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:

Marisol Andrade v. Collier County Sheriff, et al. — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears Andrade versus Collier County Sheriff. According to the estate, Nicolas Morales was in distress, banging on a neighbor's door and asking to be let in. Deputies encountered him holding a shovel and gardening shears. A deputy shot him; a police dog bit him, and he died. His estate sued, alleging excessive force. Marisol Andrade challenges the ruling against the estate. The appeal asks whether the deputies' use of force violated the Constitution. Marisol Andrade v. Collier County Sheriff, et al. (No. 25-12396) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-12396_09302026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=1 Incident allegations and lawsuit — district court Doc66 (Aug8,2023): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/2%3A2022cv00482/404550/66/0.pdf Appeal and counsel appearances — public copy of clerk entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-12396 Appellate case identity — Eleventh Circuit Doc40: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202512396.pdf Investigative stops — Terry v. Ohio, Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/ Reasonable suspicion — United States v. Sokolow, Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/1/ Local-government liability — Monell, Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/ Qualified immunity — Harlow, Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/ Qualified immunity — Pearson, Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/555/223/

United States v. Withrow — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears United States versus Withrow. A jury convicted Withrow of murdering Dustin Tucker. Prosecutors described the shooting as retaliation for informing on others, and said Withrow later told other people he had killed Tucker. Withrow appealed. Before trial, a witness had developed severe memory loss; the defense challenged using her earlier statements. You'll hear Massiah, a Supreme Court decision about the Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer. After formal charges, government agents generally cannot deliberately elicit incriminating statements about the charged offense without counsel. That protection also covers covert questioning by someone acting as a government agent. United States v. Withrow (No. 24-5040) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/24-5040.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F02%2F2026 Witness-memory issue before trial — district court opinion (Jul14,2023): https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-withrow-1000365553035 Prosecution case account — U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Oklahoma: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/gang-member-sentenced-life-plus-10-years-retaliation-murder-after-federal-trial Notice of appeal — public copy of clerk docket entries (2024 snapshot): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/24-5040 Right to counsel — Massiah v. United States, Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/201/ Undercover informants — United States v. Henry, Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/264/

United States v. Emil Dzabiev — 1st Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears United States versus Dzabiev. In 2021, police stopped Dzabiev after he met with a methamphetamine supplier. They found about a pound of methamphetamine in his car. Dzabiev pleaded guilty to a methamphetamine-trafficking conspiracy. He received 121 months in prison. He appealed to the First Circuit. A term you'll hear is P-S-R: the presentence report, prepared by a probation officer to help the judge assess the offense and the defendant. The federal sentencing guidelines recommend a sentencing range, but that range is not mandatory. United States v. Emil Dzabiev (No. 24-1997) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/24-1997_20261006.mp3 Argument date and case listing — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background — district court opinion, Doc.428 (Oct30,2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_21-cr-10208/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_21-cr-10208-2.pdf Guilty plea and sentence — U.S. Attorney, District of Massachusetts: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/maine-man-sentenced-over-10-years-prison-drug-trafficking-charges Notice of appeal — public copy of clerk docket entries (2024 snapshot): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/24-1997 Presentence investigations — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/probation-and-pretrial-services/presentence-investigations Presentence report — Sentencing Guidelines §6A1.1: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/CHAPTER_6.pdf Advisory sentencing guidelines — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/a

Frederick Henderson v. Sheila A. Kelly — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Frederick Henderson's challenge to his Massachusetts murder conviction. In 2011, a man was shot and killed on a Boston porch. Prosecutors said the attack was retaliation for his earlier cooperation with law enforcement. Henderson maintained he was elsewhere, but a jury convicted him. Massachusetts' highest court upheld the conviction and rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He now challenges two alleged failures by his trial lawyer: not emphasizing an eyewitness's disputed description of the shooter's height, and not seeking an instruction limiting evidence about his co-defendant's possible motive. That instruction would have told jurors not to use evidence of the co-defendant's motive against Henderson. Henderson's lawyer will argue that these omissions weakened his defense. The state will defend the lawyer's strategic choices and the state court's ruling. For this ineffective-assistance claim, Henderson must show that his lawyer's performance was objectively unreasonable and that there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without the errors. Frederick Henderson v. Sheila A. Kelly (No. 23-1777) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/23-1777_20261007.mp3 Argument date and case listing — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background and prior state ruling — Commonwealth v. Henderson (2020 court-authored opinion, public copy): https://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2020-sjc-11702.pdf?ts=1606828398 Shared-incident background — Commonwealth v. Herndon (2016 court-authored opinion, public copy): https://cases.justia.com/massachusetts/supreme-court/2016-sjc-11702.pdf?ts=1472220249 Ineffective-assistance standard — Strickland v. Washington: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep466/usrep466668/usrep466668.pdf Federal habeas review — Harrington v. Richter: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep562/usrep562086/usrep562086.pdf Federal habeas statute — 28 U.S.C. § 2254: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/pdf/USCODE-2024-title28-partVI-chap153-sec2254.pdf De novo legal review — Salve Regina College v. Russell: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-499/pdf/USREPORTS-499-225.pdf

In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 — 2d Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears an appeal in litigation brought by families, survivors, and others harmed by the September eleventh attacks. The plaintiffs seek to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for alleged assistance to the hijackers. Their claims focus on two men linked to the Saudi government and their alleged role in helping two hijackers settle in Southern California, including arranging housing and banking. Saudi Arabia denies knowingly supporting the hijackers. After targeted evidence gathering, a New York federal judge refused to dismiss the claims against Saudi Arabia. The kingdom appeals that jurisdictional ruling. Foreign governments are generally immune from suit in U.S. courts. JASTA, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, creates an exception for certain terrorism claims. This appeal concerns whether the evidence meets that exception—not a final determination of responsibility for the attacks. Saudi Arabia will contend that the judge left key factual disputes unresolved and applied the wrong legal standards. The plaintiffs will defend the judge's findings as sufficient to let the case proceed. In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (No. 25-2202) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (consolidated 25-2202, 25-2390, 25-2355): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2202,%2025-2390,%2025-2355.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and appealed ruling — district order, August 28, 2025: https://wp.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/03-md-01570%2011182.pdf Plaintiffs' position and counsel — filed appellate brief, public-redacted copy: https://www.motleyrice.com/sites/default/files/documents/Behalf%20of%20Appellees%20and%20Cross-Appellants%20CA2%20Dkt.%2025-2202%20%5Bfiled%20under%20seal%203-13-2026%5D%5BRedacted%20for%20Public%20Filing%204-2-2026%5D.pdf Foreign sovereign immunity — 28 U.S.C. § 1604: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap97-sec1604.htm Terrorism exception — 28 U.S.C. § 1605B: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap97-sec1605B.htm Gavin Simpson's firm — Kreindler terrorism litigation team: https://www.kreindler.com/practices/terrorism Carter Phillips' firm — Sidley profile: https://www.sidley.com/en/people/p/phillips-carter-g

