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:

In re Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-019 — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit considers whether the Justice Department can compel Boston Children’s Hospital to turn over records about gender-affirming care for minors. In June 2025, the department served the hospital with an administrative subpoena seeking patient medical files, staff records, billing information, and communications with drug manufacturers. The department describes the demand as part of an investigation into possible healthcare offenses, particularly unlawful drug promotion. The hospital challenged the demand, arguing that it was intended to intimidate providers and patients and stop the care. A federal judge in Massachusetts quashed, or canceled, the subpoena, finding that it lacked a proper investigative purpose and was motivated by bad faith. The Justice Department appealed. This argument concerns the validity of the records demand, not a judgment that the hospital committed a healthcare offense. An administrative subpoena is an investigative demand issued under statutory authority; the recipient can ask a court to set it aside. Off-label prescribing means using an approved drug outside its approved labeling. Misbranding is a separate legal category that includes false or misleading drug labeling. In re Administrative Subpoena No. 25-1431-019 (No. 25-2092) — 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/25-2092_20261007.mp3 Case and argument date — official First Circuit register: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background and subpoena ruling — district court decision, September 9, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-mc-91324/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-mc-91324-0.pdf Consolidated appeals and off-label prescribing — medical organizations’ amicus brief, July 21, 2026: https://www.acponline.org/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy/advocacy_in_action/assets/boston_childrens_hospital_v_us_doj_amicus_brief_07_21_2026.pdf Administrative-subpoena authority — 18 U.S.C. § 3486, 2024 Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap223-sec3486.htm Misbranding — 21 U.S.C. § 352, 2024 Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap9-subchapV-partA-sec352.htm Off-label prescribing — FDA guidance: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label Practice of medicine — 21 U.S.C. § 396, 2024 Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title21/html/USCODE-2024-title21-chap9-subchapX-sec396.htm Device-law limits — FDA’s Physician 360 enforcement analysis: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/physician-360-inc-604202-10052020 False or misleading drug labeling — FDA’s 2026 misbranding application: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/better-health-labs-inc-dba-measured-721454-02202026

Meta Platforms, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Meta Platforms versus AlmondNet, an appeal involving a patent for linking devices through a shared internet address and using activity on one device to target advertising on another. Meta asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate the challenged claims, arguing that earlier technology made the claimed combination obvious. The Board found that Meta had not proved its case, and Meta appealed. The dispute centers on whether Meta’s proposed combination determines that two devices used the same address during a predetermined time period. You will hear references to D H C P, the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol. It can assign an address for a limited lease period. Renewal can keep the same address in use beyond that original period, and the parties disagree about what this means for the patent’s timing requirement. Substantial-evidence review asks whether the record contains evidence a reasonable person could accept as supporting the Board’s factual findings. Meta Platforms, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc. (No. 25-1638) — 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/25-1638_10072026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit announcement: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/10-07-2026-2025-1638-meta-platforms-inc-v-almondnet-inc-audio-uploaded/ Patent background and Board decision — IPR2023-01281, February 19, 2025: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554458/download-documents?artifactId=3DrnRtdbqT_EISvyorN9IwmR2HqSZvm3Sh51zIAVoVWYNH7NtXZCBxg Appeal grounds and counsel — Meta’s notice of appeal, April 7, 2025: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554458/download-documents?artifactId=HuDcMqkTeT0jWiSBBmfUqVxjuxwGWVB455JcJZEUnE6UexjaoV-j2bA Parties and joined proceedings — corrected Federal Circuit order, September 3, 2025: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1638.ORDER.9-3-2025_2567215.pdf DHCP leases and renewal — IETF RFC 2131, §§ 3.3 and 4.4.5: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2131 Review of Patent Office findings — Dickinson v. Zurko: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98-377 Review of Board factual findings — Celgene v. Peter, page 9: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/18-1167.opinion.7-30-2019.pdf James Milkey’s firm — Russ August & Kabat: https://www.raklaw.com/attorney/james-a-milkey/

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 dispute over Nuhn’s eight thirty-five patent for a vehicle that pumps liquid manure while floating. Bazooka challenged the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board found all forty claims unpatentable as obvious in light of earlier technology, and rejected Nuhn’s proposed replacement claims. The claims define what the patent protects. Nuhn is appealing. A central dispute is whether the patent’s liquid manure mover requires a pump that can be immersed. Both sides treat that phrase as a means-plus-function limitation under Section one hundred twelve F: it describes what a component does, but its scope is tied to corresponding structure disclosed in the patent and equivalents. Another issue is whether Nuhn’s proposed replacement claims are supported by the original description of the invention. Nuhn Industries Ltd. v. Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC (No. 25-2136) — 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/25-2136_10072026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Patent background and Board decision — IPR2024-00004, April 14, 2025: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554688/download-documents?artifactId=NRtuslpjeVO-AUQELlT7_rv-mp_h5ItoAjqOebbFhufV-jfkcjXoYlA Appeal grounds and counsel — Nuhn’s notice of appeal, September 18, 2025: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554688/download-documents?artifactId=VLjtDocFcVtfoNYunvWtxDDxc3o-JolTf9RQcmZO2WYLBLL0mYsuK5k Patent claims and means-plus-function — 35 U.S.C. § 112: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap11-sec112.htm Means-plus-function interpretation — USPTO MPEP § 2181: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2181.html

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 equipment for handling farm manure. Nuhn holds a patent on an amphibious pumping vehicle that can travel on land, float in a manure lagoon and agitate its contents. Bazooka challenged that patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found all thirty-eight claims unpatentable as obvious. The claims are the written definitions of the invention the patent protects. Obviousness asks whether the claimed invention, considered as a whole, would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled person before its effective filing date, in light of earlier technology. Nuhn is appealing the Board's decision. The dispute includes what it means for flotation elements to be between the vehicle's wheels, whether the Board properly relied on expert testimony, and how it treated Nuhn's evidence of commercial success and copying, known as secondary considerations in the obviousness analysis. Nuhn Industries Ltd. v. Bazooka-Farmstar, LLC (No. 25-1923) — 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/25-1923_10072026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Patent background and Board decision — IPR2024-00098, public final decision, May 5, 2025: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554791/download-documents?artifactId=0w1ljdsTBM8DLd2Xno0kwsH10gSfxQcWOHyfzG-FRmKru0J3pgT3MxU Appeal grounds and counsel — patent owner’s notice of appeal, July 7, 2025: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554791/download-documents?artifactId=lp5PU6r98qydRH_5tswAYNscRiQgBHQQSKxjx8lc_-tVZKL9WSM-HMk Nuhn’s position and counsel — filed patent-owner surreply, December 18, 2024: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554791/download-documents?artifactId=pDcluIlnjnbeklF9Z3KziKSvLvjCoB9k77mQRgMaEvZ0NQOKKgUYPvs Claim interpretation — Board institution decision, May 23, 2024: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554791/download-documents?artifactId=TzWxQkInaq6RnPNSvY7UAaQym7I1RH3dxPzQazsrHKVtUCn6MhrOp6Q Obviousness — 35 U.S.C. § 103: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec103.htm Patent claims — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap11-sec112.htm

Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears a dispute over federal arts funding. Rhode Island Latino Arts and three other arts organizations challenged funding rules adopted by the National Endowment for the Arts. One plaintiff, National Queer Theater, had previously received grants for its annual theater festival. Their filings describe planned projects involving transgender or nonbinary artists, characters, or themes. The dispute began in 2025, when applicants were required to certify that federal funds would not promote what an executive order calls gender ideology. The agency withdrew that requirement, then adopted a policy allowing those views to count against an application at the final review stage. The government says this is not automatic disqualification. A federal judge in Rhode Island struck down that policy under the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The government is appealing, contending that competitive arts funding allows it to consider a project's message. The organizations contend that the government is penalizing private artists for a disfavored viewpoint. The judges also consider whether the agency exceeded the authority Congress gave it, without needing to reach the constitutional question. Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts (No. 25-2113) — 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/25-2113_20261007.mp3 Case and argument date — official First Circuit recording index: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background and district judgment — District of Rhode Island, Doc. 34, September 19, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_25-cv-00079/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_25-cv-00079-1.pdf Organizations’ projects and allegations — complaint, Doc. 1, March 6, 2025: https://www.rid.uscourts.gov/sites/rid/files/Ltino%20Arts%20-%20complaint.pdf Organizations’ appellate position and counsel — filed appellees’ brief, June 5, 2026 (public copy): https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/03/RILA-v.-NEA-1st-Cir.-Opp-Brief-for-Plaintiffs-Appellees.pdf

Community Economic Development Center v. Bessent — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears a dispute over using confidential tax records for immigration enforcement. Four community organizations brought the lawsuit, including a New Bedford group that helps immigrant residents file their taxes. In April 2025, the IRS and ICE agreed on a framework for sharing information under an exception for federal criminal investigations unrelated to taxes. The IRS later supplied taxpayer addresses to ICE. The organizations say the sharing undermines their members' privacy and frightens people away from tax filing and community services. A federal judge in Massachusetts put the information-sharing arrangements on hold and temporarily barred ICE from using IRS information obtained through them while the lawsuit continues. The government is appealing that order. It argues that the organizations have not shown an injury that gives them standing to sue, and that the agreements comply with the criminal-investigation exception in section sixty-one oh three of the tax code. The organizations argue that the program reaches beyond that exception, into civil immigration enforcement. The court also asks whether the agreements are final agency actions that can be reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act. Community Economic Development Center v. Bessent (No. 26-1329) — 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/26-1329_20261007.mp3 Case and argument date — official First Circuit recording index: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Preliminary order and case background — District of Massachusetts, Doc. 75, February 5, 2026 (public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1%3A2025cv12822/289669/75/0.pdf Organizations’ allegations and counsel — amended complaint, Doc. 73, January 30, 2026 (public copy): https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Community-Economic-Development-Center-of-SEMA-v.-Bessent-Jan.-30-2026-Filing.pdf IRS–ICE agreement — April 7, 2025, government-filed declaration and executed MOU (public copy): https://files.epi.org/uploads/IRS_ICE_MOU-April-2025.pdf Counsel appearances — First Circuit clerk docket entries (public copy): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/26-1329 Tax confidentiality and criminal-investigation exception — 26 U.S.C. § 6103: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title26/html/USCODE-2024-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6103.htm Reviewable agency action — 5 U.S.C. § 704: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/html/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap7-sec704.htm

US v Pontz — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 08, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit returns to United States versus Kenneth Pontz, a prosecution over Supplemental Security Income benefits. Pontz told Social Security he lived alone and overstated his rent, although he shared a home with his wife. Her income affected how much he could receive through this needs-based program. A jury convicted him of stealing government money under section six forty-one, in a single charge covering payments from 2014 through 2020. The statute generally makes theft of more than one thousand dollars a felony. On his first appeal, the court held that embezzlement under this law is not a continuing offense: the five-year prosecution clock does not stay open simply because payments keep arriving. Some of the charged conduct was therefore time-barred. The court sent the case back to determine whether the conviction could stand. On remand, the trial judge refused to overturn the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that the later payments alone exceeded the felony threshold. The dispute now is whether the single charge and jury verdict can support the conviction despite the time-barred conduct. US v Pontz (No. 25-1742) — 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/25-1742_20261007.mp3 Case and argument date — official First Circuit recording index: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 First appeal and case background — First Circuit, March 14, 2025: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1069P-01A.pdf Ruling on remand — District of Massachusetts, Doc. 178, June 18, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-3_22-cr-30021/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-3_22-cr-30021-0.pdf Theft of government property — 18 U.S.C. § 641: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap31-sec641.pdf Five-year prosecution deadline — 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap213-sec3282.pdf Duplicity and unanimous verdicts — Criminal Rules 12(b)(3)(B)(i) and 31(a): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf

King Maker Marketing, Inc. v. US — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears King Maker Marketing versus the United States, about refunds on imported cigarettes. King Maker brought cigarettes into the United States and stored them in a foreign-trade zone. Such zones allow importers to delay paying customs duties until goods are released for domestic consumption. The company later withdrew the cigarettes, paid duties, taxes and fees, and exported other cigarettes. It sought substitution drawback: a refund tied to exporting qualifying replacement goods, not necessarily the same goods imported. The exported goods must meet requirements including a matching tariff classification and remaining unused in the United States. Customs denied the refund claims as too late. King Maker challenged the denial in the Court of International Trade, which dismissed the case; the company now appeals. Section thirteen thirteen, the drawback statute, generally requires a claim within five years after importation. Section eighty-one C of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act says goods sent from a zone into U.S. customs territory become subject to the laws governing imported goods. The customs regulation defines importation by ship as arrival in a U.S. port with the intention to unload. The question is whether the refund deadline can start running before the company pays the charges it seeks to recover. King Maker Marketing, Inc. v. US (No. 25-1819) — 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/25-1819_10072026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and dismissal — Court of International Trade, Slip Op. 25-58, May 15, 2025: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-58.pdf Substitution drawback and filing deadline — 19 U.S.C. § 1313(j)(2), (r): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title19/pdf/USCODE-2024-title19-chap4-subtitleII-partI-sec1313.pdf Foreign-trade-zone provision — 19 U.S.C. § 81c(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title19/pdf/USCODE-2024-title19-chap1A-sec81c.pdf Importation definition — 19 C.F.R. § 101.1: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-I/part-101/section-101.1 John Peterson’s firm affiliation — Neville Peterson attorney profile: https://www.npllptradelaw.com/attorneys/john-peterson/

DS Advanced Enterprises, Ltd. v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC — Fed. Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears DS Advanced Enterprises versus Lowe's Home Centers, a dispute over recessed LED ceiling lights. DS Advanced sued Lowe's, claiming that recessed lights sold by the retailer infringed its lighting patent. The patent concerns mounting an LED light either directly in a ceiling or inside an existing recessed-light housing. The patent requires a metal housing. The district court ruled for Lowe's without a trial, finding that the accused lights had plastic housings and did not meet that requirement. It later refused to reconsider that judgment. DS Advanced contends that an internal metal disc, with a rim around its edge, can satisfy the metal-housing requirement. Lowe's will contend that the disc is an internal component, not the housing the patent claims. Claim construction means determining what the patent's claims mean before applying them to the accused product. Intrinsic evidence comes from the patent record, including its claims and description of the invention; an outside dictionary is extrinsic evidence. Summary judgment requires that there be no genuine dispute over a material fact requiring a trial. The argument also addresses attorney's fees under Section two eighty-five. That provision allows reasonable attorney's fees for the prevailing party in exceptional patent cases. Octane Fitness requires courts to consider all the circumstances when deciding whether a case is exceptional. DS Advanced Enterprises, Ltd. v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (No. 25-1072) — 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/25-1072_10072026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and summary judgment — S.D. Cal. order, September 30, 2024: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2023cv01335/764096/67/0.pdf Reconsideration ruling — S.D. Cal. order, February 24, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2023cv01335/764096/109/0.pdf?ts=1740473975 Patented mounting apparatus — U.S. Patent 11,054,118 B2, abstract and claim 1: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8b/2e/41/abd207bf4cd3ce/US11054118.pdf Patent attorney-fee provision — 35 U.S.C. § 285: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/pdf/USCODE-2024-title35-partIII-chap29-sec285.pdf Exceptional-case standard — Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. 545, 553–554 (2014): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/572bv.pdf

Kim v. Blanche — 5th Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Kim versus Blanche. Kim, a Russian citizen, came to the United States in April two thousand twenty-four seeking protection from return to Russia. He was detained, and an immigration judge granted him asylum that year. After the government appealed, the case went back to the immigration judge, who again found him eligible for asylum in two thousand twenty-five. The Board of Immigration Appeals then overturned the grant of relief and ordered his removal to Russia. Kim asked the Fifth Circuit to review that order, and the court put his removal on hold while it considered his petition. Firm resettlement can bar asylum when someone had an offer to settle permanently in another country before arriving here, subject to limited exceptions. In the recording, IJ means immigration judge, BIA means Board of Immigration Appeals, and CAT means Convention Against Torture. Kohsei Ugumori will speak for the government. Kim v. Blanche (No. 25-60617) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60617_10-07-2026.mp3 Argument date and government counsel — Official Fifth Circuit recording listing: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Case background and removal proceedings — Related D.N.J. habeas opinion, March 24, 2026, pages 1–2: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_26-cv-00448/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_26-cv-00448-0.pdf Firm-resettlement framework — Matter of A-G-G-, 25 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 2011): https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3713.pdf Firm-resettlement definition — Historical 2020 version of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2020-title8-vol1/pdf/CFR-2020-title8-vol1-sec1208-15.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected