So Ordered
AI-narrated readings of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions. Each episode pairs the Court's syllabus with a reading of the majority opinion, lightly adapted for listening and voiced by a synthesized voice styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice.
Or paste the RSS feed URL into Overcast, Pocket Casts, AntennaPod, or any other podcast app to subscribe.
What this is
So Ordered publishes unabridged readings of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions.
SCOTUS provides recordings of oral arguments freely to the public, but at this time the Court does not release audio of opinions being read. That leaves an accessibility gap for parts of the public who would rather engage with the Court’s opinions by ear.
This project aims to fill that gap by providing audio readings of majority opinions in AI-synthesized voices.
Each episode has two parts:
- A short introduction — the case name and docket number, along with a brief summary drawn from the Court’s published syllabus, the Questions Presented, the holding, and the vote breakdown.
- The majority opinion, read start to finish in a synthesized voice lightly stylized to resemble the authoring justice.
The text read aloud is the opinion as published by the Supreme Court, with light edits made only to aid the readability of the spoken version. For example, citations to specific page numbers and volumes are simplified or omitted, because numerical citations do not translate well to audio.
Why
Supreme Court opinions are public-domain government works, but they are written to be read, not heard. A spoken reading makes them accessible while commuting, exercising, or away from a screen — without the gloss of a host’s interpretation between you and the Court’s words.
Our Goal
So Ordered’s ultimate goal is to become obsolete.
This podcast would prefer a world where the Supreme Court released audio of the justices reading their opinions and made it freely available, the same way it releases oral arguments. That would give the public direct access to rulings that can affect millions of people.
Until that audio is freely available, our goal is to provide a public service that lets people connect with the Court’s opinions through an audio medium.
Common questions
Is there a podcast that reads Supreme Court opinions aloud?
Yes, that is what So Ordered is. Each episode is a U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion read start to finish, with a short neutral summary of the case up front. It is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube Music, and any app that accepts an RSS feed.
Are these the justices’ real voices?
No. Every voice on the show is AI-generated. The narration is styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice, but it is not a recording of them and should not be attributed to any justice.
How is this different from Oyez or the Court’s own audio?
The Court publishes audio of oral arguments, and archives like Oyez host those recordings along with case summaries. Oral argument is the lawyers and the justices debating the case before it is decided. So Ordered is the decision itself: the majority opinion, read aloud.
Which opinions are covered?
Majority opinions from October Term 2025 onward, released as each one is processed. The episode list is grouped by term.
Does it cost anything?
No. The show is free, has no ads, and its audio is released into the public domain.
Sourcing & licensing
Opinion text comes directly from supremecourt.gov. U.S. Supreme Court opinions are works of the federal government and are in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 105). This podcast’s audio is released under CC0.
Latest episodes
All episodes →- Rico v. United States The Court holds that a defendant who absconds while on federal supervised release does not automatically extend the term of that release. The Sentencing Reform Act gives courts many tools to punish a failure to report, but a fugitive-tolling rule that keeps the term running past the date a judge set is not one of them.
- Olivier v. City of Brandon The Court holds that a person previously convicted under a law may still sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for purely prospective relief against that law's future enforcement. Heck v. Humphrey does not bar such a suit, because it does not collaterally attack the prior conviction.
- Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. The Court holds that New Jersey Transit is not an arm of New Jersey and so cannot claim the State's interstate sovereign immunity when it is sued in another State's courts. New Jersey built it as a legally separate corporation that can sue and be sued and is responsible for its own debts and judgments, and the State's substantial control over it does not change that.
- Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal The Court holds that a federal contractor cannot immediately appeal a pretrial order denying it protection under Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co. Yearsley provides a defense to liability on the merits, not an immunity from suit, so an order rejecting it can be fully reviewed on appeal after a final judgment.
- Villarreal v. Texas The Court holds that a trial judge may bar a testifying criminal defendant's lawyers from discussing his ongoing testimony for its own sake during an overnight recess, so long as the order leaves them free to discuss other protected topics such as trial strategy and a possible plea. Such a qualified conferral order does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.