Hamm v. Smith

McCarthy v. Hernandez

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in McCarthy v Hernandez. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether the Second Circuit properly granted habeas relief under AEDPA (28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1)) by holding that the state trial court's response to a jury note on confession attenuation violated clearly established federal law from Missouri v. Seibert. The case was decided on June 22, 2026.  The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

United States v. Hemani

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in United States v Hemani. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a federal law that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violate the respondent’s Second Amendment right to bear arms? The case was decided on June 18, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Hunter v. United States

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in Hunter v United States.  In this case, the court considered these issues 1. Does an appeal waiver bar all claims except for ineffective assistance of counsel or a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum?  2. Does such a waiver become ineffective if the sentencing judge later tells the defendant they can appeal, and the government fails to object? The case was decided on June 18, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in T-M v University of Md. Medical System Corporation. In this case, the court considered this issue: Can the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court? The case was decided on June 18, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you’ll hear the Court’s opinion in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Section 47(b) of the ICA, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), create an implied private right of action? The case was decided on June 11, 2026. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.