SCOTUS Aloud

By: Rafael Kriger
  • Summary

  • A reading aloud of all SCOTUS opinions starting on OT23
    2024 Rafael Kriger
    Show more Show less
activate_Holiday_promo_in_buybox_DT_T2
Episodes
  • OT23.16 - Rudisill v. McDonough
    Oct 21 2024

    22-888 RUDISILL v. McDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

    QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill, 38 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq., and under the Post9/11 GI Bill, 38 U.S.C. § 3301 et seq., is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.

    Jackson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Barrett, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.

    QP - 00:21

    Opinion of the Court - 1:03

    Concurrence by Kavanaugh, J. - 32:55

    Dissent by Thomas, J. - 39:58

    For comments or suggestions, please email scotusloud@gmail.com.

    Show more Show less
    58 mins
  • OT23.15 - DeVillier v. Texas
    Oct 9 2024

    22-913 DEVILLIER V. TEXAS

    QUESTION PRESENTED: In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, this Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause was "self-executing" and that "[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary" for claims for just compensation because they "are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]" 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). Since First English, several state courts of last resort have held that the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause requires them to entertain claims directly under the Clause without the need for statutory authorization. Two federal Circuits, the Fifth and the Ninth, disagree and have held that claims for just compensation are only available if they are legislatively authorized.

    The question presented is: May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?

    Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

    QP - 00:21

    Opinion of the Court - 1:15

    For comments or suggestions, please email scotusloud@gmail.com.

    Show more Show less
    10 mins
  • OT23.14 - Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
    Aug 4 2024

    22-1074 SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA

    QUESTION PRESENTED: George Sheetz applied, to the County of El Dorado, California, for a permit to build a modest manufactured house on his property. Pursuant to legislation enacted by the County, and as the condition of obtaining the permit, Mr. Sheetz was required to pay a monetary exaction of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements. The County demanded payment in spite of the fact that it made no individualized determination that the exaction-a substantial sum for Mr. Sheetz-bore an "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" to the purported impacts associated with his modest project as required in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 37 4, 391 (1994).

    Mr. Sheetz challenged the exaction as an unconstitutional condition under Nollan and Dolan. A California trial court upheld the exaction, holding that, because it was authorized by legislation, the exaction was immune from Nollan/Dolan review. In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. California's judicially-created exemption from Nollan/Dolan scrutiny for legislative exactions conflicts with the decisions of other federal and state courts across the country, and is in strong tension with this Court's more recent precedents.

    The question presented is whether a permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan and Dolan simply because it is authorized by legislation.

    Barrett, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Jackson, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined.

    QP - 00:23

    Opinion of the Court - 1:59

    Concurrence by Sotomayor, J. - 17:20

    Concurrence by Gorsuch, J. - 18:33

    Concurrence by Kavanaugh, J. - 22:05

    For comments or suggestions, please email scotusloud@gmail.com.

    Show more Show less
    23 mins

What listeners say about SCOTUS Aloud

Average customer ratings

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.