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:

Morgan v. Blanche — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Morgan versus Blanche, a case about protection against return to Jamaica under the Convention Against Torture. Morgan says uniformed police officers beat him in January two thousand twenty-one and told him to pay gang dues or leave his community. He links that attack to a gang that was extorting him. He also faces murder charges in Jamaica, which he describes as a frame-up. In two thousand twenty-four, this court upheld a crime-based bar to his asylum and withholding claims, but sent his request for deferral of removal back because the immigration agency had used an unduly narrow test for official acquiescence. That term concerns officials being aware of torture beforehand and then breaching their legal duty to intervene to prevent it. Officials need not actively cooperate with the torturers, but ineffective policing alone does not necessarily establish acquiescence. The distinction matters when someone seeks protection from torture by a private gang rather than only by government officials. The question is when a police response, or failure to respond, meets that standard. In the recording, IJ means immigration judge, and BIA means Board of Immigration Appeals. Chelsea Eddy will speak for Morgan, and Matthew Spurlock for the government. Morgan v. Blanche (No. 26-1163) — 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/26-1163_20261007.mp3 Argument date and docket — Official First Circuit recording listing: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background and earlier remand — First Circuit, November 5, 2024, pages 2–9 and 26–32: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1280P-01A.pdf Official acquiescence — 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(7): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-B/part-1208/subpart-A/section-1208.18 Counsel appearances — Court docket entries reproduced by Justia, February 16–17, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/26-1163

SEC v. Stanford — 5th Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears SEC versus Stanford, an appeal over professional fees in the cleanup of an investment fraud. Stanford International Bank sold certificates of deposit in a Ponzi scheme, using new investors' money to repay earlier investors. After the Securities and Exchange Commission brought its fraud case in two thousand nine, the district court appointed a receiver to take control of the Stanford assets and recover money. The receiver and hired professionals spent years collecting assets and pursuing lawsuits so investors could receive distributions. During that work, the court held back part of the professionals' fees rather than paying everything immediately. In the final distribution order, the judge allowed payment of half those retained fees, rejected an inflation adjustment, and denied Baker Botts compensation for preparing later fee applications. The receiver and professional firms now seek more compensation; the SEC and the court-appointed examiner defend the judge's decision. You will hear the term lodestar: reasonable hours of work multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. The Johnson factors are considerations courts use in reviewing fees, including the results obtained. The question is whether the judge had adequate grounds to reduce compensation, or should have awarded the additional amounts the professionals requested. Aaron Streett will speak first for the receiver and the professional firms. He will seek full payment of the retained fees, an adjustment for delay, and compensation for preparing fee applications. SEC v. Stanford (No. 25-11338) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-11338_10-07-2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Official Fifth Circuit calendar: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-10-07 Counsel — Official Fifth Circuit recording entry: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?docket=25-11338 Distribution and professional-fee rulings — District court, October 8, 2025, pages 10–14: https://www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com/documents/3555_20251008_Order_Approving_Rs_Final_Dist_Plan.pdf Distribution-plan amendment — District court, November 25, 2025: https://www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com/documents/2025-11-25_Order_Approving_Joint_[dckt_3562_0].pdf Asset recovery and procedural background — Receiver’s filed report, August 20, 2025, main report pages 1–15: https://www.stanfordfinancialreceivership.com/documents/Dkt_3521_-_Receivers_Report.pdf Stanford fraud and receiver’s role — Fifth Circuit, August 9, 2024, pages 2–4: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10726-CV0.pdf Underlying fraud — DOJ account of criminal trial evidence, June 14, 2012: https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/txs/1News/Releases/2012%20June/120614%20Stanford_print.html Lodestar and Johnson factors — Fifth Circuit, January 10, 2022, pages 6–8: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-40357-CV0.pdf SEC civil case and receiver appointment — SEC Litigation Release20901, February17,2009: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-20901

DC Transco v. Rainbow Energy — 5th Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears DC Transco versus Rainbow Energy, a dispute over electricity trading during Winter Storm Uri. DC Transco held rights to transmit electricity through a link between two power grids, including the Texas grid. It hired Rainbow to manage energy trading and take advantage of price differences between those markets. When the storm hit Texas in February twenty twenty-one, physical electricity trades generated about thirty-seven million dollars in profits, while financial hedging trades lost more than twenty million. Rainbow charged the losses to DC Transco, which says it never approved those trades. Rainbow contends that the trades were part of the parties' established business and did not require the separate approval DC Transco demands. An earlier round of litigation returned to the district court because the appellate record did not establish the state citizenship needed for federal jurisdiction. DC Transco then filed this new lawsuit. The district judge ruled for DC Transco on the contract dispute, but rejected its claim to recover attorney's fees under the agreement. Rainbow now seeks to overturn the contract ruling; DC Transco seeks to preserve that ruling and recover its legal fees. Rainbow's lawyer will speak first and contend that the contract's wording and the parties' years of trading practice support charging these losses to DC Transco. DC Transco v. Rainbow Energy (No. 25-50906) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50906_10-7-2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Official Fifth Circuit calendar: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-10-07 Counsel — Official Fifth Circuit recording entry: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?docket=25-50906 Facts and contract ruling — District court, September 29, 2025, pages 1–7: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-1_24-cv-01260/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-1_24-cv-01260-1.pdf Attorney-fee ruling — District court, September 15, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-1_24-cv-01260/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-1_24-cv-01260-0.pdf Prior jurisdiction remand — Fifth Circuit, August 2, 2024: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/23/23-50720.0.pdf Contract and competing positions — Prior district court order, January 13, 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-1_21-cv-00313/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-1_21-cv-00313-4.pdf Diversity jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. § 1332: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title28/html/USCODE-2023-title28-partIV-chap85-sec1332.htm LLC citizenship — Civil Rules Advisory Committee explanation, 2021 proposal, pages 158–160: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/scotus_package_2021_final_0.pdf

United States v. Nathan M. Rivera — CAAF (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces hears United States versus Nathan Rivera, concerning statements used in a Marine's sexual-assault trial. In October twenty twenty-two, Rivera attended a party at Camp Lejeune after drinking and taking LSD. A woman testified that she fell asleep and woke to Rivera sexually assaulting her. She went to a naval hospital for a forensic examination. NCIS investigators then questioned Rivera in custody. A written rights form told him he could consult a lawyer before questioning and have one present during the interview. When he asked about that right, an agent said requesting a lawyer would end the interview and prevent investigators from hearing his side of the story. Rivera agreed to talk and admitted sexual contact while he believed the woman was asleep. The defense asked the judge to keep his statements out of the trial, saying the explanation misled him about his right to counsel. The judge denied that request. Rivera also pleaded guilty to LSD use. The court-martial convicted him of sexual assault and sentenced him to four years of confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This court now examines whether the interview was properly admitted, including whether Rivera's waiver of his rights was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Captain Arthur Gaston, a Navy judge advocate, will represent Rivera. He will contend that the written warnings could not cure the agent's misleading explanation of the right to counsel. United States v. Nathan M. Rivera (No. 26-0093/MC) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/CourtAudio13/20261007A.mp3 Argument date, issue and counsel — Official CAAF calendar: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/calendar/202610.htm Facts and ruling below — Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals: https://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/11642/RIVERA_202400304_UNPUB.pdf Facts and defense position — Appellant’s brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Rivera260093AppellantBrief.pdf Facts and government position — Appellee’s brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Rivera260093AppelleeBrief.pdf Dicta and holdings — Ninth Circuit, Bradley v. Henry, page 9: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2005/06/21/0415919.pdf Dicta and holdings — Second Circuit, No. 22-2745, pages 26–27: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-22-02745/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-22-02745-0.pdf

