Oral Argument: Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Forum Fight
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Case No. 24-724 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group versus Palmquist, a forum fight about when courts keep cases they never should have had. A Texas family sued two companies over their child's heavy metal poisoning from baby food—but after a federal court wrongly kicked out one defendant and ran a two-week trial, an appeals court said the case never belonged in federal court, forcing everyone back to square one. Questions Presented:Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal. Whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a nondiverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Hain and Whole Foods): Sarah E. Harrington, Washington, D.C. For Respondent (Palmquist): Russell S. Post, Houston, TexasLink to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:42] Argument Begins[00:00:50] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:03:08] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:26:21] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:26:24] Respondent Opening Statement[00:28:31] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:40:05] Petitioner Rebuttal
--------
42:24
--------
42:24
Oral Argument: Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Time Trap Tangle
Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | Case No. 24-808 | Oral Argument Date: 11/5/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, 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.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. 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
--------
36:40
--------
36:40
Oral Argument: Hencely v. Fluor | Battlefield Immunity Battle
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist | Case No. 24-724 | Oral Argument Date: 11/4/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewA father seeks justice after his son, Army Staff Sergeant Ryan Hencely, was killed in a 2016 terrorist attack at Bagram Airfield. The Army's own investigation found contractor Fluor failed to supervise the Afghan worker who carried out the attack, calling it the "primary contributing factor." Yet Fluor claims federal law shields them from any state tort liability. Question Presented: Should Boyle be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the FTCA's combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?Oral Advocates:For Petitioner (Hencely): Frank H. Chang, Arlington, Virginia argues for Petitioner Hencely. For Respondent (Fluor): Mark W. Mosier, Washington, D.C.For United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:48] Argument Begins[00:00:55] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:32] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:26:18] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:33:50] Respondent Opening Statement[00:36:12] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:54:59] Respondent Sequential Questions[01:07:11] United States Opening Statement[01:08:25] United States Free for All Questions[01:18:13] United States Sequential Questions[01:28:31] Petitioner Rebuttal
--------
1:30:47
--------
1:30:47
Oral Argument: Rico v. United States | Disappearing Defendant Dilemma
Rico v. United States | Case No. 24-1234 | Oral Argument Date: 11/3/25 | Docket Link: HereOverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Rico versus United States, the disappearing defendant dilemma examining when sentence clocks stop ticking. Isabel Rico went on the run during her 42-month release term. The government says her time on the run doesn't count toward her sentence. Question Presented: Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.Oral Advocates:For Petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D.C. For Respondent: Joshua K. Handell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Link to Opinion: TBD.Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Argument Overview[00:00:37] Argument Begins[00:00:45] Petitioner Opening Statement[00:02:30] Petitioner Free for All Questions[00:24:20] Petitioner Sequential Questions[00:24:35] Respondent Opening Statement[00:26:25] Respondent Free for All Questions[00:52:15] Respondent Sequential Questions[00:52:20] Petitioner Rebuttal
--------
55:11
--------
55:11
Case Preview: Geo Group v. Menocal | The Procedural Privilege: The Immunity Fast-Pass to Appeal
Geo Group v. Menocal Case No. 24-758 | Oral Argument Date: 11/10/25OverviewThis episode examines The GEO Group, Inc. versus Menocal, a technical procedural fight with massive real-world consequences for the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.S. government spends on contracts annually. The case pits the efficiency of the justice system against the government's ability to use private contractors to carry out its functions. At stake is whether a government contractor who loses a pre-trial claim of "derivative sovereign immunity" can appeal that decision immediately, or must wait until after a full, costly trial before an appeals court can weigh in.Episode RoadmapOpening: A Procedural Privilege: A Fast-Pass to Appeal?Upcoming Oral Arguments: Week of November 3, 2025Monday, Nov. 3: Rico versus United StatesHencely versus Fluor Corp.Tuesday, Nov. 4:Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. versus BurtonHain Celestial Group versus PalmquistWednesday, Nov. 5:The Trump Tariff Cases (Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., et al. and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump)• Note: The argument for Hamm versus Smith has been moved to December 10th.Key Concepts Explained:Sovereign Immunity: The "king can do no wrong" principle; governments generally cannot be sued without their consent.Derivative Sovereign Immunity: The core defense from Yearsley, claiming a contractor shares the government's immunity when it "performed as the Government directed."Collateral-Order Doctrine: The Cohen exception; allows immediate appeal for a true "immunity from suit," not just a "defense to liability."Background:The GEO Group, a private contractor operating an ICE facility, was sued by detainees.The claims allege forced labor (violating the TVPA) and unjust enrichment ($1/day pay).GEO claimed Yearsley immunity, arguing ICE directed the policies.Lower Court Journey:The district court denied GEO's immunity claim, finding GEO had discretion.The Tenth Circuit dismissed GEO's immediate appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The court found an "overlap" between the immunity claim (facts of direction) and the case merits (facts of lawfulness), so it was not a "collateral order."This created a deep circuit split.Petitioner's (GEO) Arguments:Yearsley provides a true "immunity from suit," not just a defense.Precedent compels appealability: Filarsky (giving immunity to an individual contractor) + Mitchell (making that immunity appealable) = GEO wins.The Tenth Circuit's "overlap" reasoning was rejected in Mitchell.Policy: Denying appeals hamstrings government functions; contractors will "raise their price."Respondent's (Menocal) & U.S. Government's Arguments:"Derivative sovereign immunity" doesn't exist; sovereign immunity is "non-delegable."Yearsley only grants a "defense to liability" (no liability), not an "immunity from suit" (no suit).A true immunity protects unlawful conduct (if law isn't clear), but Yearsley only protects lawful conduct (following directions).The order fails Cohen's third prong: It can be effectively reviewed after a final judgment.GEO's Reply:Respondents are attacking a "Grand Straw Man"; GEO claims conditional immunity, not the government's total immunity.The Court cannot ignore Filarsky: An individual contractor received this protection, and a corporation is no different.Stakes & Oral Argument Preview:How will the Justices treat the Filarsky and Mitchell precedents?The "battle of the bright lines": Does GEO's...
The High Court Report makes Supreme Court decisions accessible to everyone.
We deliver comprehensive SCOTUS coverage without the legal jargon or partisan spin—just clear analysis that explains how these cases affect your life, business, and community.
What you get: Case previews and breakdowns, raw oral argument audio, curated key exchanges, detailed opinion analysis, and expert commentary from a practicing attorney who's spent 12 years in courtrooms arguing the same types of cases the Supreme Court hears.
Why it works: Whether you need a focused 10-minute update or a deep constitutional dive, episodes are designed for busy professionals, engaged citizens, and anyone who wants to understand how the Court shapes America.
When we publish: 3-5 episodes weekly during the Court's October-June term, with summer coverage of emergency orders and retrospective analysis.
Growing archive: Oral arguments back to 2020 and expanding, so you can hear how landmark cases unfolded and track the Court's evolution.
Your direct line to understanding the Supreme Court—accessible, thorough, and grounded in real legal expertise.**
España