The High Court Report

4d ago

Overview This episode delivers post-oral argument analysis and predictions for three major Supreme Court cases heard during the December 2025 argument session. We break down the key exchanges, judicial fault lines, and likely outcomes in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (campaign finance limits), Hamm v. Smith (intellectual disability determinations in death penalty cases), and FS Credit v. Saba (implied private rights of action in securities law). NRSC v. FEC: Campaign Finance Revolution • JD Vance standing issues and Article III requirements • Chief Justice Roberts challenges coordinated expenditure "fictions" • Justice Kagan's systematic dismantling of Republican arguments • Super PAC dominance versus party strength dynamics • Justice Alito's revealing "who benefits" question Hamm v. Smith: Life-or-Death IQ Determinations • Joseph Smith's brutal 1997 murder and five IQ test scores (75, 74, 72, 78, 74) • Alabama's collective scoring approach versus federal holistic evaluation • Chief Justice Roberts' "results-oriented" methodology critique • Justice Jackson's clinical expertise emphasis • Solicitor General's compromise "circle back" approach FS Credit v. Saba: Securities Law Private Enforcement • Activist investor challenges to fund management poison pills • Justice Kavanaugh as potential swing vote on "anomalous" state court outcomes • Legislative history debate between Sotomayor and textualists • Justice Gorsuch's separation of powers concerns • Practical implications for investment fund governance Episode Highlights Campaign Finance Revelations: • Chief Justice Roberts: "I don't know in substance what the difference is" between coordinated expenditures and direct contributions • Justice Kagan's methodical exposure of existing circumvention loopholes • Republican counsel's admission about partisan fundraising advantages Death Penalty Constitutional Stakes: • Chief Justice Roberts challenging Alabama's statistical consistency • Justice Jackson emphasizing clinical complexity over mechanical score-counting • Three-way methodological split among Alabama, Smith, and federal government Securities Law Enforcement: • Justice Kavanaugh's practical concerns about "very bizarre" state court relegation • Paul Clement's "nugatory statute" argument about defensive-only interpretation • Justice Gorsuch's emphasis on separation of powers in implied rights creation Host Predictions: • NRSC wins 6-3 (Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh plus Roberts, Barrett, Gorsuch) • Hamm adopts Solicitor General's compromise approach • Saba wins 5-4 with Justice Barrett as deciding vote

Dec 10

FS Credit v. Saba | Fund Feud: Forcing Fiduciary Fairness Through Federal Lawsuits | Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: Here Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 gives private plaintiffs a federal cause of action to seek rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act. Overview The Supreme Court will decide whether activist investors can sue investment funds directly in federal court when funds adopt governance provisions that allegedly violate federal securities law. Four closed-end funds adopted Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act provisions to strip voting rights from shareholders acquiring more than 10% ownership, prompting Saba Capital to seek rescission under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act. The case creates a fundamental clash over private enforcement of securities laws versus exclusive SEC regulatory authority, with implications for millions of Americans who invest in mutual funds and closed-end funds. Question Presented: Oral Advocates: For Petitioner (FS Credit) and Respondents (BlackRock): Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D.C. United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners: Max E. Schulman, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice For Respondent: Paul D. Clement, Alexandria, VA Link to Opinion: TBD. Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview [00:01:23] Oral Argument Begins [00:01:36] Petitioner Opening Statement [00:03:40] Petitioner Free for All Questions [00:19:29] Petitioner Round Robin Questions [00:30:53] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement [00:32:17] United States Free for All Questions [00:42:11] United States Round Robin Questions [00:46:27] Respondent Opening Statement [00:48:55] Respondent Free for All Questions [01:16:48] Respondent Round Robin Questions [01:16:58] Petitioner Rebuttal

Dec 10

Hamm v. Smith | Case No. 24-872 | Oral Argument Date: 12/10/25 | Docket Link: Here Question Presented: When someone takes multiple IQ tests to prove intellectual disability in a capital case, do courts look at all the scores together, or can one low score alone save their life? Overview The Supreme Court will decide whether courts must evaluate multiple IQ scores collectively or whether a single qualifying score triggers constitutional protection in death penalty cases. This decision affects hundreds of current death row inmates and reshapes capital litigation nationwide. Oral Advocates: For Petitioner (Hamm): Robert M. Overing, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Montgomery, Alabama argued for Petitioner Hamm. United States as Amicus Curaie in Support of Petitioner: Harry Graver, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice. For Respondent (Smith): Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D.C. Link to Opinion: TBD. Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview [00:01:28] Oral Argument Begins [00:01:43] Petitioner Opening Statement [00:03:58] Petitioner Free for All Questions [00:20:43] Petitioner Round Robin Questions [00:44:36] United States as Amicus Curiae Opening Statement [00:45:47] United States Free for All Questions [00:55:27] United States Round Robin Questions [01:21:13] Respondent Opening Statement [01:24:00] Respondent Free for All Questions [01:51:28] Respondent Round Robin Questions [02:01:18] Petitioner Rebuttal

Dec 9

Summary: Analysis of the December 8, 2025 Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, examining how the justices signaled their likely approach to presidential removal power and independent agencies. Key Topics Covered: 1. Chief Justice Roberts' Strategic Questioning Focused on workability and implementation details Challenged quality of precedents supporting Slaughter's position Unusual volume of questions suggests engagement with Trump's arguments 2. Justice Sotomayor's Stare Decisis Defense Mounted strongest defense of Humphrey's Executor (1935) Emphasized 90-year precedential history Questioned Court's willingness to overturn longstanding constitutional precedent 3. Predicted 6-3 Ruling for Trump Court's emergency docket orders already revealed likely outcome Three-step analysis: presidential removal power + FTC executive authority + distinguish/overrule Humphrey's 4. Competing Predictions About Impact Slaughter's team: regulatory chaos, undermined business planning Trump's team: "sky did not fall" in previous agency restructurings 5. The "Faithful Execution" Thread Justice Gorsuch's devastating questioning about Take Care Clause Exposed contradiction in Slaughter's constitutional theory "Ruinous fines" vs. misdemeanor enforcement distinction crumbles 6. The Defense Department Problem Congress could restructure Cabinet departments as protected commissions Slaughter's logic threatens executive unity across government No limiting principle to prevent wholesale agency insulation Bonus: Trump v. United States Framework "Conclusive and preclusive" authority test from immunity case Both sides weaponized language for removal power debate Constitutional framework that shaped entire argument Next Episode: Analysis of post-argument developments and decision timeline

Dec 9

NRSC v. FEC | Money, Messaging, and Muzzling: The First Amendment Fight Over Party Coordination | Argument Date: 12/9/15 | Docket Link: Here Question Presented: Whether the First Amendment permits limits on the amount of money that the national committee of a political party may contribute to political candidates in the form of coordinated expenditures. Overview This oral argument involves National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission, a landmark campaign finance case that could fundamentally reshape how political parties operate in federal elections, featuring the extraordinary situation where the Federal Election Commission itself now agrees with the challengers that coordinated party expenditure limits violate the First Amendment. The case centers on limits that cap how much money party committees can spend in coordination with their candidates, creating a constitutional clash over political speech rights and anti-corruption measures. With the government switching sides post-election, the Court appointed an outside lawyer to defend the law while Democratic Party committees intervened to provide the opposition the case desperately needed. Oral Advocates: For Petitioner (NRSC): Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D.C., argued for Petitioners NRSC. For Respondents in Support of Petitioners (FEC): Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, argued in support of NRSC. Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae in Support of the Judgment Below: Roman Martinez, Washington, D.C. For Intervenor (DNC): Marc E. Elias, Washington, D.C. Link to Opinion: TBD. Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview [00:02:28] Oral Argument Begins [00:02:38] Petitioner Opening Statement [00:04:39] Petitioner Free for All Questions [00:18:19] Petitioner Round Robin Questions [00:48:54] United States in Support of Petitioner Opening Statement [00:50:08] United States Free for All Questions [01:05:22] United States Round Robin Questions [01:19:53] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Opening Statement [01:22:17] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Free for All Questions [01:38:08] Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Round Robin Questions [01:44:55] DNC As Intervenors Opening Statement [01:46:17] DNC As Intervenors Free for All Questions [02:00:05] DNC As Intervenor Round Robin Questions [02:09:51] Petitioner Rebuttal

Dec 8

Trump v. Slaughter | Presidential Power Play : Trump's Total Takedown of Independent Agencies | Case No. 25-332 | Oral Argument Date: 12/8/25 | Docket Link: Here Question Presented: Whether Congress can require the President to show cause before removing commissioners of independent agencies, or whether Article II grants the President absolute removal power over all executive officers. Overview President Trump removed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, challenging the constitutional foundation of independent agencies. The Court confronts whether two dozen independent agencies that control $47 trillion in economic activity can maintain protection from at-will presidential removal. Oral Advocates: For Petitioner (Trump): D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Department of Justice. For Respondent (Slaughter): Amit Agarwal, Washington, D.C. Link to Opinion: TBD. Website Link to Opinion Summary: TBD. Website Link to Oral Argument: TBD. Timestamps: [00:00:00] Oral Argument Preview [00:02:03] Oral Argument Begins [00:02:11] Petitioner Opening Statement [00:04:06] Petitioner Free for All Questions [00:27:29] Petitioner Round Robin Questions [01:05:33] Respondent Opening Statement [01:08:00] Respondent Free for All Questions [01:37:09] Petitioner Round Robin Questions [02:29:03] Petitioner Rebuttal

Dec 8

Overview This episode updates on four major cases granted certiorari by the Supreme Court on December 5th, 2025, following Friday's episode. The cases span constitutional citizenship rights, federal court jurisdiction, criminal procedure, and arbitration law, representing some of the most significant legal questions facing the Court this term. Roadmap Opening: December 5th Cert Grants • Four cases granted certiorari in one day • Focus on birthright citizenship case that drew most attention • Brief coverage of three additional jurisdictional cases Trump v. Barbara: The Birthright Citizenship Case • Background from Trump v. CASA oral arguments • Chief Justice Roberts' comments about expedited review • Executive Order 14,160 targeting children of unauthorized immigrants and temporary visitors • Multiple district court injunctions blocking the order Three Additional Cases • T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (Rooker-Feldman doctrine) • Abouammo v. United States (venue and statute of limitations) • Jules v. Balazs Properties (post-arbitration federal jurisdiction) Episode Highlights • Constitutional urgency : Chief Justice Roberts' prior comments about moving "expeditiously" now seem prophetic given the Court's cert-before-judgment grant in the birthright citizenship case • Universal injunction aftermath : The CASA decision's limits on universal injunctions created complications that led directly to the Barbara case • Circuit splits galore : All four cases involve significant circuit splits requiring Supreme Court resolution • Jurisdictional themes : Three of the four cases involve fundamental questions about federal court authority and jurisdiction Referenced Cases Trump v. Barbara | Case No. 25-365 | Docket Link Question Presented: Whether the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause requires that a person's parents have lawful domicile in the United States at the time of birth. Arguments: Government argues "subject to the jurisdiction" requires political allegiance through lawful domicile and that Wong Kim Ark only applied to permanently domiciled aliens. Respondents defend broad birthright citizenship based on Wong Kim Ark precedent and argue executive order violates federal statute and 130 years of settled law. T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation | Case No. 25-197 | Docket Link Question Presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court. Arguments: T.M. argues doctrine should only apply to final state court judgments based on Section 1257's text and Exxon Mobil precedent. Hospital argues no meaningful circuit split exists and federalism concerns support broader application of doctrine. Abouammo v. United States | Case No. 25-5146 | Docket Link Question Presented: (1) Whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element "contemplates" effects that could occur there. (2) Whether a criminal information unaccompanied by a waiver of indictment is an "information charging a felony" under 18 U.S.C. § 3288. Arguments: Abouammo argues venue should be limited to where essential conduct elements occur and that invalid informations cannot toll limitations periods. Government defends effects-based venue when statutes contemplate such effects and argues Congress deliberately removed waiver requirements from Section 3288. Jules v. Balazs Properties | Case No. 25-365 | Docket Link Question Presented: Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking. Arguments: Jules argues Badgerow requires independent federal jurisdiction for all post-arbitration motions to prevent forum shopping. Respondents defend "jurisdictional anchor" theory allowing courts that stay cases for arbitration to retain jurisdiction over final motions.

Dec 6

Overview This week delivered explosive Supreme Court developments with two unanimous decisions and Texas redistricting ruling reshaping voting rights. The Court reversed Clark versus Sweeney and Pitts versus Mississippi while granting Texas a controversial redistricting stay. Oral arguments revealed deep tensions involving internet liability, immigration law, First Amendment standing, and federal court jurisdiction. Next week promises blockbuster cases addressing presidential power, campaign finance regulations, death penalty standards, and investment law. Roadmap Examine three major Supreme Court actions including two unanimous reversals that reinforce core judicial principles and one explosive redistricting decision that signals the Court's growing skepticism toward racial gerrymandering claims. Analyze this week's oral arguments covering Cox Communications' copyright liability dilemma, the complex standing issues in First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Platkin, and Justice Jackson's pointed questioning in Olivier versus City of Brandon. Explore the implications of the Abbott decision for Louisiana versus Callais and broader voting rights protections. Preview next week's constitutional showdowns including Trump's challenge to independent agency protections and two death penalty cases that could reshape capital punishment standards. TIMESTAMPS [00:00] Intro [01:17] Two Supreme Court Per Curiam Opinions [04:57] Supreme Court Texas Redistricting Emergency Docket Decision [06:57] Oral Arguments Week in Review [15:30] Next Week's Blockbuster Cases