A reading aloud of all SCOTUS opinions starting on OT23
SCOTUS Aloud
Claim This Podcast5.0(2 reviews)
17 episodes
Updated Weekly
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸
Podcast Overview
A reading aloud of all SCOTUS opinions starting on OT23
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
7/16/2024
1 verified contact email on file for SCOTUS Aloud
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
October 21, 2024
OT23.16 - Rudisill v. McDonough
This is a reading of the SCOTUS decision in Rudisill v. McDonough, argued on November 8, 2024, and handed down on April 16, 2024.
October 9, 2024
OT23.15 - DeVillier v. Texas
This is a reading of the SCOTUS decision in DeVillier v. Texas, argued on January 16, 2024, and handed down on April 16, 2024.
August 4, 2024
OT23.14 - Sheetz v. County of El Dorado
<p>22-1074 SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA</p><p>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). </p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>QP - 00:23</p><p>Opinion of the Court - 1:59</p><p>Concurrence by Sotomayor, J. - 17:20</p><p>Concurrence by Gorsuch, J. - 18:33</p><p>Concurrence by Kavanaugh, J. - 22:05</p><p>For comments or suggestions, please email scotusloud@gmail.com.</p>
17 total episodes available
Deep-dive analytics for SCOTUS Aloud
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is SCOTUS Aloud?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates weekly.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 7 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
No, this podcast does not typically feature guests.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.