merely because they originate from a personal injury. Drawing on the statute’s text, the Court emphasized the ordinary meaning of “injured in his business or property” and declined to import tort-based limitations or narrow definitions unsupported by the statutory language. The Court also declined to adopt a rigid rule for distinguishing personal from business injuries, finding such distinctions difficult to apply and inconsistent with prior precedent. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas dissented. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Read by RJ Dieken.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (Administrative Law) 14:35

9 days ago14:35

14:35

Send us a text In FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments , the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Fifth Circuit decision that found the Food and Drug Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied authorization for flavored e-cigarette products. Under the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, manufacturers must receive FDA approval before marketing “new tobacco products,” including most modern e-cigarettes. The Act permits approval only if the product is “appropriate for the protection of the public health,” requiring the FDA to weigh population-wide risks and benefits, including youth usage. Respondents, manufacturers of flavored e-liquids, submitted premarket applications but failed to provide robust scientific evidence—such as randomized controlled trials or longitudinal studies—showing their products posed fewer risks than tobacco-flavored alternatives. The FDA denied their applications. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held the FDA improperly departed from its own guidance and failed to consider the applicants’ marketing plans, which had been labeled “critical.” Justice Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected the Fifth Circuit’s findings. The Court held that the FDA’s denials were consistent with its guidance and did not violate the change-in-position doctrine. The FDA had made clear that strong scientific evidence would be necessary and that fruit- and dessert-flavored products were likely to appeal to youth. The Court also found that the Fifth Circuit misread Calcutt v. FDIC in concluding that the FDA’s failure to review the marketing plans required automatic remand. Instead, the harmless-error rule applies in administrative cases, and remand is not always necessary. The case was remanded for further consideration under the correct standard. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
United States v. Miller (Bankruptcy) 10:11

10 days ago10:11

10:11

Send us a text In United States v. Miller , the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and held that a bankruptcy trustee cannot use §544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code to claw back funds from the federal government under a state fraudulent-transfer law, due to sovereign immunity. The case arose after shareholders of a failed Utah business used $145,000 of company money to pay personal federal tax debts. The bankruptcy trustee sought to “avoid” that transfer under Utah law, invoking §544(b), which permits a trustee to assert the rights of an “actual creditor” to void certain transfers. The government argued the claim was barred because sovereign immunity prevents such a state-law suit against the United States. The lower courts sided with the trustee, reasoning that §106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code waived sovereign immunity for actions brought under §544. But the Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Jackson held that §106(a)’s waiver applies only to the federal claim under §544—not to the state-law cause of action it incorporates. The Court emphasized that waivers of sovereign immunity must be unambiguous and strictly construed. Since Utah law could not otherwise be used to sue the federal government outside bankruptcy, the trustee’s claim failed. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Bondi v. Vanderstok (ATF Ghost Guns) 7:00

13 days ago7:00

7:00

Send us a text In Bondi v. Vanderstok , the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and upheld the ATF’s 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) to cover certain “ghost gun” kits and unfinished firearm parts. The GCA requires licenses and background checks for firearm sales and defines “firearm” to include both weapons and their frames or receivers. In recent years, companies have sold weapon parts kits enabling individuals to easily assemble functional guns at home, leading to a surge in untraceable “ghost guns.” Challengers brought a facial Administrative Procedure Act challenge, arguing the GCA does not authorize the ATF to regulate incomplete kits or parts. The Fifth Circuit agreed, holding the statute covers only fully functional weapons and finished frames or receivers. The Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch held that the statute’s text, structure, and context support the ATF’s rule. Kits like Polymer80’s, which can be assembled into operable weapons in 20 minutes with household tools, qualify as “weapons” under §921(a)(3)(A). Likewise, partially complete frames and receivers fall within the meaning of §921(a)(3)(B), as Congress contemplated regulation of unfinished items in other provisions. The facial challenge fails because at least some kits and components clearly fall within the statute’s reach. The Court also rejected arguments based on the rule of lenity and constitutional avoidance. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Jackson each filed concurring opinions. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Delligatti v. United States ("Crime of Violence") 7:25

