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:

Neo Wireless LLC v. Ford Motor Company — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

Neo Wireless challenges a Patent Office ruling in a dispute with Ford and other automakers. Neo sued the automakers, alleging infringement of wireless-communications patents; related lawsuits were consolidated in Michigan. The patent here concerns communication between a base station and a mobile device using groups of radio frequencies, called subchannels. Its claims require a control message indicating how a subchannel is configured. In a separate proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the challenged claims obvious, and Neo appealed to the Federal Circuit. Obviousness asks whether a person with ordinary technical skill would have arrived at the claimed invention from earlier knowledge. Here, the dispute concerns combining two earlier works, called Walton and Li, and whether their control message conveys the required configuration. Neo's lawyer will argue that the Board lacked adequate support for that combination and misunderstood the information sent to the device. Neo Wireless LLC v. Ford Motor Company (No. 25-1334) — 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/25-1334_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Patent challenge and Board ruling — IPR2022-01537, Paper61: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1553856/download-documents?artifactId=QRGSZ2moY1GIW4mdrYdJjnwKvUkpNYkHWh-X30PC28M01r5liLz9gYo Underlying infringement litigation — Michigan MDL3034, ECF99: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_22-md-03034/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_22-md-03034-2.pdf Counsel appearances — Federal Circuit docket25-1334 (public mirror): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1334 Christopher Smith's firm — Brooks Kushman: https://www.brookskushman.com/practices/intellectual-property-litigation/

BT Americas, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

BT Americas challenges a Patent Office ruling against its network-security patent. BT and British Telecommunications sued Palo Alto Networks in Delaware, alleging infringement of two related patents. The patent at issue describes a probe that filters network data, flags possible security threats, and receives feedback from an analyst. The disputed claim language requires that feedback to change the probe's analysis during operation. Palo Alto challenged the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found the challenged claims obvious. Obviousness asks whether an ordinarily skilled practitioner would have arrived at the claimed invention from earlier knowledge. BT appealed to the Federal Circuit; this hearing concerns the patent challenge, not whether Palo Alto infringed. Inherency means an unstated feature must necessarily be present in the earlier technology, not merely possible. Jonathan Roberts will argue for BT that editing stored filtering rules does not, by itself, show that a running probe uses those changes. He will also dispute the reason for combining two earlier works, called Duvall and Chu. BT Americas, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (No. 25-1572) — 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/25-1572_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Patent challenge and Board ruling — IPR2023-00889, Paper32 (public copy): https://www.sternekessler.com/app/uploads/2024/11/IPR2023-00889-2024-11-07-32-Final-Written-Decision.pdf Underlying Delaware infringement action — district court opinion: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/22-1538.pdf Counsel appearances — Federal Circuit docket25-1572 (public mirror): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1572 Inherency — USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section2112: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2112.html Independent judicial inherency analysis — PAR v.TWI: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/14-1391.opinion.11-26-2014.1.pdf

Sasaguay Lima v. Blanche — 2d Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Sasaguay Lima versus Blanche, an immigration case about whether removal proceedings should be put on hold. Sasaguay Lima is facing removal to Ecuador. He sought administrative closure, which takes a case off the immigration court's active calendar without ending it. The immigration judge refused to postpone his hearing. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, he sought a chance to pursue closure after a change in law restored the agency's authority to grant it. His stated basis before the Board was to seek a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion—asking the government not to pursue removal. The Board refused closure and treated the judge's earlier refusal to postpone as a denial of closure. His lawyer will argue that this rested on a mistake and requires a new hearing. The government will contend that the Board separately considered closure, so sending the case back would change nothing. Sasaguay Lima v. Blanche (No. 25-2874) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2874.mp3 Argument date and case — official recording index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and procedural history — official summary order, October 7, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-2874_so_.pdf

In re Koshinski — 9th Cir. BAP (Sep 10, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears In re Koshinski, a dispute over whether an old judgment still supports a claim for payment in bankruptcy. A Nevada judgment was entered against Monika Koshinski in 2018. John White, acting as executor of the judgment creditor's estate, sought payment on that judgment in her bankruptcy. The attempt to renew it before the bankruptcy filing was defective, a point the parties no longer dispute. The bankruptcy judge disallowed the claim because the judgment had expired before she filed. White's appeal turns on a Nevada emergency directive issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, which paused certain deadlines for starting legal actions. His lawyer will argue that renewing a judgment continues a pending legal action and falls within that pause. Koshinski's lawyer will contend that the directive covers starting a lawsuit, not extending a judgment from litigation that has already ended. In re Koshinski (No. 26-1073) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued September 10, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/10/26-1073.mp3 Argument date and case — official recording index: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1073&hearingDate=2026-09-10 Case facts and procedural history — BAP memorandum, September 17, 2026: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/09/17/26-1073.pdf Revised Nevada Emergency Directive 009 — official signed attachment: https://dir.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dir.nv.gov/content/WCS/Features/Signed%20WCS%20and%20Dec%20of%20Emergency%20directive%204-2-20.docx.pdf

Fellowship of Christian v. Eltife — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Fellowship of Christian University Students versus Eltife. Students and student groups at the University of Texas at Austin and Dallas challenged restrictions required by Texas Senate Bill 2972. The law directs public universities to prohibit noncommercial expressive activities between ten at night and eight in the morning. It also requires restrictions on invited speakers, amplified sound, and drums during the final two weeks of a semester or term. The plaintiffs said these rules threatened late-night religious discussions, student newspaper work, and music rehearsals and performances. They sued before facing punishment, seeking to protect those activities. In October 2025, a federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the four challenged restrictions. That is temporary relief while the case proceeds, not a final judgment on its merits. The university officials now appeal. Daniel Ortner, of the Texas Attorney General's office, will ask the court to vacate the injunction, arguing that the students challenged the wrong legal instrument and sued the wrong officials. A doctrine called Ex parte Young allows suits seeking to stop ongoing violations of federal law by state officials who have a sufficient connection to enforcing the challenged measure. The court will examine that connection here, and whether the injunction's wording actually reaches the campus policies implementing the statute. Fellowship of Christian v. Eltife (No. 25-50914) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50914_10-6-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fifth Circuit recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Appealed preliminary injunction — W.D. Texas, October 14, 2025: https://www.fire.org/sites/default/files/2025/10/Order%20Granting%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20-%20FOCUS%20v.%20Eltife.pdf Appellees' filed brief — Fifth Circuit No. 25-50914: https://www.fire.org/sites/default/files/2026/05/Brief%20for%20Appellees%20-%20FOCUS%20v.%20Eltife.pdf Enrolled Texas Senate Bill 2972: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB02972F.pdf Daniel Ortner's office affiliation — Texas OAG filing, separate matter: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Complaint_2.pdf Meaning of scrivener's error — Virginia Supreme Court, Westgate: https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1050388.pdf Meaning of scrivener's error — Florida Supreme Court rules opinion: https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/421236/file/sc95707c.pdf

Aliaga-Vela v. Blanche — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Aliaga-Vela versus Blanche. Aliaga-Vela applied for asylum, saying that criminal gangs had extorted him in Peru. He also sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. At his second scheduling hearing, the government orally asked the immigration judge to reject those applications without a full evidentiary hearing. The judge rejected the applications and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the ruling, concluding that his allegations did not establish eligibility even if accepted as true. It noted that his lawyer had not identified a particular social group to support the asylum claim. For asylum based on that ground, the group must share a trait its members cannot or should not have to change, have clear boundaries, and be recognized as distinct in their society. Victoria Neilson will ask the court to send the case back, contending that he was denied a meaningful chance to present evidence. The central question is when an immigration judge may reject an application without hearing evidence, and whether this process gave Aliaga-Vela a fair opportunity to make his case. Aliaga-Vela v. Blanche (No. 25-60509) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60509_10-6-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fifth Circuit recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Appealed BIA decision — Matter of H-A-A-V-, September 11, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1413846/dl?inline= Particular social group — BIA's Matter of W-G-R- decision: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3794.pdf Fifth Circuit social-group requirements — Bustamante-Leiva v. Garland: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60479-CV0.pdf Case-name connection to the BIA decision — ABA seminar materials: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/on-demand/part-1-closing-the-door-on-asylum/

Hikvision USA, Inc. v. FCC — D.C. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Hikvision USA versus the Federal Communications Commission. Hikvision challenges a federal rule that allows limits on the importation and sale of certain equipment the FCC had already approved. In 2021, Congress directed the FCC to stop approving new equipment on a national-security Covered List. That list includes some Hikvision equipment, but earlier approvals did not automatically disappear. In October 2025, the FCC adopted a separate process for restricting the importation and marketing of previously approved covered devices. These restrictions do not require owners to stop using equipment they already have. Hikvision brought this petition for review to challenge the agency's authority to create that process. The company says the power to deny new approvals does not itself supply the power to restrict old ones. The FCC says Congress preserved its authority to take that later step. Central to the dispute is a rule of construction, language explaining how the statute should be read. It says this law does not prohibit later review of earlier authorizations. Whether that language authorizes these restrictions, or merely leaves other law unchanged, is contested. The court also asks whether Hikvision had standing to sue, including whether this particular rule caused a concrete injury when the company filed. Tim Simeone will ask the court to set the rule aside. Hikvision USA, Inc. v. FCC (No. 25-1274) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-1274.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Challenged FCC order — FCC 25-71, October 29, 2025: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-71A1.pdf FCC's filed respondent brief — April 23, 2026: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-421002A1.pdf

