National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Campaign Finance) No. 24-621 [Arg: 12.09.2025 Transcript Audio]

Hamm v. Smith (Capital Punishment) No. 24-872 [Arg: 12.10.2025 Transcript Audio]

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efd Hamm v. Smith (Capital Punishment) [https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hamm-v-smith-4/] No. 24-872 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-872.html] [Arg: 12.10.2025 Transcript [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-872_b07d.pdf]Audio [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-872]] Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins [https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Atkins_v_VA_OT02.pdf] claim. Case Preview [https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-to-consider-the-role-of-iq-tests-in-ban-on-executing-people-who-are-intellectually-disabled/]• Argument Analysis [https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-appears-divided-on-whether-lower-courts-properly-found-death-row-inmate-to-be-intellectually-disabled/] The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics [https://efdouglass.substack.com] is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe [https://efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Campaign Finance) No. 24-621 [Arg: 12.09.2025 Transcript Audio]

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efd National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Campaign Finance) [https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/] No. 24-621 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-621.html] [Arg: 12.09.2025 Transcript [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-621_q86b.pdf]Audio [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-621]] Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 [https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/USCODE-2023-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30116.pdf] violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37 [https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/CFR-2025-title11-vol1-sec109-37.pdf]. The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics [https://efdouglass.substack.com] is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe [https://efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies) No. 25-332 [Arg: 12.08.2025 Transcript Audio]

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efd Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi [https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/olivier-v-city-of-brandon-mississippi/] No. 24-993 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-993.html] [Arg: 12.03.2025 Transcript [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-993_1a7d.pdf]Audio [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-993]] Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/477/] bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/USCODE-2023-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf] seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief. The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics [https://efdouglass.substack.com] is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe [https://efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi No. 24-993 [Arg: 12.03.2025 Transcript Audio]

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efd Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi [https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/olivier-v-city-of-brandon-mississippi/] No. 24-993 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-993.html] [Arg: 12.03.2025 Transcript [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-993_1a7d.pdf]Audio [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-993]] Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/477/] bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/USCODE-2023-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.pdf] seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief. The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics [https://efdouglass.substack.com] is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe [https://efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin No. 24-781 [Arg: 12.02.2025 Transcript Audio]

Yes, I enjoy listening to SCOTUS Oral Arguments on my walks….. Enjoy - efd First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin [https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/first-choice-womens-resource-centers-inc-v-platkin/] No. 24-781 [https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-781.html] [Arg: 12.02.2025 Transcript [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-781_f2bh.pdf]Audio [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-781]] Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court. The Contemporary Battle of Good v Evil in Politics [https://efdouglass.substack.com] is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe [https://efdouglass.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_2]