QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the proceeds of a life-insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether respondents have Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 actions with respect to mifepristone’s approved conditions of use;whether the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions were arbitrary and capricious; andwhether the district court properly granted preliminary relief. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the court should deny the motion by Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado for entry of a proposed consent decree that would resolve this dispute over the United States' claim as intervenors that New Mexico violated the Rio Grande Compact without the United States’ consent. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:  (1) Whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and (2) whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:  Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking — where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs — Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether, where parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, an arbitrator or a court should decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger.” ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a district court may enter a criminal-forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech ‚Äî or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★