22 days ago7:25

7:25

Send us a text In Delligatti v. United States , the Supreme Court held that New York attempted second-degree murder qualifies as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. §924(c) because the knowing or intentional causation of death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the use of physical force under §924(c)(3)(A). Salvatore Delligatti was convicted under §924(c) after recruiting gang members to kill a suspected police informant and providing a loaded revolver for the crime. Before trial, he moved to dismiss the §924(c) charge, arguing that the predicate offense—attempted murder under the violent-crimes-in-aid-of-racketeering (VICAR) statute (§1959(a)(5))—was not a crime of violence. His argument relied on New York law, which allows second-degree murder to be committed by omission, such as failing to perform a legal duty, meaning it does not categorically require the use of physical force. The Second Circuit rejected his argument, concluding that attempted second-degree murder under New York law necessarily involves force. In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court affirmed. Applying the reasoning from United States v. Castleman, the Court held that the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury inherently involves the use of physical force, even when the offense is committed by omission. The Court reasoned that force does not require direct physical contact and can include indirect means such as poisoning or starvation. The majority further concluded that the term "crime of violence" must be understood in a manner consistent with how intentional homicide has historically been treated under criminal law, including liability for omissions. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented, arguing that §924(c) requires an affirmative use of force, not mere inaction, and that Congress did not clearly intend to include crimes of omission within its definition of a violent crime. The Court’s ruling upholds Delligatti’s conviction and clarifies the scope of federal firearm enhancements for violent crimes. Read by Jeff Barnum.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Thompson v. United States (Criminal / False Statement) 5:52

23 days ago5:52

5:52

Send us a text In Thompson v. United States the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. §1014, which prohibits “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement” to influence the FDIC’s actions on a loan, does not extend to statements that are merely misleading but not technically false. Patrick Thompson, a former Chicago Alderman, was charged under §1014 after disputing his loan balance in conversations with FDIC contractors, stating he had only borrowed $110,000 when in fact he had borrowed $219,000 in total. A jury convicted him, and the lower courts upheld the conviction on the basis that his statements, though potentially technically true, were misleading. They concluded §1014 criminalizes misleading statements. The Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing that the statute's text criminalizes only “false” statements—not misleading ones. The Court distinguished between the two, noting that misleading statements can be true, and true statements are not false. Because Congress included only the word “false,” and not “misleading,” the Court concluded the statute’s reach does not extend beyond literal falsehoods. Contextual analysis reinforced this conclusion. Other statutes in Title 18 use both terms explicitly. The historical and legislative context showed that Congress knew how to include “misleading” when it intended to do so, and declined to do so in §1014. Precedents like United States v. Wells and Williams v. United States also supported a narrow interpretation of §1014, requiring statements that are actually and factually false. The Court remanded the case for the Seventh Circuit to decide whether a reasonable jury could find that Thompson’s statements were, in fact, false—not merely misleading. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justices Alito and Jackson filed concurring opinions.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
San Francisco v. EPA (Admin Law / Clean Water Act) 9:57

5 weeks ago9:57

9:57

Send us a text In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency , the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The case arose when the EPA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to San Francisco's wastewater treatment facilities, including provisions that prohibited discharges contributing to violations of water quality standards and creating pollution or nuisance as defined by California law. San Francisco challenged these "end-result" requirements, arguing they exceeded the EPA's statutory authority. The Ninth Circuit upheld the EPA's permit conditions, interpreting Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the CWA to authorize any limitations necessary to meet water quality standards, not limited to specific effluent limitations. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) does not authorize the EPA to include "end-result" provisions in NPDES permits. The Court emphasized that it is the EPA's responsibility to determine specific steps a permittee must take to ensure compliance with water quality standards, rather than imposing broad, outcome-based requirements. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh joined. Justice Neil Gorsuch joined as to all but Part II. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined as to Part II. Justice Barrett filed an opinion dissenting in part, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Read by RJ Dieken.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Dewberry Group Inc v. Dewberry Engineers Inc (Trademark) 6:26

