SCOTUS AM

March 30, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (March Madness Day 6)

Mar 30, 2026

033026 TMR — March 30, audio fixed repost

Anthropic v. Department of Defense (Seal Request Denied) · 26-cv-01996

Pete Hegseth wanted to keep his evidence about why Anthropic is dangerous a secret. The judge looked at it and said: there's nothing here that looks sensitive.

A quick news item before oral arguments: the government had moved to have a portion of the administrative record filed under seal — a vendor report allegedly explaining why Anthropic posed a national security risk. Hegseth argued the contents were proprietary and the company's letterhead would identify them. The judge, having reviewed the document, disagreed. Nothing on it claimed to be confidential, private, or otherwise sensitive. Quote: "Nothing about the format of the report appears to convey any type of unusual or sensitive methodology." The government had until April 3rd to provide further evidence — or the report would become public.

Constitutional question: The presumption of openness in federal court proceedings and what "national security" must actually mean to overcome it.

Abouammo v. United States · 25-5146

A man sent fake invoices to FBI agents sitting downstairs in his house in Seattle. The government charged him with a crime in California — because the agents' email was based there.

Ziad Abouammo worked at Twitter from 2013 to 2015. The FBI alleges he was recruited to spy on Twitter accounts critical of the Saudi royal family, passing information to an associate of MBS. In 2018, agents from the San Francisco field office came to his house in Seattle to ask questions. When asked about his income, he ran upstairs, fabricated invoices, and emailed them to agents sitting in his living room. The government charged him in California — arguing the crime occurred where the agents' email accounts were based, and where the investigation was being conducted. The Constitution requires crimes be tried in the state where they were committed (Article III, Section 2). Lower courts upheld the California venue on two theories: the agents were based in California, so the fraud targeted their home state; and the investigation (which the fraud obstructed) took place in California. The government also argued Abouammo should have "contemplated" that the effects of his crime would be felt in California. Bryan's read: a potentially narrow but important case about the limits of federal power — specifically, how far the government can stretch venue based on where digital effects land.

Constitutional question: Whether the Constitution's venue guarantee has any meaningful teeth when crimes involve digital communications crossing state lines — and whether "effects" can be used to launder around it.

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (Chateau Marmont) · 25-83

A hotel worker lost his discrimination case in arbitration. His employer came back to federal court to enforce the win — and the court said it might not be able to help them.

Adrian Jules brought employment discrimination claims against the Chateau Marmont and its management. His employer invoked the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Federal court used Section 4 of the FAA to compel arbitration. Jules went to his fake court and lost badly — including sanctions against him. His employer then returned to federal court to enforce the decision under Sections 9 and 10. Problem: a 2022 Supreme Court case called Badgerow had held that Sections 9 and 10 can't borrow subject matter jurisdiction from the underlying dispute the way Section 4 can. The FAA doesn't independently provide federal question jurisdiction, and Badgerow closed the workaround for confirmation/vacatur proceedings. Jules's employer's twist: the original federal case was stayed, not dismissed — the case is technically still open. So maybe they can use the jurisdiction the court already had? Jules says no: Badgerow said what it said. Bryan's note: Justice Kagan wrote Badgerow, she taught fed courts for a decade, and she would be closely watched. He was "willing to bet that everybody else on the bench just kind of sits back and lets her do her thing here."

Constitutional question: The limits of federal court jurisdiction over private arbitration — and whether the FAA creates a gap where the winning party in arbitration has no federal forum to enforce the result.

← March 27, 2026 — Aloha Friday March 31, 2026 — SCOTUS AM (March Madness Day 7) →