SCOTUS Aloud  Por  arte de portada

SCOTUS Aloud

De: Rafael Kriger
  • Resumen

  • A reading aloud of all SCOTUS opinions starting on OT23
    2024 Rafael Kriger
    Más Menos
activate_primeday_promo_in_buybox_DT
Episodios
  • OT23.3 - Dept. of Agriculture v. Kirtz
    Jul 18 2024

    22-846 DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT RURAL HOUSING SERVICE V. KIRTZ

    QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

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

    QP - 00:23

    Opinion of the Court - 0:42

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

    Más Menos
    33 m
  • OT23.2 - Murray V. UBS Securities, LLC
    Jul 18 2024

    22-660 MURRAY V. UBS SECURITIES, LLC

    QUESTION PRESENTED: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protects whistleblowers who report financial wrongdoing at publicly traded companies. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. When a whistleblower invokes the Act and claims he was fired because of his report, his claim is "governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(C).

    Under that incorporated framework, a whistleblowing employee meets his burden by showing that his protected activity "was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint." 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii). If the employee meets that burden, the employer can prevail only if it "demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that behavior." Id. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv).

    The Question Presented is: Under the burden-shifting framework that governs Sarbanes-Oxley cases, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a "retaliatory intent" as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of "retaliatory intent" part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?

    Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., fled a concurring opinion, in which Barrett, J., joined.

    QP - 00:23

    Opinion of the Court - 01:49

    Concurrence by Alito, J. - 23:17

    Más Menos
    26 m
  • OT23.1 - Acheson Hotels v. Laufer
    Jul 17 2024

    22-429 ACHESON HOTELS, LLC V. LAUFER

    QUESTION PRESENTED: Does a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act "tester" have Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation's failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation?

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

    Más Menos
    33 m

Lo que los oyentes dicen sobre SCOTUS Aloud

Calificaciones medias de los clientes

Reseñas - Selecciona las pestañas a continuación para cambiar el origen de las reseñas.