5 weeks ago6:26

6:26

Send us a text In Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. , the Supreme Court addressed the scope of monetary remedies under the Lanham Act. The case arose from a trademark dispute between two entities using the "Dewberry" name. The district court awarded the plaintiff not only the defendant's profits but also those of affiliated companies. The Fourth Circuit upheld this award, reasoning that a broad interpretation of "defendant’s profits" was permissible under the statute. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed, holding that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement case under the Lanham Act may recover only the profits of the infringing defendant itself—not those of its affiliates or related entities. The Court emphasized principles of corporate separateness and statutory interpretation, rejecting the expansive reading of "defendant’s profits" adopted by the lower court. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Read by RJ Dieken.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Arbitration / Civil Procedure) 5:41

6 weeks ago5:41

5:41

Send us a text In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. , the Supreme Court held that a case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) qualifies as a "final proceeding" under Rule 60(b), allowing a district court to reopen the case. Gary Waetzig sued Halliburton for age discrimination but later dismissed his case without prejudice and pursued arbitration. After losing in arbitration, he sought to reopen his federal case and vacate the arbitration award under Rule 60(b). The district court granted his motion, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito explained that the text, context, and history of Rule 60(b) support treating a voluntary dismissal as final for purposes of post-judgment relief. The ruling clarifies that Rule 60(b) relief is discretionary and distinct from appellate finality, ensuring courts retain flexibility to revisit cases when necessary. The Court reverses and remands for further proceedings. Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Read by RJ Dieken.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Glossip v. Oklahoma (Criminal Trial) 11:41

6 weeks ago11:41

11:41

Send us a text In Glossip v. Oklahoma , the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial when the prosecution knowingly fails to correct false testimony and that error could have contributed to the verdict. Richard Glossip was convicted and sentenced to death based primarily on the testimony of Justin Sneed, who claimed Glossip orchestrated the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. Years later, newly discovered evidence revealed that the prosecution withheld key documents, allowed Sneed to give false testimony about his mental health history, and engaged in other misconduct. Oklahoma’s attorney general ultimately conceded that Glossip’s conviction was tainted and supported granting him a new trial, but the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the argument and upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution’s failure to correct Sneed’s false testimony violated Napue v. Illinois , which prohibits the government from allowing false evidence to go unchallenged. Given that Sneed’s credibility was central to Glossip’s conviction, the Court found a reasonable likelihood that the error influenced the jury and reversed the lower court’s decision, granting Glossip a new trial. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, with Justice Barrett joining in part. Justice Barrett also filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Alito, with Justice Barrett joining certain sections. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision. Read by Jeff Barnum.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Lackey v. Stinnie (Section 1983 Fees) 7:45

6 weeks ago7:45

7:45

Send us a text In Lackey v. Stinnie , the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who secure only preliminary injunctive relief before their case becomes moot do not qualify as "prevailing parties" entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b). Virginia drivers challenged the constitutionality of a law suspending licenses for unpaid court fines. After a district court granted a preliminary injunction, the Virginia General Assembly repealed the law, and restored licenses -- making the case moot. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explains that preliminary injunctions do not constitute enduring, merits-based relief because they are temporary and do not resolve the case. The ruling reinforces prior precedents, including Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. West Virginia DHHR and Sole v. Wyner , requiring a judicially sanctioned, enduring change in the legal relationship between parties to qualify for attorney’s fees. The Court also notes that this decision does not apply to consent decrees, since that does provide lasting relief that's sanctioned by a court. The Court reverses the Fourth Circuit's en banc decision, emphasizing a bright-line rule to ensure clarity in fee disputes. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Sotomayor.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Williams v. Reed (Civil Rights) 5:03

6 weeks ago5:03

5:03

Send us a text In Williams v. Reed , the Supreme Court rejects Alabama’s administrative-exhaustion rule, holding that states cannot require claimants to complete an allegedly delayed administrative process before filing a 42 U.S.C. §1983 lawsuit challenging that very delay. Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh explains that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision effectively immunized state officials from §1983 claims, contradicting prior precedents such as Felder v. Casey and Haywood v. Drown . The ruling clarifies that a state law cannot shield officials from federal civil rights litigation by erecting procedural roadblocks. The Court reverses and remands, rejecting arguments that alternative remedies like mandamus petitions justify Alabama’s exhaustion requirement. Justice Thomas dissents, joined in part by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, arguing that the Court improperly disregards Alabama’s jurisdictional framework. Read by RJ Dieken.…

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

1
Wisconsin Bell v. US ex rel Heath (False Claims Act) 7:02

6 weeks ago7:02