Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.

I'm John Carlo Canoparo.

I'm Zach Smith.

And welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome to another episode of SCOTUS 101 and likely the final episode before the new year.

Zach, what's the court up to this week?

Well, G.C., like the rest of us, they're trying to get things cleared out before their upcoming break.

On the orders and grants front, there wasn't much news this past week.

There were no new cases granted, and there weren't any opinions either.

So we'll go ahead and move straight into oral arguments.

G.C., what's up first?

First up is Patel v. Garland.

That's an immigration case that will determine the extent, if any,

to which federal judges can review immigration court orders that deny discretionary relief.

And second is Hughes v. Northwestern University, which involves a question of the fiduciary duties

owed by those who control retirement accounts.

The plaintiffs in this case allege that as administrator of its employee's retirement plans,

Northwestern, didn't try hard enough to minimize fees.

Interestingly, the oral argument was less concerned with the historical origins and the scope of the fiduciary duty, and more

concerned that lawsuits like these essentially allow plaintiffs to extort money from plan

administrators who face an incentive to settle even meritless lawsuits rather than fight them.

Next up is United States v. Taylor. The question the justice is confronted in this case

...