The High Court Report
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 an...
10
Opinion Summary: Hunter v. United States | Judicial Review for Pleas that Cause Egregious Errors
<p>Hunter v. United States | Case No. 24-1063 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 03/03/2026 | Decided: 06/18/2026</p><p>Overview: A plea deal's appeal waiver collides with a forced-medication sentence, pushing the Supreme Court to decide when courts can void a waiver — reshaping appellate rights for the ninety-five percent of federal defendants who plead guilty.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether an appeal waiver remains enforceable when enforcing it would create a miscarriage of justice in sentencing.</p><p>Posture: Fifth Circuit dismissed Hunter's appeal under the waiver; Court granted certiorari to resolve a split.</p><p>Main Arguments:</p>Petitioner (Hunter): (1) Contract defenses like fr...
Oral Argument Re-Listen: T.M. v. UMD MSC | Does Rooker-Feldman Bar T.M.'s Lawsuit?
<p>T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation | Case No. 25-197 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 20, 2026 | Decided: June 18, 2026</p><p>Overview: A Maryland woman signed a state-court consent order to secure release from involuntary psychiatric commitment, then challenged that order in federal district court while her state-court appeal remained pending — pushing the limits of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over suits challenging state-court judgments that remain subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.</p><p>Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed District Court's dismissal of T.M.'s co...
Opinion Summary: T.M. v. UMD MSC | Rooker-Feldman Bars T.M.'s Lawsuit
<p>T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation | Case No. 25-197 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: April 20, 2026 | Decided: June 18, 2026</p><p>Overview: A Maryland woman signed a state-court consent order to secure release from involuntary psychiatric commitment, then challenged that order in federal district court while her state-court appeal remained pending — pushing the limits of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district court jurisdiction over suits challenging state-court judgments that remain subject to further review in state appellate proceedings.</p><p>Posture: Fourth Circuit affirmed District Court's dismissal of T.M.'s co...
Oral Argument Re-Listen: Abouammo v. United States | Trial on Home Turf Not Government's Pick
<p>FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026</p><p>Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of ac</p><p>Oral Advocates:</p>Petitioner (Abouammo): Tobias Loss-Eaton of Sidley AustinRespondent (United States): Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice.<br/><p>Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission.</p><p>Posture: District...
Oral Argument Re-Listen: FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Wins Fiduciary Fairness Fight
<p>FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026</p><p>Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of action against a comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme.</p><p>Oral Advocates:</p>For Petitioner (FS Credit) and Respondents (BlackRock): Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D.C.For United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of FS Credit and BlackRock: Max E. Schulman, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of JusticeFor Respondent (Saba): Paul D...
Opinion Summary: Abouammo v. United States | Trial on Home Turf Not Government's Pick
<p>FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026</p><p>Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of action against a comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission.</p><p>Posture: District Court granted Saba summary judgment; Second Circuit summarily affirmed; Supreme Court reversed.</p><p>Main Arguments:</p>Petitioner (the...
Opinion Summary: FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Wins Fiduciary Fairness Fight
<p>FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026</p><p>Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of action against a comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission.</p><p>Posture: District Court granted Saba summary judgment; Second Circuit summarily affirmed; Supreme Court reversed.</p><p>Main Arguments:</p>Petitioner (the Funds):(1...
Oral Argument Re-Listen: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers | Nondisclosure Doesn't Lead to Lawsuit Dismissal
<p>Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | Case No. 25-6 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 3/24/2026 | Decided: 6/11/2026</p><p>Oral Advocates:</p>Petitioner (Keathley): Gregory G. Garre of Latham and WatkinsUnited States (as Amicus Curiae Supporting Vacatur): Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of JusticeRespondent (Buddy Ayers Construction): William M. Jay of Goodwin Proctor<br/><p>Overview: A bankruptcy debtor's failure to disclose a personal-injury lawsuit triggered the Fifth Circuit's rigid two-factor estoppel test, splitting federal circuits over whether courts must examine all circumstances or presume bad faith from knowledge and motive alone.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether courts must...
Opinion Summary: Keathley v. Buddy Ayers | Nondisclosure Doesn't Lead to Lawsuit Dismissal
<p>Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. | Case No. 25-6 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 3/24/2026 | Decided: 6/11/2026</p><p>Overview: A bankruptcy debtor's failure to disclose a personal-injury lawsuit triggered the Fifth Circuit's rigid two-factor estoppel test, splitting federal circuits over whether courts must examine all circumstances or presume bad faith from knowledge and motive alone.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether courts must examine the totality of circumstances — not just two factors — to determine if a bankruptcy debtor's omission of a lawsuit qualifies as inadvertent.</p><p>Posture: District court and Fifth Circuit dismissed Keathley's personal-injury lawsuit under rigid two-factor judicial estoppel rule...
Oral Argument Re-Listen: Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma | Generic Drug Beats Patent Trap
<p>Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. | Case No. 24-889 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 04/29/2026 | Decided: 06/04/2026</p><p>Oral Advocates:</p>Petitioners (Hikma): Charles B. Klein of Winston & Strawn LLPAmicus Curiae (United States): Malcolm L. Stewart of the Department of JusticeRespondents (Amarin Pharma): Michael R. Huston of Perkins Coie LLP<br/><p>Overview: Amarin's cardiovascular drug patent faced challenge when generic maker Hikma launched a skinny-label version and marketed it through statements Amarin claimed encouraged doctors to prescribe the generic for the still-patented heart indication.</p><p>Question Presented: Whether a generic drug maker's marketing statements plausibly constitute "active...