Arkansas Public Service Commission v. FERC — 5th Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Arkansas Public Service Commission versus FERC, a dispute over who should pay for major electric-grid upgrades. Power-plant developers were struggling to connect new generation near the boundary between two regional grid operators, MISO and Southwest Power Pool. Limited transmission capacity, expensive upgrades and repeated studies were holding projects back. The operators proposed the Joint Targeted Interconnection Queue, or JTIQ, with five transmission projects intended to help more power plants connect. The plan deducts federal grant funding and assigns the remaining capital costs to subscribing generators. Electricity customers cover shortfalls if too few generators sign up, and later generator payments can reimburse those customers. FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, approved this approach and upheld it on rehearing. Arkansas and Mississippi regulators challenge charging customers in MISO's southern region for projects in the north, saying those customers receive no meaningful benefits. Clean-energy associations bring a separate challenge: they say electricity customers benefit too, so generators should not carry the capital costs alone. FERC and the grid operators say new generators drive these projects and receive their main benefits, while other customers benefit enough to justify the backup obligation. The court must decide whether this allocation meets the Federal Power Act's requirement for just and reasonable rates. Another issue is whether the state regulators preserved their objections to the evidence. Federal law normally requires objections to be raised with FERC on rehearing before a court can consider them. William Booth will speak first for the state regulators. He will contend that FERC has not demonstrated benefits to southern customers sufficient to justify these charges. Arkansas Public Service Commission v. FERC (No. 25-60127) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60127_10-7-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Official court recording entry: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?docket=25-60127 Project history and five-project portfolio — MISO fact sheet: https://cdn.misoenergy.org/JTIQ%20Fact%20Sheet%20Website666572.pdf Original proposal and funding mechanism — MISO filing: https://cdn.misoenergy.org/2024-08-16_Docket%20No.%20ER24-2797-000643307.pdf FERC approval and rehearing — Official June 26, 2025 order: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/ER24-2797-001.pdf Case history and respondent position — FERC appellate brief: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/TransportRoomArkansas.pdf Just and reasonable rates — Federal Power Act §205: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title16/pdf/USCODE-2024-title16-chap12-subchapII-sec824d.pdf Preserving objections on rehearing — Federal Power Act §313: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title16/pdf/USCODE-2024-title16-chap12-subchapIII-sec825l.pdf

United States v. Levani J. Eneliko — CAAF (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces considers whether a Navy sailor's confession was properly used to convict him of cocaine use. After a positive urine test, he was escorted from a mental health appointment to questioning by criminal investigators. Before advising him of his rights, a detective told him they could not help him unless he told them what happened. He then received warnings, agreed to talk, and admitted using cocaine. Article thirty-one Bravo requires military interrogators to explain the accusation, the right to remain silent, and that statements can be used against the suspect. The defense sought to exclude the confession, saying the investigators had misled him. The trial judge admitted it, convicted him, and reduced him by one pay grade. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the conviction and sentence and authorized a new trial. It found the judge's analysis insufficient, without deciding whether the sailor's waiver of rights was valid. The government brought that ruling here for review. The dispute concerns whether the judge adequately examined both free choice and understanding of the rights, and whether the defense preserved that second issue at trial. Captain Jacob Carmin, of the Marine Corps, will speak for the government. He will defend the judge's analysis and contend that the defense failed to raise the understanding issue at trial. United States v. Levani J. Eneliko (No. 26-0138/NA) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/CourtAudio13/20261007B.mp3 Argument date, certified issue and counsel — Official CAAF calendar: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/calendar/202610.htm Facts and ruling below — Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals: https://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/11089/ENELIKO_202400058_PC.pdf Facts and government position — Appellant's brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Eneliko260138AppellantBrief.pdf Facts and defense position — Appellee's brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Eneliko260138AppelleeBrief.pdf Article 31, rights before interrogation — 10 U.S.C. §831: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title10/html/USCODE-2024-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap47.htm

Department of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan — SCOTUS (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers a challenge to the Air Force's disposal of waste explosives on a beach in northern Guam. At Andersen Air Force Base, the military destroys unwanted munitions by detonating them outdoors. A local conservation group fears harm to the island's water, wildlife, and ancestral lands. In two-thousand-twenty-one, the Air Force applied to Guam's environmental agency to renew its hazardous-waste permit. The renewal remains pending, while the old permit stays in force and the detonations continue. The group sued, arguing that the Air Force should have conducted a federal environmental review before applying. It relies on the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which calls for environmental review before major federal actions. The Air Force answers that the hazardous-waste permitting process under another law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, already supplies the necessary environmental review. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, allowing it to proceed. Now the justices will consider whether submitting a permit application is a final agency action that a court can review, and whether the Air Force must undertake a separate NEPA review. Ultra vires means beyond legal authority. This narrow form of court review concerns an agency plainly defying a clear statutory command, not ordinary legal error. Sopan Joshi, an attorney in the Solicitor General's office, will speak for the Air Force. He will argue that the application is an unfinished request to another regulator, not a final decision, and that the waste-permitting law makes an additional NEPA review unnecessary. Department of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan (No. 25-579) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-579.mp3 Official transcript and speaking counsel — October 7, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-579_g31h.pdf Case, date and counsel — Supreme Court docket 25-579: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-579.html Case history and ruling below — Ninth Circuit, February 13, 2025: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/13/22-16613.pdf Air Force's facts and position — Petitioners' merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-579/409658/20260522150323005_25-579ts_USAF_v_PrutehiGuahan_final.pdf Conservation group's facts and position — Respondent's merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-579/416855/20260720140748521_25-579%20Brief%20of%20Respondent%20Prutehi%20Guahan.pdf Ultra vires review — Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (2025), pp.14–16: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1300_b97c.pdf Ultra vires review — Federal Express v. Commerce (2022), pp.10–14: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2022/07/20-5337-1954068.pdf

USA v. Logwood — 5th Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Logwood. An officer stopped Logwood's car for an alleged turn-signal violation. Logwood, facing drug charges, asked a Louisiana federal court to exclude evidence from the vehicle search. The court rejected that part of his request. He later submitted a forensic video analyst's report saying his turn signal had been on. He asked to reopen the hearing to consider that analysis. The judge refused, reasoning that the video had been available before the first hearing and that trial was approaching. The appeal concerns whether the court properly exercised its discretion in refusing another hearing. USA v. Logwood (No. 25-30674) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-30674_10-07-2026.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official Fifth Circuit recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Request to reopen and case background — W.D. Louisiana, May27,2025 order (court text via Midpage): https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-logwood-1000440799165 Initial partial suppression ruling — W.D. Louisiana, November13,2024 judgment (court text via CaseMine): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/6736ce6c5891a561b0d805a9

Xene Corp. v. Nouryon B.V. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Xene's appeal in a patent dispute over microspheres used in composite products. Xene says it shared trade secrets about how to market those microspheres to manufacturers. It alleges the defendants encouraged manufacturers to make products that infringed Xene's patents. A confidentiality agreement directs related disputes to courts in Delaware. A New York federal court dismissed claims against several defendants under that clause, and dismissed Nouryon B.V. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether the patents were infringed. The appeal asks whether the agreement covers the patent claims, whether New York could hear the claims against Nouryon B.V., and whether Xene raised its objections in time. Xene Corp. v. Nouryon B.V. (No. 25-1035) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1035_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and dismissal — E.D.N.Y. 22-cv-2850, September 12, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_22-cv-02850/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_22-cv-02850-0.pdf Reconsideration ruling — E.D.N.Y. 22-cv-2850, December 2, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_22-cv-02850/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_22-cv-02850-1.pdf Review standards — Federal Circuit, Dexcom v. Abbott: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1795.OPINION.1-3-2024_2247662.pdf Review standards — Supreme Court, Highmark v. Allcare: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-572/pdf/USREPORTS-572-559.pdf

Polich v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Anthony Polich's appeal over veterans' disability benefits. Polich was injured during military service and has both post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, and a traumatic brain injury. He experiences memory problems and wants a separate brain-injury disability rating. VA assigned a single fifty-percent rating covering both conditions. The Board of Veterans' Appeals rejected an additional rating, and the Veterans Court affirmed. VA's rules prohibit paying twice for the same symptoms, but allow separate ratings when the effects of two conditions can be clearly distinguished. The judges must also decide whether this appeal raises a legal question they can review, or instead asks them to revisit factual findings outside their authority. Polich v. Collins (No. 25-1299) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1299_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and prior ruling — Veterans Court 23-3069, August 30, 2024: http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/b4d715bf-48c9-4425-a25b-5c6e69490342/1/doc/PolichAA_23-3069.pdf Brain-injury ratings — 38 CFR 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8045: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/section-4.124a Federal Circuit review authority — 38 USC 7292: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/html/USCODE-2024-title38-partV-chap72-subchapIV-sec7292.htm Counsel appearances — Federal Circuit docket 25-1299 (public mirror): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1299

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected