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:

Holtzman v. Kunstmuseen Krefeld — D.C. Cir. (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit considers a dispute over paintings by the Dutch artist Piet Mondrian. Trustees claiming through his heir say the works were lent to a museum in Krefeld, Germany, for an exhibition in 1929, but never returned. They seek the remaining paintings and compensation for others sold or exchanged after the war. The city disputes their ownership claim. Mondrian fled Nazi persecution and died in New York in 1944. The trustees say persecution prevented him from recovering the works, and that the museum later wrongfully kept or disposed of them. A federal district court dismissed their suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. That law generally protects foreign states and their agencies from suit, subject to exceptions. Here the claimed exception concerns property taken in violation of international law. The trustees will argue that persecution and the museum's later conduct qualify. The museum will respond that these allegations do not establish a governmental taking, even if they describe an ordinary property wrong. Listen for the difference between wrongful possession and the kind of expropriation that lets a U.S. court hear the case. This appeal concerns jurisdiction, not a final ruling on who owns the paintings. Holtzman v. Kunstmuseen Krefeld (No. 25-7173) — United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-7173.mp3 Case and argument date — D.C. Circuit official November listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/11 Alleged painting history and jurisdictional dismissal — district court Doc.43, September30,2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2020cv02976/223109/43/0.pdf City's competing provenance account — commissioned summary, July2,2019: https://krefeld-production.b-cdn.net/media/attachments/W1siZiIsIjVmYzBlZWMxYjI1NmYwMDAzOWNlYTFjYSJdLFsicCIsImNvbnRlbnRfZGlzcG9zaXRpb24iLG51bGxdXQ/Dossier_Mondrian_en.pdf?sha=0e0f71746f76b92e Artist chronology — Peggy Guggenheim Collection: https://www.guggenheim-venice.it/en/art/artists/piet-mondrian/

White v. Wolcott — 2d Cir. (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers whether Derrick White's trial lawyer should have challenged police access to his cellphone location records. White was convicted of assault and weapon offenses after a man was shot in the foot in New York. Two eyewitnesses identified him, and cell-tower records placed his phone near the shooting. Police obtained those records with a court order, not a search warrant. His trial lawyer did not ask to exclude them. The trial preceded Carpenter, the Supreme Court decision recognizing Fourth Amendment protection for historical cellphone location data. The state courts rejected White's ineffective-assistance claim, and a federal district court denied his habeas petition. Federal habeas review challenges a state conviction on federal constitutional grounds, with deference to state-court rulings. White will argue that counsel should have preserved a plausible challenge for appeal, and that the phone evidence mattered to the result. The state will respond that counsel could rely on existing law and that other evidence made any error harmless. Listen for prejudice: whether there is a reasonable probability of a different result, not just a lawyer's mistake. White v. Wolcott (No. 25-1239) — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1239.mp3 Case and argument date — Second Circuit official listing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Federal habeas denial and concrete shooting background — district court Doc. 20, April 22, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2021cv05980/563252/20/0.pdf?ts=1745499000 Prior conviction and ineffective-assistance rulings — New York Appellate Division, December 22, 2020: https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_07719.htm

Mark Huff, M.D. v. Drug Enforcement Administration — D.C. Cir. (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit reviews the revocation of Dr. Mark Huff's federal authority to prescribe controlled drugs. The dispute began when Huff sought to move his registration from Utah to Georgia, prompting a DEA investigation. The agency found that he had not been candid about a fentanyl relapse and subsequent treatment. Huff maintained that he had misunderstood questions about treatment. He requested an administrative hearing and submitted a brief description of his proposed testimony. The administrative law judge found that description inadequate and terminated the hearing proceedings. DEA's administrator then revoked Huff's registration. Huff will argue that his summary complied with the judge's order and that denying him a hearing was improper. DEA will defend the judge's authority to enforce procedural requirements. Listen for the difference between limiting testimony that was not disclosed in advance and denying a hearing altogether. Mark Huff, M.D. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (No. 26-1029) — United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/26-1029.mp3 Case and argument date — D.C. Circuit official November listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/11 Agency findings and hearing termination under review — DEA final order, 91 FR 1827: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-01-15/pdf/2026-00621.pdf

Tracy Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit considers whether SuperValu can face civil penalties for false pharmacy bills even without proven government losses. The dispute began with a price-matching program: cash customers could obtain discounted prescriptions, while the pharmacies reported higher prices as their usual and customary charges to government health programs. Whistleblowers sued under the False Claims Act, a law that lets private plaintiffs pursue fraud claims in the government's name. A pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, is a private intermediary that helps administer prescription benefits. This case already reached the Supreme Court in 2023, which addressed the defendants' knowledge, not whether every bill was false. After the case returned for trial, the jury found for the whistleblowers on knowledge but found they had not proved the false claims caused government losses. The district court entered judgment for SuperValu and denied a new trial. The whistleblowers will argue that civil penalties do not require proven damages and that errors in the jury instructions require further proceedings. SuperValu will defend the judgment and challenge earlier rulings on falsity and on materiality, the ability to influence payment. Listen for the difference between a false bill, knowledge that it was false, and proof that it cost the government money. The parties also disagree about how any retrial should count individual claims. Tracy Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. (No. 25-3134) — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-3134.25-3134_11_10_2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Seventh Circuit official November listing: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=11%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Trial findings and disputed instructions — district court Doc. 605, October 31, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/3%3A2011cv03290/52788/605/0.pdf Prior knowledge-standard ruling, not this appeal's outcome — Supreme Court, June 1, 2023: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1326_6jfl.pdf Industry amicus position supporting SuperValu — U.S. Chamber brief: https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/U.S.-Chamber-Amicus-Brief-U.S.-ex-rel.-Schutte-v.-Supervalu-Holdings-Inc.-Seventh-Circuit.pdf

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC — SCOTUS (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers a labor dispute involving Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey fruit-and-vegetable farm that hired seasonal workers through the H-two-A visa program in 2015. That program allows foreign agricultural workers to come to the United States, with protections for them and domestic workers doing corresponding jobs. Sun Valley employed ninety-six foreign workers and fifty-one domestic workers. Labor Department investigators said the farm failed to keep promises about housing, transportation, kitchen access, and guaranteed work. For example, workers had been promised free cooking facilities, but the agency found they lacked meaningful kitchen access and were charged for a meal plan instead. A Labor Department administrative law judge ordered more than half a million dollars in civil penalties and back wages, and the department's review board upheld that order. The farm challenged the agency process in federal court. After a district court rejected its claims, the Third Circuit ruled that these money claims had to be decided in an independent federal court, not the agency's own tribunal. The Labor Department now asks the Supreme Court to reverse. Article Three generally reserves federal judicial power to independent courts, but the public-rights doctrine permits some matters to be decided within government agencies. The government will argue that enforcing conditions of permission to hire foreign workers fits that exception. Sun Valley will answer that these are ordinary contract-like claims for money, even if the contracts arose in an immigration program. A separate question is whether Congress actually authorized this kind of in-house adjudication. Judicial review is already available; listen for why the parties disagree about whether that later review is enough, and who should initially decide the facts. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC (No. 25-966) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court official recording: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-966.mp3 Official argument transcript — November 10, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-966_c0nd.pdf Case, argument date and questions granted — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-966.html Prior ruling and underlying employment dispute — Third Circuit, July 29, 2025: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/232608p.pdf Government's background and position — Petitioners' merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-966/413619/20260618153112527_25-966SunValleyGovtBr_with_Appendix.pdf Sun Valley's background and position — Respondent's merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-966/417327/20260727112239225_25-966%20Brief%20of%20Respondent.pdf

Arata v. Standard Lithium Ltd. — 2d Cir. (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers investor Arata's securities-fraud lawsuit against Standard Lithium. The company was testing a process to extract lithium from salty water at an Arkansas demonstration plant. Arata says its statements about high recovery rates and large production volumes overstated what the plant could actually do. Reports challenging the company's claims were followed by sharp drops in its stock price. The company disputes the reports' calculations and says it warned investors that the project was still being tested. A federal judge dismissed the case, finding the alleged misleading statements and fraudulent intent insufficiently pleaded. Arata will argue that warnings about future risks did not excuse withholding disappointing results already known to management. Standard Lithium will argue that its statements described laboratory results and potential capacity, not proven commercial production. Arata v. Standard Lithium Ltd. (No. 25-2821) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Official Second Circuit oral argument — November 10, 2026. Source note: the argument and submission are complete; a faint final administrative sound is indistinct and is retained as supplied by the court.: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2821.mp3 Prior district-court memorandum and order — Doc. 46, September 28, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1%3A2022cv00507/475099/46/0.pdf

United States v. Yong Zhu and Congying Zheng — 2d Cir. (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears the criminal appeals of Zhu and Zheng. The case grew out of a campaign to pressure a Chinese couple living in New Jersey to return to China. Zhu hired a private investigator to locate them, while Zheng posted a threatening note at their home. The note used a prison sentence and the family's safety to pressure the husband to return. A jury convicted both men of stalking-related crimes. It also convicted Zhu of acting for China without notifying the U.S. attorney general, but acquitted Zheng of the foreign-agent charges. The trial judge refused to overturn their convictions. Zhu will challenge limits on his defense evidence and argue that his police interview should have been excluded. Zheng will dispute whether his brief involvement made him part of the larger stalking agreement, and will challenge limits on cross-examination. The government will defend the trial rulings and argue that the evidence supports the convictions. United States v. Yong Zhu and Congying Zheng (No. 25-121) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Official Second Circuit oral argument — November 10, 2026. Source note: the court recording cuts off the tail of the judge's final administrative word after all advocates have finished; this original gap is preserved, not reconstructed.: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-121,%2025-227.mp3 Prior district-court opinion denying post-trial motions — Doc. 294, March 1, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_21-cr-00265/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_21-cr-00265-2.pdf Public court docket — April 11, 2023 suppression-motion scheduling entry: https://www.drdocket.com/case/united-states-v-ji-hu-nyed-2021

Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, et al. v. Kennedy — D.C. Cir. (Nov 10, 2026) Nov 11, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Gottlieb Memorial Hospital and other teaching hospitals challenge a change in their Medicare payments. Medicare pays teaching hospitals an extra amount to help cover costs associated with training doctors. That amount depends in part on the ratio of doctors in training to hospital beds: counting more beds reduces the payment. The agency began including labor and delivery beds that had previously been excluded, and these hospitals received less money. They challenged the rule, but a federal district judge upheld it, finding both statutory authority and a reasonable explanation for the change. The hospitals will argue that Congress preserved the earlier calculation and that the agency failed to justify changing this measure of teaching intensity. The government will argue that Congress authorized it to define available beds, and that counting labor and delivery beds consistently with another Medicare payment program was reasonable. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, et al. v. Kennedy (No. 25-5190) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Official D.C. Circuit oral argument — November 10, 2026: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-5190.mp3 District-court memorandum opinion — Doc. 23, March 25, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-00116/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-00116-0.pdf

Carmen Martinez v. City of Hammond, Indiana — 7th Cir. (Nov 9, 2026) Nov 10, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit reviews the dismissal of a Hammond police sergeant’s discrimination lawsuit. Martinez says the department ridiculed her after she sought treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. She says a fitness-for-duty evaluation led to administrative leave and removal from her traffic assignment. She also alleges sexual harassment and retaliation after she complained. A federal judge found her complaint insufficient and refused a further amendment. Martinez will argue that the judge demanded too much detail before discovery and should have allowed her to revise the complaint. The city will argue that her account of past grievances does not plausibly connect the facts to the legal claims. Carmen Martinez v. City of Hammond, Indiana (No. 25-3066) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 9, 2026. Sources: Official Seventh Circuit oral argument — November 9, 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ch.25-3066.25-3066_11_09_2026.mp3 District-court opinion and order — Martinez, October 17, 2025: https://app.midpage.ai/document/carmen-martinez-v-hammond-city-11174240

Kaotica IP Corp. v. Iconic Mars Corporation — Fed. Cir. (Nov 9, 2026) Nov 10, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears a dispute over a photograph attached to a trade-dress settlement. Kaotica accused Iconic Mars of violating its rights in a product’s appearance. The resulting judgment barred Iconic from selling the accused product, identified by an attached photo. Years later, Iconic asked to replace that photo, saying it showed a redesigned product rather than the version covered by the deal. Kaotica disputes that the photo is wrong. The district court refused to change the judgment. Iconic will argue that the rule for correcting clerical mistakes also covers a party’s drafting error. Kaotica will defend the signed agreement and argue that this is not a clerical correction. Kaotica IP Corp. v. Iconic Mars Corporation (No. 25-1883) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 9, 2026. Sources: Official Federal Circuit oral argument — November 9, 2026. Source note: the official file cuts off the judge’s final administrative word after ‘The case is submitted’; all advocacy is preserved, and no speech has been reconstructed.: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1883_11092026.mp3 District-court order denying judgment correction — Kaotica, Doc. 69, May 22, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2021cv00433/701844/69/0.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected