Government

Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context. Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners. We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to. Recordings come from the courts’ own public releases; Supreme Court timing is derived locally from the Court’s official transcript and audio.

Latest Episodes:

United States v. Trenton Powell — 9th Cir. (Oct 16, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus Powell. Trenton Powell was convicted of federal child-exploitation offenses involving sexual abuse images. The district court found that three charged photographs were taken inside his home and ordered his interest in the home forfeited to the government. This appeal concerns that property order, not his convictions. Criminal forfeiture takes property as part of a criminal sentence, rather than compensating a victim. Title Eighteen, Section Twenty-two Fifty-three covers property used to commit or promote specified offenses. The required legal connection between the property and the crimes is called a nexus. Powell's lawyer will argue that taking handheld-phone pictures indoors does not sufficiently connect the house itself to the offenses, and that uncharged abuse cannot substitute for that link. The government will maintain that the home's privacy and its role in bringing the victim there helped facilitate the charged offenses. United States v. Trenton Powell (No. 25-3792) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-3792.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3792&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Background and ruling under review — D. Idaho, June 5, 2025, Doc. 198; not this appeal outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-4_21-cr-00290/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-4_21-cr-00290-5.pdf Criminal forfeiture statute — 18 U.S.C. § 2253: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2253 Forfeiture procedure and third-party claims — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_32.2 Excessive Fines Clause — United States v. Bajakajian, Supreme Court majority: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/321/

Acker Gumusyazici v. United States — 9th Cir. (Oct 16, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Gumusyazici versus the United States. She was a passenger in a car driven by her sister on a reservation road. The car skidded toward a utility pole near a curve. Her sister steered away, and the car left the road and rolled over, seriously injuring her. She sued over allegedly unsafe road design, including the absence of a guardrail. The road was maintained by a tribe under a federal transportation agreement. The district court ruled for the government without a trial, treating design decisions as protected and finding insufficient evidence that negligence caused the crash. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows certain negligence suits against the United States. Its discretionary-function exception protects discretionary choices that can involve public-policy balancing, even when discretion is abused. Her representatives will argue that this was an ordinary engineering-safety problem, not protected policymaking. They will also distinguish causing the skid from failing to limit her injuries. The government will contend that these road-design choices involve balancing safety, cost and tribal community values. Acker Gumusyazici v. United States (No. 25-4580) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-4580.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4580&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Facts and ruling under review — D. Idaho, June 27, 2025, Doc. 42; not this appeal outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-2_23-cv-00324/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-2_23-cv-00324-0.pdf Federal Tort Claims Act — 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346 Discretionary-function exception — 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680 Tribal transportation design factors — 25 C.F.R. § 170.455: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/25/170.455

United States v. American Horse — 9th Cir. (Oct 16, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus American Horse. American Horse was prosecuted in Montana on sexual-abuse charges after two girls reported abuse. This appeal concerns the remedy for late disclosure of evidence favorable to the defense. Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose evidence favorable to the accused that is material to guilt or punishment. That includes evidence that can undermine a witness's credibility. A continuance postpones a trial to give more preparation time. The lawyers will debate when that is an adequate remedy, and when prosecutorial misconduct calls for dismissing the indictment instead. Abuse-of-discretion review gives the trial judge latitude to choose among legally permissible remedies. United States v. American Horse (No. 25-5736) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-5736.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5736&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Background — D. Montana CR23-63-GF-BMM, February14,2025 suppression order; confirms the prosecution, not the disclosure ruling at issue here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00063/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00063-0.pdf Additional prosecution background — U.S. Attorney, April10,2025; government account: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/federal-jury-convicts-south-dakota-man-sexually-abusing-two-victims-fort-belknap-indian Favorable material evidence — Brady v. Maryland, 373U.S.83,87 (1963), primary judicial text: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/ Witness credibility evidence — Giglio v. United States, 405U.S.150,153-154 (1972), primary judicial text: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/150/ Ninth Circuit disclosure and remedy principles — United States v. Bundy, 968F.3d1019 (2020), pages21-24 and48-51; not this appeal outcome: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/06/18-10287.pdf Ninth Circuit remedy principles — United States v. Chapman, 524F.3d1073 (2008), pages18-22; not this appeal outcome: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/05/06/0610316.pdf

Mishkat Al Moumin v. Republic of Iraq — D.C. Cir. (Oct 16, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Al Moumin versus the Republic of Iraq. Al Moumin is a former Iraqi environment minister. She says Iraq stopped paying her pension. She alleges that Nouri al-Maliki, then Iraq's senior vice president, later hired her to provide consulting services from the United States. Instead of a salary, she says, he promised to restore her pension. She says she did the work for more than a year but was never paid. She sued Iraq, which invokes sovereign immunity: a foreign state's general protection from being sued in American courts. The district court dismissed her standalone pension claim but let her consulting claim survive an initial motion to dismiss. That was not a finding that the agreement existed or that Iraq owed her money. Iraq will argue that this was personal political work and that al-Maliki lacked authority to bind the government. Al Moumin will contend it was government consulting covered by the commercial-activity exception to immunity. She will also ask the court to revive her separate pension claim. Mishkat Al Moumin v. Republic of Iraq (No. 25-7153) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-7153.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Background and ruling under review — D.D.C. 22-cv-2267, September 10, 2025 opinion; primary judicial text mirrored by FindLaw, not this appeal outcome: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-dis-col/117693895.html Former environment-minister role — June 9, 2010 House hearing, PDF pages 59 and 65; biographical corroboration only: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg56887/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg56887.pdf Foreign sovereign immunity — 28 U.S.C. §1604: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1604 Commercial-activity exception — 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(2): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605 Limits on pendent appellate review — Swint v. Chambers County Commission, 514 U.S. 35, 50–51 (1995); general law, not this case outcome: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1636.ZO.html D.C. Circuit pendent-review principles — Kilburn, 376 F.3d 1123 (2004), Part V; general law, not this case outcome: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/376/376.F3d.1123.03-7117.html

United States v. Severns — 9th Cir. (Oct 16, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Nicholas Severns' challenge to evidence obtained during a traffic stop. Tribal officers stopped a rental car for speeding in Browning, on Montana's Blackfeet Reservation. Severns was the passenger, and neither occupant had a valid driver's license. Officers checked their identities and warrants, called county law enforcement, and used a drug-detection dog. The investigation uncovered fentanyl. Severns asked the district court to keep the evidence out, saying the officers had unlawfully prolonged the stop. The judge rejected that request, finding that the officers acted reasonably. This appeal brings together two Supreme Court decisions: Cooley, addressing tribal officers' authority over non-Indians, and Rodriguez, limiting how long a traffic stop may last. Severns will argue that waiting about fifteen minutes to contact county officers created extra time for an unrelated drug investigation. The government will respond that routine identification and warrant checks were still underway, so there was no unlawful extension. United States v. Severns (No. 25-7217) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/16/25-7217.mp3 Case and argument date — official court archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7217&hearingDate=2026-10-16 Background and ruling under review — D. Montana CR 24-89-GF-BMM, June 11, 2025 suppression order, primary judicial text mirrored by CaseMine; not this appeal outcome: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/684b8ea84fd8ac5bd8c39bcc Additional case background — U.S. Attorney's July 16, 2025 account; police narrative attributed to government court filings: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/spokane-man-pleads-guilty-drug-charges

American Historical Association v. Donald Trump — D.C. Cir. (Oct 16, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears the government's appeal in American Historical Association versus Donald Trump. The dispute began when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the Presidential Records Act was unconstitutional. The White House then issued new records-preservation guidance based on that view. The American Historical Association, American Oversight and other groups sued, arguing that the new approach threatened the preservation of work emails, texts and other official records needed for research and accountability. Under the Act, covered records belong to the United States, with duties to preserve them and procedures for disposal and later access. The district court entered a preliminary injunction—a temporary order—requiring several White House offices and officials to follow the Act rather than the new guidance. The government will argue that mandatory preservation and later disclosure intrude on presidential control and confidential advice. The groups will defend the law as a valid safeguard for the historical record and continuity between administrations. A central question is whether objections to particular provisions justify rejecting the entire Act. American Historical Association v. Donald Trump (No. 26-5185) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/26-5185.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Background and preliminary injunction — D.D.C. 26-cv-1169 and 26-cv-1402, Document 24, May 20, 2026; not this appeal outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169-0.pdf Procedural posture — June 30, 2026 district order pausing merits proceedings, not the preliminary injunction: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01169-1.pdf Presidential Records Act — federal ownership, 44 U.S.C. § 2202: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2202 Presidential Records Act — preservation, disposal and custody, 44 U.S.C. § 2203: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2203

Michael and David Sztrom v. SEC — D.C. Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Michael and David Sztrom versus the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC alleged David helped his father access client information and execute trades while Michael was not associated with a registered advisory firm. They settled the fraud case without admitting liability. The SEC then began an internal follow-on proceeding seeking industry bans. The Sztroms filed a separate lawsuit challenging that process, but the district court dismissed it. It rejected some constitutional claims and required others to follow the agency-review route. While their appeal was underway, the SEC issued orders barring them from specified roles in the securities industry. Mootness asks whether a live dispute remains in which a court can give effective relief. Wholly collateral means separate from the enforcement issues the agency is deciding. That is one factor in deciding whether a separate district-court suit is allowed. Their constitutional challenge distinguishes Article Three’s federal judicial power from the Seventh Amendment’s civil-jury protection. A public-rights exception allows some matters to be decided initially by agencies. In SEC versus Jarkesy, the Supreme Court required a jury when the SEC sought civil penalties for securities fraud. That ruling did not decide this professional-ban dispute. The Sztroms will argue these sanctions belong in an independent federal court; the Commission will defend its administrative process. Michael and David Sztrom v. SEC (No. 26-5008) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/26-5008.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Background and district-court dismissal — Sztrom v. SEC, D.D.C. 24-cv-3548, Document 21, January 8, 2026: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2024cv03548/275920/21/0.pdf?ts=1767950835 Original fraud allegations, not an admission of liability — SEC Litigation Release 25010, January 19, 2021: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-25010 Intervening agency bars — SEC Release IA-7010, September 21, 2026; not the outcome of this court appeal; David may apply for reentry: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2026/ia-7010.pdf Mootness and effective relief — Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172–175 (2013), majority opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1347 Continuing live controversy — Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91–93 (2013), majority opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-982 SEC fraud penalties, civil juries and public rights — SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), majority opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf Wholly collateral and the route to court — Axon Enterprise v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023), majority sections II–III: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-86

Joseph Holland v. Todd Blanche — D.C. Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Holland versus Blanche, about payments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The claimants include September Eleventh survivors and victims’ families. Some say the Fund wrongly classified them as family members rather than victims, reducing their compensation. Another group obtained judgments after an application deadline and then had those judgments backdated. The Fund still treated their claims as late, excluding them from certain payments. The lawyers call those backdated orders nunc pro tunc judgments. The dispute includes catch-up payments for claimants previously excluded from this Fund because they had received awards from a separate September Eleventh compensation program. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Congress had barred judicial review of the Special Master’s compensation decisions. The Special Master is the official who administers the Fund. The claimants will argue that courts can still review underlying legal questions, including classifications and the treatment of backdated judgments. The government will argue that these are compensation decisions Congress made unreviewable. Joseph Holland v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-5373) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5373.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Facts, allegations and ruling being appealed — Holland v. Bondi, D.D.C. 24-cv-2687, Document 27, September 18, 2025; not the outcome of this appeal: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2024cv02687/272921/27/0.pdf?ts=1758286377 Fund administration, compensation and judicial-review provision — 34 U.S.C. §20144(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20144

