2024's Most Important Supreme Court Decisions

Mr. Beat breaks down what he feels are the most important Supreme Court decisions announced in 2024.

Full list of the 62 decisions of this term:

Donald Trump v. United States

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

Fischer v. United States

Rahimi v. United States

Murthy v. Missouri

Garland v. Cargill

FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Trump v. Anderson

Related reading:


#scotus #supremecourt #politics

[iammrbeat]

40:00-47:00 kind of sums up a lot if you don't want to watch the whole thing.

[rayneweber]

I love how he gives the date like hes a hostage

[benellison]

As a lawyer, I am disheartened by SCOTUS just inventing new law now. It feels like the ideas don't control the case outcomes, but rather the party affiliation does in a very transparent way

[cobracommander]

1:57:24 The same thing happened to me. Growing up, I was libertarian—very fiscally conservative, anti-big government, and socially liberal. But as my brain finished developing, around the age of 25 or so, I began to realize how wonky much of that ideology would be in application; Big Business would just fill the power-vacuum left by Big Govt, which would likely result in worse outcomes.

I still have libertarian instincts, but I'm now the furthest left I've ever been while in my mid-40s.

[JjBb-srln]

Citizen’s United was and still is massively devastating.

[FratFerno]

This seems like a video important enough to shorten to a digestible 12 minutes rather than 120 minutes.

[jshooa]

I remember when you streamed the Oral Arguments of Trump v United States and I sent a super chat telling you how horrible it would be to side with Trump. It's absolutely awful how the Court destroyed the checks and balances. With seeing the Opinion and Dissenting of this decision, it's absolutely disheartening. I hope that everyone in the United States remains safe, no matter your political affiliation.

[hyun-shik]

American democracy, if that's indeed what we want to call it, is forever changed in a major way.

[obelix]

1:55:45 I live in DC. I don’t work for the government, but it is my home. I know how Trump felt about us, and I remember how his supporters felt emboldened to treat us like dirt. It may be easy for some to forget that he had violent criminal organizations willing to help him with a coup, but we can’t.

And I understand. His thugs weren’t on your streets beating & threatening locals. But please remember that those elements will be reenergized by a Trump victory, and they will have few (if any) boundaries placed upon them.

[dcgamer]

"No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding"
Isn't this in direct contradiction to the recent ruling?
"Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority."

The courts cannot examine the president's official actions, which means that official acts cannot be used as evidence. I guess they could say that the courts are simply not allowed to call upon him in that case and so when they do call upon him he must comply, still seems a bit misleading to me.

[ram]

I don't understand the obession with RBG and portraying her in a positive light...

She is largely the big reason the SCOTUS is 6-3 in most cases.... Obama suggested she step down after her health was failing when they had the senate seats and didn't... this is how we got here.

[Nichfoolas]

I didn't realize that your supreme court briefs videos don't do as well. I think it is easily my favorite series of yours.

[meddle]

Could we get a rundown on Beat v. Supreme Court?

[jssamp]

Nobody can avoid being biased. Bias is hardwired into our brains as an evolutionary tool of survival. What we should do, and what judges are supposed to be trained to do, is to identify their biases and avoid letting them affect your work.

[trunkage]

As to Chevron and Congress, the decision is going to make it WAY harder to actually create a policy because it has to be exact. Writing a more ambiguous law allows compromise

[Drifting]

In practice Chevron allowed the executive branch of government to subvert the legislative branch by making laws. Making laws is delegated to the legislative only in article one of the constitution. This ruling in practice is unconstitutional. I would totally support the original ruling if it was more limited in the power the executive gets.

[JC_Musician]

A longtime follower, although some of my opinions differ from yours, you are enjoyable to watch 🥰 Politics tend to divide people but I find it important to listen to my fellow Americans opinions. There are many other topics I agree with you on but no matter the topic, you maintain a friendly discussion. 🥰

[eliseleonard]

Thanks Mr. Beat for this great summary and explainer. I agree that ACB turns out to be very smart and not as partisan as the worst two. One great (but less-covered) decision this term was the upholding of the Indian Child Welfare Act in a case that was a Trojan horse for undermining the sovereignty of all US tribes. Gorsuch turns out to be a staunch ally for Native sovereignty, and he actually knows his Indian Law and the history behind it.

[Blackifunny]

The counsel is the cabinet Mr beat come on man

[sasamichan]

Often its not a question of what is illegal, its a question of, does this qualify as breaking the law under how the law is written ?