Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast) Podcast By Jake Leahy cover art

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

By: Jake Leahy
Listen for free

About this listen

Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.

*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.

© 2025 Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Political Science Politics & Government
Episodes
  • ESTERAS v. UNITED STATES (Revocation of Supervised release/factors courts may and may not consider)
    Jun 23 2025

    Send us a text

    Show more Show less
    11 mins
  • Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA (ARTICLE 3 STANDING, ADMIN LAW)
    Jun 23 2025

    Send us a text


    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-7_8m58.pdf

    Show more Show less
    10 mins
  • United States v. Skrmetti (Transgender Treatment)
    Jun 23 2025

    Send us a text

    In 2023, Tennessee joined the growing number of States restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, Senate Bill 1 (SB1). SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s biological sex and asserted identity. At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury. Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor challenged SB1 under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court partially enjoined SB1, finding that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class, that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, and that SB1 was unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the law did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review. This Court granted certiorari to decide whether SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

    Held: Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.

    Show more Show less
    12 mins
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_webcro805_stickypopup
All stars
Most relevant  
I am getting my Masters of Law in Constitutional Law right now thus, I read SCOTUS opinions regularly. But because I am extremely dyslexic and a former music major, I am an audio learner. I have struggled to find ways to have the opinions read aloud. When downloading them and having a separate app read the cases the cases include in text citations. The opinion then becomes very difficult to follow. Especially, because they are full cites with all three reporter numbers, making the cites impossibly long.

I am so grateful for someone to read these aloud in such a thoughtful and easy to follow way. Thank you! 🙏

Fan request: Mr. Dieken, could you also read the dissents and concurrences? I know that makes what you do a longer task. But, for example, in Whole Women's v. Jackson, it'd have been cool to have Roberts' and Sotomayor's important opinions read aloud. Plus, we never know what concurrence could be the next Youngstown or dissent that could be the next Lochner.

Grateful for this Podcast 🙏

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

I'm the creator, so of course, I'm going to give myself 5 stars on everything.

Best Law podcast ever

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.

Absolutely love this podcast. Super useful and just wish I got CLE credits for listening to these - two birds with one stone.

Fantastic podcast.

Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.