Nuhn Industries Ltd. v. Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Nuhn Industries versus Bazooka-Farmstar, a patent dispute over a machine for stirring liquid manure. The vehicle can drive into a farm lagoon, float and use pumps and jets to mix its contents. Bazooka challenged Nuhn's patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board found the challenged claims unpatentable and rejected Nuhn's proposed replacement claims, relying on earlier technology. Nuhn appeals that decision. Anticipation means that one earlier reference discloses every claimed feature in the claimed arrangement. Obviousness asks whether the invention as a whole would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled person in light of earlier technology. The lawyers will also discuss secondary considerations: evidence such as commercial success, copying or industry skepticism that may support nonobviousness. James Luchsinger will speak for Nuhn. He will argue that the Board used hindsight and mishandled the evidence, including the distinction between a water pump and a manure pump. Nuhn Industries Ltd. v. Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC (No. 25-1599) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1599_10072026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and appealed ruling — PTAB public redacted final decision, IPR2023-01161: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554329/download-documents?artifactId=SOZlurA8D6v4ADgqjUsI-if5CqWISrTq2UJa6TL2EyEHabQbXWrHg4M Appeal issues and counsel — Nuhn's public notice of appeal: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554329/download-documents?artifactId=5JOVerblxr1UqaDiS4DmHhlnoLPdpYaqr42gOJJzzRZjUAbgeaMoPrc Proposed replacement claims — Nuhn's public motion to amend: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554329/download-documents?artifactId=l-XKbVv3Pluy3G4bdScHA91vGIt766pSFjAw76Sb7B4RKna26jWrjxo Bazooka counsel — public power of attorney: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554329/download-documents?artifactId=UEgipMVz-j3wNxz3svOPxH-pyOu2i-r2IUffreG5likBHw7ZKgpQ0yc Anticipation — USPTO examination guidance: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2131.html Obviousness — USPTO examination guidance: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html Secondary considerations — USPTO examination guidance: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s716.html

In re: Rhode Island Hospital Subpoena — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit considers a Justice Department subpoena for Rhode Island Hospital's records of minors receiving gender-affirming care. The government says the records are needed to investigate possible healthcare fraud and unlawful drug marketing. After months of negotiations with the hospital, it obtained an order from a Texas federal court requiring compliance. The hospital and Rhode Island's Child Advocate then challenged the subpoena in Rhode Island. That judge quashed the subpoena—set it aside—finding that it exceeded the government's investigative authority and threatened children's privacy. The government appeals. Much of this argument concerns the conflict between those two courts. The government will argue that the Rhode Island challenge improperly undermines the earlier Texas enforcement order. The hospital and Child Advocate will argue that their challenge is distinct and that the Rhode Island ruling should stand. In re: Rhode Island Hospital Subpoena (No. 26-1568) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/26-1568_20261007.mp3 Argument date and case listing — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background and appealed ruling — corrected May 14, 2026 district order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_26-mc-00007/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_26-mc-00007-1.pdf Procedural conflict — May 19, 2026 interim appellate order (not a merits ruling): https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/26-1568O-01A.pdf Child Advocate position and counsel — filed emergency motion (public copy): https://www.riaclu.org/app/uploads/2026/05/Emergency-Motion-for-Injunction-Pending-Appeal-%E2%80%93-Child-Advocate.pdf

McComb Children's Clinic v. Kennedy — 5th Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears McComb Children's Clinic's challenge to a federal healthcare rule. The Mississippi pediatric practice says the rule could force it to provide gender-transition care contrary to its medical policies. It sued over a 2024 Health and Human Services rule treating gender-identity discrimination as sex discrimination under the Affordable Care Act. Section fifteen fifty-seven of that Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded health programs. While the clinic's lawsuit was pending, the district court set aside several gender-identity provisions in a separate case brought by states. The judge then dismissed the clinic's case as moot, reasoning that no further effective relief remained for the court to give. The clinic says a remaining provision about sex stereotypes still leaves it exposed. Vacatur means setting aside agency action, not simply promising not to enforce it. Matthew Bowman, of Alliance Defending Freedom, will ask the court to reinstate the case and set aside that provision insofar as it covers gender identity. McComb Children's Clinic v. Kennedy (No. 26-60101) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/26/26-60101_10-07-2026.mp3 Argument date and appearing counsel — official court recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-08 Appealed ruling — district court's February 5, 2026 dismissal order (public copy): https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/McComb-Childrens-Clinic-LTD.-v.-Fink-et-al_2_5_2026_OPINION.pdf Clinic's allegations and medical policies — filed complaint (public copy): https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/McComb_2024.05.13_COMPLAINT.pdf Clinic's appellate position and counsel — opening brief (public copy): https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/McComb-Childrens-Clinic_2026.04.28_PLAINTIFFS-OPENING-BRIEF.pdf Government's appellate position — response brief (public copy): https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/McComb-Childrens-Clinic-v.-Kennedy_2026.05.28_DEFENDANTS-BRIEF.pdf Government counsel — September 9, 2026 filed letter (public copy): https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/McComb-Childrens-Clinic_2026.09.09_DEFENDANTS-NOTICE-OF-SUPPLEMENTAL-AUTHORITY.pdf Matthew Bowman's affiliation — employer profile: https://adflegal.org/profile/matt-bowman/ Setting aside agency action — 5 U.S.C. § 706: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/html/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap7-sec706.htm Healthcare nondiscrimination — ACA Section 1557, 42 U.S.C. § 18116: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap157-subchapVI-sec18116.htm

United States v. Nunez and Ellison — 2d Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears the appeals of Starlin Nunez and Anthony Ellison. Both were inmates at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a federal jail in Manhattan. Prosecutors charged a scheme in which inmates paid bribes through people outside the jail, and correctional officers brought in phones, drugs, and other contraband. Contraband was then sold inside the jail. A jury convicted Nunez and Ellison of bribery-related honest-services fraud conspiracy and prison-contraband conspiracy. They are now challenging those convictions. One term you will hear is entrapment by estoppel. It can protect someone who commits an otherwise criminal act in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a government official’s apparent authorization. A private belief that the government approves is not enough; there must be a government assurance or inducement on which the person reasonably relies. United States v. Nunez and Ellison (No. 25-48 & 25-1579) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit, consolidated appeals 25-48 and 25-1579: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-48,%2025-1579.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Charges and alleged jail scheme — publicly unsealed indictment: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1446426/dl Jury convictions — January 5, 2024 DOJ report, official OIG mirror: https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/1-05-2024.pdf Entrapment by estoppel — Second Circuit Giffen opinion, pages 8–11: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-fraud/legacy/2011/02/16/12-08-06giffen-opinion.pdf Government-authority defenses — archived DOJ Criminal Resource Manual §2055: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2055-public-authority-defense Honest-services definition — 18 U.S.C. §1346: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap63-sec1346.htm Fraud conspiracy — 18 U.S.C. §1349: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap63-sec1349.htm

Allison v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Allison versus Collins. Dixie Allison is continuing her late husband’s claims for disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. An Army veteran, he sought compensation for heart and lung conditions, vascular disease, and diabetes that he believed were connected to his service. An earlier Board denial relied partly on an assumption that he would have reported these problems during service. In 2022, the Veterans Court approved the parties’ agreed request to send the claims back because the Board had not cited independent medical evidence for that assumption. That is the joint motion for partial remand mentioned in the argument. The Board changed its reasoning but again denied the claims. In 2024, the Veterans Court upheld the denial, concluding that the Board had substantially complied with the remand. This appeal focuses on that court’s assessment of compliance with its own instructions. You will hear “de novo” fact-finding: deciding facts anew, rather than reviewing the Board’s findings. Section seventy-two sixty-one of Title thirty-eight restricts the Veterans Court from doing that. The question is whether its remand-compliance review crossed that line. Allison v. Collins (No. 25-1394) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1394_10072026.mp3 Argument date and current case caption — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Claims and Board decision — March 10, 2023: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/01209652210 Veterans Court decision — October 25, 2024: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010878505 Allison’s lower-court argument — corrected brief: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010095802 Secretary’s lower-court argument — brief: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010357247 Appeal and counsel — Allison’s notice of appeal: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011071010 Link to Federal Circuit 25-1394 — official docketing notice: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011128013 Veterans Court and Federal Circuit review powers — 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252, 7261, 7292: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/html/USCODE-2024-title38.htm Review versus original fact-finding — Tadlock v. McDonough, pages 5–12: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1762.opinion.7-15-2021_1804613.pdf Harold Hoffman’s firm — Veterans Legal Advocacy Group: https://vetlag.org/advocates/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected