Oral Argument: Chiles v. Salazar | Case No. 24-539 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question Presented: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner: James A. Campbell, Lansdowne, Va.
• For United States as Amicus Curiae: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Respondent: Shannon W. Stevenson, Colorado Solicitor General

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

Oral Argument: Barrett v. United States | Case No. 24-5774 | Oral Argument Date: 10/7/25

Link to Docket: Here

Case Preview: Here

Question Presented:

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and§ 924(j), a question that divides seven circuits but about which the Solicitor General and Petitioner agree.
2. Whether "Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under §924(c) (3)(A), a question left open after" United States v. Taylor , 596 U.S. 845 (2022). United States v. Stoney , 62 F.4th 108, 113 (3d Cir. 2023).

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner: Matthew B. Larsen, Assistant Federal Defender, New York, N. Y.
• For Respondent in Support of Petitioner: Aimee Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
• For Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of Judgment Below: Charles L. McCloud, Washington, D.C.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

Oral Argument: 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.

Link to Opinion: TBD.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD.

Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD.

Timestamps:

Oral Argument: Villarreal v. Texas | Case No. 24-557 | Oral Argument Date: 10/6/25

Link to Docket: Here

Preview Episode: Here

Question Presented: Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.

Oral Advocates:

• For Petitioner: Stuart Banner, Los Angeles, Cal.
• For Respondent: Andrew N. Warthen, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, San Antonio, Tex.; and Kevin J. Barber, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Other Referenced Episodes:

• August 19th – Road Work Ahead: How Four 2024 Cases May Be Reshaping First Amendment Scrutiny | Here

This episode examines Louisiana v. Callais, a potentially transformative voting rights case that could reshape Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and minority representation nationwide. After ordering reargument and supplemental briefing, the Supreme Court confronts whether race-conscious redistricting to create majority-minority districts violates the very constitutional amendments the VRA was designed to enforce, creating a fundamental paradox at the intersection of civil rights law and equal protection doctrine.

Opening: A Constitutional Paradox

• Supreme Court's unusual reargument order and supplemental question

• From routine redistricting challenge to existential VRA question

• Constitutional paradox: using civil rights laws to potentially strike down civil rights protections

Constitutional Framework: The Reconstruction Amendments

• Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement clauses

• Congressional power versus Equal Protection constraints

• Strict scrutiny as constitutional roadblock for race-conscious government action

Background: From Robinson to Callais

• 2022 Robinson v. Ardoin litigation establishing Section 2 violation

• Complex procedural ping-pong through federal courts

• Louisiana's creation of SB8-6 with second majority-Black district

• March 2025 oral argument leading to reargument order

Section 2 Framework: The Gingles Test

• Effects test versus intent requirement

• Three-part analysis for Section 2 violations

• Majority-minority districts as remedial tool

Legal Arguments: Competing Constitutional Visions

Appellants' Defense (Louisiana & Robinson Intervenors):

• Congressional authority under Reconstruction Amendments

• Section 2 compliance as compelling governmental interest

• Narrow tailoring through built-in Gingles limitations

Appellees' Challenge (Callais):

• Section 2 fails congruence and proportionality review

• Students for Fair Admissions requires specific discrimination evidence

• "Good reasons" test provides insufficient constitutional protection

Oral Argument Preview: Key Questions for Reargument

• Temporal scope of congressional enforcement power

• SFFA's impact on voting rights doctrine

• Practical consequences for existing majority-minority districts

• Federalism tensions in electoral oversight

Constitutional Tension: The same Reconstruction Amendments used to justify the VRA in 1965 now being invoked to potentially strike it down in 2025

Procedural Drama: Court's unusual reargument order signals fundamental doctrinal questions about VRA's constitutional foundations

Practical Stakes: Could eliminate dozens of majority-minority congressional districts and significantly reduce minority representation

Historical Evolution: From 1982 Section 2 effects test designed to combat discrimination to 2025 argument that it perpetuates discrimination

SFFA Integration: How 2023 affirmative action ruling's anti-classification principle

Case v. Montana | Case No. 24-624 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: 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.

Other Referenced Episodes:

• August 5th Roundup: Presidential Power Crushes Agency Independence, Court Places Voting Rights Act in Crosshairs and Maryland v. Shatzer, a Case That Evolved Beyond Its Origins | Here

This episode examines Case v. Montana, a Fourth Amendment case that has drawn unprecedented attention with 35 states weighing in, challenging the established emergency-aid exception by asking the Supreme Court to require probable cause rather than the current "objectively reasonable belief" standard for warrantless home entries during emergencies. The case could fundamentally reshape how police respond to suicide calls, medical emergencies, and welfare checks nationwide.

• October 15th, 2025 oral argument date
• 35 states weighing in, with 34 opposing the petitioner's position
• Potential nationwide impact on emergency response procedures
• Novel aspect: Petitioner seeking to restrict, not expand, police authority

• "The right of the people to be secure... against unreasonable searches and seizures"
• Two-clause structure: Reasonableness Clause vs. Warrant Clause
• No textual emergency-aid exception - entirely judge-made doctrine
• Court's recent skepticism toward expansive judge-made constitutional doctrines

• September 2021: William Trevor Case's suicide threat to ex-girlfriend J.H.
• Escalating call: drinking, gun cocking sounds, "pop" followed by dead air
• J.H.'s 9-1-1 call reporting believed suicide attempt
• Officers' prior knowledge of Case's history with suicide attempts and violence

• 18-minute preparation period with protective equipment
• Window observations: keys on table, empty beer cans, empty gun holster, apparent suicide note
• Entry through unlocked door during protective sweep
• Case emerges from closet pointing handgun at Sergeant Pasha
• Officer shoots Case in abdomen; medical aid rendered

• Trial court denies suppression motion, finds "exigent circumstance"
• Case convicted of assaulting peace officer, sentenced to 60 years
• Montana Supreme Court affirms 4-3 with vigorous dissent
• Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve deep circuit split

"Reasonable Belief" Courts:

• First, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits plus Montana and three other states
• Standard: "Objective, specific and articulable facts from which an experienced officer would suspect citizen needs help"

"Probable Cause" Courts:

• D.C., Second, and Eleventh Circuits plus Nebraska and Colorado
• Standard: "Probable cause to believe person is seriously injured or threatened with such injury"

Bowe v. United States | Case No. 24-5438 | Oral Argument Date: 10/14/25 | Docket Link: Here

Questions Presented:

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

This episode examines Bowe v. United States, where the government concedes error but argues the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to correct it. The case explores whether the "do-over bar" in AEDPA applies to federal prisoners and whether an acknowledged legal error will go unremedied due to jurisdictional barriers.

• Government's unusual position: conceding error but claiming the Court can't fix it
• Michael Bowe's years-long struggle to challenge his conviction
• Constitutional context: Ex Post Facto Clause and retroactive application of Davis and Taylor

Question One: Does the do-over bar (§ 2244(b)(1)) apply to federal prisoners even though it references only state prisoner applications under § 2254?

Question Two: Does § 2244(b)(3)(E) bar Supreme Court certiorari review of authorization decisions for federal prisoners?

• 2008: Pled guilty including Section 924(c) conviction (using firearm during crime of violence)
• 2019: Davis strikes down residual clause; Bowe seeks authorization but Eleventh Circuit denies based on circuit precedent
• 2022: Taylor abrogates that precedent; Bowe seeks authorization again
• 2022: Eleventh Circuit dismisses under do-over bar in In re Baptiste
• 2024: Third authorization request denied; all alternatives rejected
• 2025: Supreme Court grants certiorari; government switches position

Section 2255: Federal prisoner post-conviction relief vehicle

Section 2244: Originally for state prisoners; contains:

• (b)(1): Do-over bar—bars claims "presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254"
• (b)(3): Authorization procedures, including (b)(3)(E)'s certiorari bar

Section 2255(h): "Second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244"—key question is what this incorporates

Circuit Split: Six circuits apply do-over bar to federal prisoners; three reject it

Argument One: Plain Text Excludes Federal Prisoners

• Do-over bar explicitly references "section 2254" (state prisoners only)
• Federal prisoners use § 2255 motions, not § 2254 applications
• Section 2255(h) incorporates certification procedures only, not substantive bars
• Even Eleventh Circuit admits § 2255(h) doesn't incorporate § 2244(b)(2)—can't incorporate (b)(1) either since both use identical "section 2254" language

Argument Two: Federalism Explains Differential Treatment

• AEDPA repeatedly subjects state prisoners to stricter requirements
• State prisoner habeas implicates federalism and comity concerns
• Federal prisoners challenging federal convictions raise no federalism...

Ellingburg v. United States | Case No. 24-482 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

This episode examines Ellingburg v. United States, one of the most procedurally unusual Supreme Court cases in recent memory. After the Court granted certiorari, the government switched positions following a change in presidential Administration, now agreeing with the criminal defendant that the Eighth Circuit erred. The Court appointed an outside attorney as amicus curiae to defend the lower court's judgment, creating a rare scenario where both named parties argue for the same outcome. At its core, the case asks whether mandatory criminal restitution constitutes punishment subject to the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause—a question with profound implications for thousands of federal defendants and the government's authority to retroactively enforce criminal restitution obligations.

• Government switches sides after Administration change
• Court appoints amicus curiae to defend Eighth Circuit's judgment
• Unusual three-way legal battle over fundamental constitutional question
• Implications for thousands convicted of federal crimes before 1996

• 1995: Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. robs bank in St. Louis, Missouri
• 1996: Sentenced to 322 months imprisonment, ordered to pay $7,567 restitution under pre-MVRA law (VWPA)
• Under original law, restitution obligation expired November 2016 (20-year limit)
• 2022: Released from prison, rebuilding life on minimum wage
• 2023: Government demands $13,476 using MVRA's extended collection period and mandatory interest
• Pro se motion challenges retroactive application as Ex Post Facto violation

• Is MVRA restitution criminal punishment or civil remedy?
• If criminal: Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits retroactive application
• If civil: Government can apply new collection rules to old offenses
• Statutory construction as threshold issue: What did Congress intend?

• District Court: Denied motion, held MVRA application merely "procedural"
• Eighth Circuit: Affirmed on different ground—restitution is civil remedy, not criminal punishment
• Circuit relied on Carruth precedent despite Pasquantino and Paroline developments
• Two concurring judges questioned binding precedent's continued validity
• Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve circuit split

• Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No ex post facto Law shall be passed"
• Prohibits retroactively increasing punishment for criminal acts
• Only applies to criminal laws, not civil remedies
• Constitutional protection against arbitrary government power

• Section 3663A: Restitution ordered "when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense"
• "In addition to, or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law"
• Codification in Title 18 criminal code, Chapter 227 "Sentences"
• Criminal procedures govern: presentence reports, probation officers, appellate review
• Enforcement through threat of imprisonment for nonpayment

Argument 1: Text and Structure Prove Criminal Intent

• Statutory language integrates restitution into criminal sentencing
• Grouped with fines and...