The High Court Report

Oral Argument Re-Listen: Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25
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.
Link to Docket: Here
Case Preview: Here
Question Presented: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Oral Advocates:
For Petitioner: Amy M. Saharia, Washington, D.C. argued for petitioner.
For Respondent in Support of Vacatur: Ashley Robertson, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice argued for respondent in support of vacatur.
For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: John F. Bash, Austin, Texas.

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.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Timestamps:
[00:00:00] Argument Preview
[00:00:58] Argument Begins
[00:01:06] Petitioner Opening Statement
[00:03:14] Petitioner Free for All Questions
[00:14:04] Petitioner Sequential Questions
[00:18:36] Respondent in Support of Vacatur Opening Statement
[00:19:45] Respondent in Support of Vacatur Free for All Questions
[00:33:22] Respondent in Support of Vacatur Sequential Questions
[00:34:41] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below Opening Statement
[00:37:03] For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae...

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:
For Petitioner: Fred A. Rowley, Jr., Los Angeles
For Respondent: Christian B. Corrigan, Solicitor General, Montana
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:
For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D.C.
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
Overview
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:
For Petitioner (Coney): Daniel Ginzburg, Freehold, N.J.
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:
For Petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, Va.;
United States, as Amicus Curiae: Michael Talent, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
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.