Oral Arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court this week (December 2, 2024 through December 4, 2024)
The first oral argument that was released live was Obergefell v. Hodges (the same-sex marriage cases), prior to that you could only listen to oral arguments for the week when they were released on Friday.
You can list to oral arguments live at 10 am and 1pm at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
This week’s cases to be heard are:
For Monday:
No. 23–1038. Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C., dba Triton Distribution, et al.
Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious.
No. 23–824. United States v. David L. Miller
Issue: Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.
For Tuesday:
No. 23–867. Republic of Hungary, et al. v. Rosalie Simon, et al.
Issues: (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA.
For Wednesday:
No. 23–477. United States v. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee, et al.
Issue: Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
(The descriptions of the cases are from www.scotusblog.com