Tarver v. Hernandez — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Tarver versus Hernandez. Darius Tarver was a twenty-three-year-old University of North Texas student. His father's complaint described a recent head injury and unusual behavior. His roommate called for medical help at their apartment. Police arrived, and Tarver came down the stairs carrying a frying pan and a meat cleaver. Hernandez used a Taser, and Downing shot him. Tarver fell and dropped the cleaver, which an officer kicked away. He got back up, a second Taser attempt failed to subdue him, and Downing fired again. Tarver died. His father, Kevin, sued on behalf of the estate, alleging excessive force. The district judge reviewed body-camera footage and dismissed the claims against the officers without a trial. He found the force reasonable and also held that the officers were protected by qualified immunity. That defense shields officers from damages unless they violated a federal right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. At the pleading stage, courts generally accept a plaintiff's factual allegations, but video can override an allegation it clearly contradicts. Lee Merritt will ask the court to revive the claims, contending that the judge resolved disputed movements against Tarver. The key questions are what the video actually establishes and whether each use of force was justified. Tarver v. Hernandez (No. 26-40070) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/26/26-40070_10-06-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fifth Circuit recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 District court dismissal opinion — January 5, 2026, Doc. 35 (GovInfo court copy): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-4_21-cv-00970/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-4_21-cv-00970-1.pdf Qualified immunity — Supreme Court's Mullenix v. Luna opinion (U.S. Reports): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-577/pdf/USREPORTS-577-7.pdf

National Association of the Deaf v. Trump — D.C. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears National Association of the Deaf versus Trump. The White House had provided American Sign Language interpretation of its press briefings, but stopped in January 2025. The association and a deaf viewer, Ford, sued to restore it. They said English captions and transcripts left people who rely on sign language unable to follow the briefings. American Sign Language is a distinct language, not simply English expressed through gestures. A district judge ordered White House officials to provide a publicly accessible live feed with qualified sign-language interpretation for publicly announced briefings by the President or Press Secretary. That preliminary injunction is temporary relief while the lawsuit proceeds; it does not cover every White House event or video. The government appealed. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits excluding otherwise qualified people from federal executive-agency programs solely because of disability. The first dispute is whether the plaintiffs have a private cause of action: a legal right to bring this claim in court. The court will also consider whether it can order officials to comply through its equitable powers, even without that statutory right to sue. Government lawyer Daniel Winik will contend that Congress did not authorize this claim and that captions and transcripts provide adequate access. National Association of the Deaf v. Trump (No. 25-5402) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-5402.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 District court preliminary-injunction opinion and order — November 4, 2025 (court filing, Clearinghouse-hosted copy): https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/164821.pdf Plaintiffs' filed preliminary-injunction motion — May 28, 2025 (Clearinghouse-hosted copy): https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/162603.pdf Ian Hoffman's current firm profile — Arnold & Porter: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/people/h/hoffman-ian-s

Jetaime Flores v. Cook County — 7th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Flores versus Cook County. Flores worked as a pharmacy technician at a county hospital. Her duties included handing prescriptions to patients and delivering medicines, including to a floor treating COVID-19 patients. She sought a religious exemption from the hospital's vaccination requirement so she could continue working in person. The County denied her request and later fired her. She sued, claiming the County should have accommodated her religious objection. The district court ruled for the County without a trial, finding that allowing her to work unvaccinated would create an undue hardship for patient safety and hospital operations. Flores will contend that the County did not prove it could not reasonably accommodate her. The County will defend the ruling, pointing to risks for patients and staff. A recent decision called Mason involved a pharmacist at the same hospital under the same vaccination policy. The argument begins with whether Flores's different duties justify a different result. Jetaime Flores v. Cook County (No. 26-1088) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.26-1088.26-1088_10_06_2026.mp3 Argument date and case — Seventh Circuit recording index: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Flores district court opinion and order — December 19, 2025 (court filing, Justia-hosted copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2023cv16260/448469/56/0.pdf?ts=1766239043 Related Mason appellate opinion — September 28, 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026%2FD09-28%2FC%3A25-2743%3AJ%3ALee%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3616327%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected