『Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)』のカバーアート

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

著者： DS
無料で聴く

概要

 Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.

*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.Copyright DS
エピソード
  • KLEIN v. MARTIN (AEDPA STANDARDS AGAIN)

    KLEIN v. MARTIN (AEDPA STANDARDS AGAIN)
    2026/01/28
    Send us a textThe Court Below granted relief when it should have not.Judge Niemeyer of the 4th Circuit was the lone dissent--contending that the majority had defied AEDPA’s standard of review--the 84 year old Jurist with 36 years service on that court was correct.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    26 分
  • Ellingberg v. United States (Restitution & Ex Post Facto Clause)

    Ellingberg v. United States (Restitution & Ex Post Facto Clause)
    2026/01/21
    Send us a text The Court unanimously held that restitution imposed under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is a form of criminal punishment, meaning it cannot be applied to conduct that occurred before the statute was enacted without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. Although Ellingburg’s offense predated the MVRA, he was sentenced under it and ordered to pay restitution. The Eighth Circuit had treated MVRA restitution as a civil, nonpunitive measure, but the Supreme Court rejected that view. Looking to the statute’s text, structure, and placement within the criminal code, the Court emphasized that restitution is imposed only on convicted defendants, at sentencing, alongside imprisonment and fines, and through procedures governing criminal penalties. Prior precedents likewise treated MVRA restitution as punitive. While restitution also serves compensatory aims, victims cannot control or negotiate it as they could in a civil action, underscoring its criminal nature. The Court therefore reversed and remanded.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    4 分
  • Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC

    Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC
    2026/01/21
    Send us a textState Courts may not grant releif from FEDERAL causes of action by reference to state statute.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    3 分
まだレビューはありません