Hamburg Süd v. FMC — D.C. Cir. (Oct 16, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears a dispute between ocean carrier Hamburg and its customer, OJ Commerce. During the pandemic shipping crunch, OJC complained that Hamburg was not carrying the agreed volume under their year-long contract. After OJC threatened to complain to the Federal Maritime Commission, Hamburg stopped negotiating a renewal. Hamburg will point to continued spot-market shipping: individual shipments priced at prevailing market rates rather than an annual contract. The Commission found unlawful retaliation and refusal to deal, and awarded about seventeen point six million dollars, including additional damages. Reparations means money awarded for injury under the Shipping Act. Hamburg will challenge the Commission’s authority and its damages award. OJC will seek more compensation, challenging the number of containers and shipping costs used to estimate its losses. The Commission will defend its authority and calculations. The unit FFE means one forty-foot shipping-container equivalent. Hamburg Süd v. FMC (No. 25-1156) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-1156.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Facts and prior agency ruling — OJ Commerce v. Hamburg Süd, FMC Docket 21-11, August 27, 2024; 8 F.M.C.2d 438–501, PDF pages 453–516; not this appeal’s outcome: https://www.fmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/8-F.M.C.2d.pdf Service contracts and breach remedy — 46 U.S.C. §40502(c), (f): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/40502 Reparations and additional awards — 46 U.S.C. §41305: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/41305 Carrier prohibitions — 46 U.S.C. §41104; 2022 amendment notes reproduce former (a)(3) applicable to 2021 conduct: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/41104 Federal judicial protections — Constitution, Article III, National Archives transcript: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Civil jury protection — Seventh Amendment, National Archives transcript: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript Agency adjudication and public rights — SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), actual majority opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf Issue exhaustion — Carr v. Saul, 593 U.S. 83 (2021); definition, not a ruling on this shipping appeal: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1442_971e.pdf Remittitur and new-trial option — Hetzel v. Prince William County, 523 U.S. 208 (1998): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-523/pdf/USREPORTS-523-208.pdf Conditional reduction of a jury award — Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474, 482–486 (1935): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-293/pdf/USREPORTS-293-474.pdf FFE container unit — carrier’s technical definition: https://www.maersk.com/de-de/support/faqs/feu-and-ffe-mean

In re Kalkat/Diamond K, LLC — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears the related Kalkat and Diamond K orchard-sale appeals. The debtors sought to refinance loans secured by their properties, with orchard sales as a fallback. Creditors pressed to sell the properties and recover their money. The proposed plan used an independent sales officer to oversee bidding, while leaving room to refinance instead. These appeals focus on the evidence of the buyers' good faith. You will also hear about credit bidding: a secured creditor uses the debt it is owed toward buying the collateral, rather than paying that amount in cash. Bankruptcy Code section three-sixty-three M generally protects the validity of a sale to a good-faith buyer unless the sale authorization and the sale itself were stayed pending appeal. A stay is a court order putting the transaction on hold. That makes the buyers' good faith important: the panel must consider what the record actually establishes, not simply whether an auction took place. In re Kalkat/Diamond K, LLC (No. 26-1015) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1015.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1015&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and related appeals EC-26-1015 through 1021, 1044 and 1045 — official BAP calendar, October 15, 2026: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20SF.pdf Case background and refinancing proposal — June 26, 2025 pre-hearing materials, PDF pages 12–23; not a final signed ruling: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0626_1000_746S_2025.pdf Refinancing, proposed bidding procedures and sales officer — August 7, 2025 pre-hearing materials, PDF pages 53–56; not the later sale order: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0807_1030_746S_2025.pdf Later sale-motion identity — December 18, 2025 hearing calendar, final PDF page; not a merits decision: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/1218_1100_454S_2025.pdf Credit bidding and good-faith sale protection — 11 U.S.C. §363(k), (m): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/363 Scope of sale protection — MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform, 598 U.S. 288 (2023); general law, not this appeal’s outcome: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r14_3e04.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected