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:

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority v. US — Fed. Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears D C Water versus the United States. In nineteen thirty-eight, Washington needed land for a new reservoir. The Soldiers' Home, now part of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, allowed the reservoir on its grounds in exchange for free water. Decades later, D C Water sought payment for sewer service. The home said the old arrangement protected it from those charges too. D C Water sued in twenty eighteen. The Court of Federal Claims ultimately awarded about six hundred thirty-three thousand dollars for fiscal year twenty twenty-one, rejecting the claimed exemption. The United States is appealing. The dispute centers on a nineteen fifty-four law requiring federal agencies to pay utility charges, and an exception for water services furnished for the water system's maintenance, operation, or extension. Mister Phillips, a Justice Department attorney, will argue that the reservoir arrangement falls within that exception. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority v. US (No. 24-2293) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/24-2293_10082026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit official table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Reservoir arrangement and prior entitlement ruling — Court of Federal Claims, September 10, 2021: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1586-81-0 Prior damages judgment for fiscal year 2021 — Court of Federal Claims, July 3, 2024: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2018cv1586-151-0 United States position and counsel — filed appellant brief, public PDF copy: https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/24-2293-Defendant-Appellants-Brief.pdf DC Water position and counsel — corrected filed appellee brief, public PDF copy: https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/24-2293-Plaintiff-Appellees-Answer-Brief.pdf Emil Hirsch — Carlton Fields attorney biography: https://www.carltonfields.com/team/h/emil-hirsch Water-charge mandate and exception — D.C. Code § 34–2401.25: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/34-2401.25 Federal sewer charges — D.C. Code § 34–2112: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/34-2112 Statutory words in context — Yates, Ginsburg plurality opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-574/pdf/USREPORTS-574-528.pdf Statutory words in context — Fischer majority opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf Waiver definition — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/waiver Equitable estoppel definition — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/estoppel_in_pais

Lee v. Golaszewski — 2d Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Dan Lee's appeal over a business venture he says his colleagues took away from him. Lee and two colleagues at Seventeen Capital explored starting a financing business with another investment firm, Hunter Point Capital. They prepared plans, met potential partners, and jointly hired lawyers, but never signed a partnership agreement. Hunter Point offered jobs to the other two men. Lee says they excluded him from a venture they had already agreed to build together. They say they accepted individual jobs and never formed a partnership with him. Lee sued for breaking the alleged partnership and violating duties owed between partners. The district court ruled for the defendants without a trial, finding insufficient proof that a partnership or joint venture existed. Lee is challenging that ruling. Lee v. Golaszewski (No. 25-2053) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit court original, Lee portion of a consecutive-case recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2053.mp3 Argument date and recording — Second Circuit listing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appeal and counsel — public clerk-entry reproduction, last retrieved September 12, 2025: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2053 Case background and disputed accounts — district court transfer order, November 13, 2023: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cv0400-32= Prior summary-judgment opinion — district court, July 24, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2023cv10695/611661/91/0.pdf Prior judgment — district court, July 24, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2023cv10695/611661/92/0.pdf?ts=1753440023 Dylan Kletter — Brown Rudnick attorney biography: https://brownrudnick.com/people/dylan-p-kletter/ Jason Swergold — Yankwitt attorney biography: https://www.yankwitt.com/attorneys/jason-m-swergold/ Partnership definition — New York Partnership Law § 10: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PTR/10 Partnership formation — Brodsky, publicly visible relevant opinion passage: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/brodsky-v-stadlen-894490120 Partnerships and joint ventures — FAT Brands appellate opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-21-02023/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-21-02023-0.pdf Joint-venture definition — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_venture

Brewington v. Kaur — 2d Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Brewington versus Kaur. The dispute began in New York Family Court, over Brewington's child-support obligations. She says court officials mishandled her challenges and violated her constitutional rights, causing serious financial harm. She brought a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the support magistrate and other defendants. Section nineteen eighty-three allows suits over violations of federal rights by people acting under state authority. The district court dismissed her complaint, relying in part on domestic-relations abstention and judicial immunity. Brewington is appealing that ruling and is speaking for herself, without a lawyer. She will argue that her suit seeks redress for separate constitutional injuries, not different custody or support orders. Brewington v. Kaur (No. 25-3015) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit court original: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-3015.mp3 Argument date and recording — Second Circuit listing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case and self-representation — public clerk-entry reproduction: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-3015 Case background — district court order, August 27, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_25-cv-04644/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_25-cv-04644-0.pdf Amended complaint and prior dismissal — district court order, October 16, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_25-cv-04644/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_25-cv-04644-1.pdf Civil-rights statute — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.htm Domestic-relations abstention — Deem majority opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/18-2266/18-2266-2019-10-30.pdf?ts=1572445803 Federal jurisdiction and abstention — Ankenbrandt majority opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-504/pdf/USREPORTS-504-689.pdf Judicial immunity — Mireles majority opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-502/pdf/USREPORTS-502-9.pdf Judicial immunity limits — Stump majority opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-435/pdf/USREPORTS-435-349.pdf

Sunrez Corp. v. United States — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Sunrez Corporation versus the United States. The Air Force hired Sunrez to develop six prototype cargo pallets under a small-business research contract. The parties then disputed how much technical information Sunrez had to deliver, and when. A technical data package, or TDP, contains drawings and other information describing the product. Sunrez says premature demands for that information and a lack of cooperation on testing undermined its chance to commercialize the pallets. The government paid the contract price, but Sunrez sued, alleging a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Court of Federal Claims ruled for the government on summary judgment. That means a decision without a trial, when no genuine dispute over facts material to the ruling requires one. Sunrez is appealing that ruling. Bryant Banes, of Neel, Hooper and Banes, represents Sunrez. He will ask the court to restore its claim. Sunrez Corp. v. United States (No. 25-1744) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1744_10072026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case and counsel — public clerk-entry reproduction: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1744 Case background and prior ruling — Court of Federal Claims, March 7, 2025: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv0568-96-0 Counsel affiliation — Bryant Banes firm profile: https://nhblaw.com/bryant-s-banes/ Good faith and fair dealing — Metcalf majority opinion: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/13-5041.opinion.2-7-2014.1.pdf Summary judgment — Court of Federal Claims Rule 56: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/cfc/files/Rules%2010.08.26.pdf Summary judgment — U.S. Courts glossary: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary

In re Burandt — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears In re Burandt. Corliss Burandt developed technology for controlling valves in automobile engines. A related patent application was abandoned for years, then revived by the Patent Office in 2010. Revival returned it to examination; it did not guarantee a patent. Burandt says extra scrutiny under the Sensitive Application Warning System, or SAWS, unfairly stalled his application. The program sent selected applications for extra internal review. He is now challenging a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision. Edward Pennington, of Pennington Oliak, represents Burandt. He will challenge the patent rejections and the way the application was handled. In re Burandt (No. 25-1336) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1336_10072026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case and counsel — public clerk-entry reproduction: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1336 Application revival and prior rejection — USPTO 2012 petition decision: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/foia_rr/resources/patents/07516757_14nov2012.pdf Board proceedings and judicial-review route — USPTO 2024 order: https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/pateot/07516757_2024-12-17.pdf Inventor and application background — IEEE Spectrum reporting: https://spectrum.ieee.org/patent-battle Engine invention — original patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4961406A/en SAWS — USPTO program description: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/patent-application-initiatives/sensitive-application-warning-system Counsel affiliation — Edward Pennington firm profile: https://pennoliak.com/edward-a-pennington/ Double patenting — USPTO examination guidance: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html Terminal disclaimers and double patenting — Gilead v. Natco majority: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/13-1418.opinion.4-18-2014.1.pdf Patent obviousness — historical section103(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e302450 Obviousness analysis — USPTO examination guidance: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html

Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation — Fed. Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears TaylorMade Golf versus Costco. TaylorMade accuses Costco of selling golf clubs that infringe its patents. Years earlier, the companies had entered into supplier agreements with arbitration clauses. Costco invokes those old contracts to seek arbitration of the later patent dispute. Arbitration means resolving an agreed dispute before an arbitrator rather than a court. The district court refused to compel arbitration, and Costco appealed. Section sixteen of the Federal Arbitration Act allows immediate appeals from orders refusing arbitration, before the lawsuit is finished. But the parties disagree about which appeals court has the legal authority, or jurisdiction, to hear this appeal: the Federal Circuit or the Ninth Circuit. Ramsey Al-Salam represents Costco. He will ask the court to enforce the arbitration agreements. Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (No. 25-1510) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1510_10082026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case identity, counsel and transfer motion — public clerk-entry reproduction: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1510 Original golf-club allegations — contemporary complaint reporting: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/taylormade-sues-costco-over-patent-infringement-on-sold-out-kirk Costco's arbitration position — reporting on its filed reply brief: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/in-house-counsel/costco-pushes-arbitration-in-taylor-made-golf-club-patent-appeal Prior ruling and appeal — district-record reporting: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/taylor-made-costco-golf-club-patent-suit-paused-pending-appeal Arbitration — Henry Schein v. Archer & White: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1272_7l48.pdf Arbitration appeals — Federal Arbitration Act section16: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/9/16 Interlocutory jurisdiction — Arthur Andersen v. Carlisle: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep556/usrep556624/usrep556624.pdf Legal terms — U.S. Courts glossary: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary En banc court — Federal Circuit operating procedures: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/InternalOperatingProcedures.pdf

Nunes v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC — 2d Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Devin Nunes versus NBCUniversal, a defamation dispute over a television report. On Rachel Maddow's show, viewers were told Nunes had refused to turn a package over to the FBI. Nunes says the package had been promptly delivered to the FBI. He sued NBCUniversal, arguing that saying he refused was materially different from an earlier Politico report saying the information was not turned over. The district court entered judgment for NBCUniversal because it found insufficient evidence of actual malice. Nunes asks the appeals court to let a jury hear the claim. Actual malice means either knowing a statement is false or publishing while seriously doubting its truth. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher bar than ordinary civil proof. New York's public-interest speech law also requires that heightened proof, independently of the First Amendment. Nunes v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC (No. 25-2125) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit court original: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2125.mp3 Argument date and recording — Second Circuit listing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Challenged district-court ruling — public court filing: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv01633/575696/162/0.pdf District-court judgment — public clerk record: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv01633/575696/163/0.pdf Counsel identity and represented sides — signed case filing: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv01633/575696/103/0.pdf Advocate background — Davis Wright Tremaine: https://www.dwt.com/people/m/mcnamara-elizabeth-a Actual malice — St. Amant v. Thompson: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep390/usrep390727/usrep390727.pdf Proof standards — federal civil jury instructions: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/jury-instructions/Civil_Instructions_3_2026.pdf Defamation summary judgment — Anderson v. Liberty Lobby: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep477/usrep477242/usrep477242.pdf New York public-interest speech law — Civil Rights Law section76-a: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/76-A

Evolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories — Fed. Cir. (Oct 8, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Evolve BioSystems versus Abbott Laboratories, a dispute over infant probiotics. Evolve's product was called Evivo. Abbott marketed Similac Probiotic Tri-Blend for use with premature infants in hospital intensive care. Evolve and the Regents of the University of California sued, alleging that combining that probiotic with milk or formula containing particular milk sugars infringed two patents. The district court held the asserted patent claims invalid because earlier clinical studies had already disclosed the relevant combinations. It also ruled against Evolve on its false-advertising claims about Abbott's marketing. Evolve appeals those rulings. Anticipation is the patent-law term for a single earlier reference disclosing every element of a claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. An inherent feature must necessarily be present, not merely possibly present. De novo review means considering an issue afresh, without deferring to the lower court's ruling. Evolve BioSystems, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (No. 25-1490) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1490_10082026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Challenged district-court ruling — public judicial opinion: https://business.cch.com/ipld/EvolveBiosystemsAbbottLabs20250107.pdf Earlier product background — district-court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_19-cv-05859/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_19-cv-05859-0.pdf Appeal identity and clerk entries — public docket reproduction: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1490 Anticipation and inherency — In re Montgomery: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/11-1376.pdf Legal terms — U.S. Courts glossary: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary De novo appellate review — D.C. Circuit opinion: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2017/11/13-7060.pdf

J&M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Kinze Manufacturing, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears J and M Manufacturing versus Kinze Manufacturing, a dispute over a grain cart used to unload harvested grain into a truck trailer. J and M's patent describes a folding auger and an adjustable spout designed to direct grain across the trailer, including its corners. J and M sued Kinze for patent infringement. The district court ruled for Kinze after finding the patent claims indefinite, focusing on the phrase askewed angle. J and M appeals that ruling. A patent claim defines the scope of protection for an invention. A Markman hearing is a proceeding in which the judge determines what the patent's claim language means. J&M Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Kinze Manufacturing, Inc. (No. 25-1654) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1654_10052026.mp3 Argument date and recording — Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Grain-cart patent — US9113598B2: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9113598B2/en District-court termination excerpt and case record — PatSnap public reproduction: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/jm-manufacturing-v-kinze-manufacturing-grain-cart-patent-invalidity-patsnap/ Appeal and underlying district-case identity — Federal Circuit order: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1654.ORDER.6-3-2025_2524277.pdf Patent claims and judicial claim construction — Markman v. Westview: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-517/pdf/USREPORTS-517-370.pdf Claim-construction hearing and analysis — N.D. New Jersey judicial opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_13-cv-05723/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_13-cv-05723-1.pdf

In Re Gonthier — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears a patent appeal about protecting a buyer's bank information during an online payment. The application describes a transaction system that accesses the buyer's bank account, arranges payment to the seller, and sends confirmation without giving the seller the buyer's banking information. After the Patent Office rejected the application, the applicants sought review by its Patent Trial and Appeal Board and then appealed to this court. De novo means the court considers an issue anew. Section one-oh-one addresses patent eligibility: merely carrying out an abstract idea on an ordinary computer does not make that idea patentable. Section one-twelve's separate written-description rule requires the application, as filed, to show a skilled reader that the inventors possessed the claimed invention. In Re Gonthier (No. 25-1477) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1477_10052026.mp3 Recording and argument date — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/10-05-2026-2025-1477-in-re-gonthier-audio-uploaded/ Published application and prosecution history — US20180365662A1, application16/108,860: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20180365662A1/en Case and appealed application identity — Federal Circuit judgment: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1477.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.10-8-2026_2768372.pdf Abstract ideas and generic computers — Alice v. CLS Bank: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-573/pdf/USREPORTS-573-208.pdf Patent eligibility — USPTO examination guidance2106: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html Written description — 35 U.S.C. §112, official Patent Laws copy: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html Written-description standard — Ariad v. Eli Lilly, en banc: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/08-1248.pdf De novo definition — Ninth Circuit review-standards guide: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/I.%20Definitions%202022.htm Independent de novo analysis — Rocha v. Thaler: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/05/05-70028-CV1.wpd.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected