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:

NewsGuard Technologies v. FTC — D.C. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears NewsGuard Technologies versus the Federal Trade Commission. NewsGuard publishes ratings of news websites' reliability, which advertisers use to help decide where to place ads. The FTC demanded company records as part of an investigation into possible coordinated advertising boycotts. Separately, it imposed a settlement order on Omnicom's acquisition of Interpublic, restricting the merged advertising company's use of news ratings based on journalistic standards. The order permits ratings-based lists developed at an individual client's express direction. NewsGuard sued, alleging that these actions retaliated against its journalism and cut it off from customers. The FTC later withdrew its investigative demand, but the merger order remained. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, a temporary order pending a final decision, because NewsGuard had not shown imminent, irreparable harm. This appeal concerns harm that cannot adequately be repaired later, not a final ruling on NewsGuard's constitutional claims. Robert Corn-Revere represents NewsGuard. He will contend that losing access to an audience for its journalism is a speech injury, not merely lost revenue. The FTC will contend that NewsGuard has not shown the ongoing injury needed for temporary relief. NewsGuard Technologies v. FTC (No. 26-5138) — 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/2026/10/26-5138.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 NewsGuard's filed opening brief — June 30, 2026 (FIRE-hosted copy): https://www.fire.org/sites/default/files/2026/06/Brief%20for%20Appellant%20-%20NewsGuard%20v.%20FTC.pdf NewsGuard's filed reply — August 31, 2026 (FIRE-hosted copy): https://www.fire.org/sites/default/files/2026/09/NewsGuard%20DC%20Cir%20Reply%20Brief%20-%20filed.pdf FTC final Omnicom-IPG consent order — September 26, 2025: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OmnicomOrder.pdf FTC decision on NewsGuard's investigative demand — March 6, 2026: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/NewsGuard-PTQ_0.pdf

Jacqueline Wilkerson v. Douglas Collins — 7th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Jacqueline Wilkerson versus Douglas Collins. Wilkerson conducted mediations for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The agency fired her after saying she failed to meet its mediation targets. She says the termination was retaliation for her complaint against a supervisor. The district court ruled for the agency without a trial, finding insufficient admissible evidence to support her claims. Wilkerson's lawyer will argue that a supervisor began preparing her removal just after learning of her complaint, and that she could not control how many mediations she was assigned. The government will respond that these objections do not undermine the agency's record of poor performance. The appeal also involves whether she completed the required administrative process before suing. Jacqueline Wilkerson v. Douglas Collins (No. 25-2820) — 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.25-2820.25-2820_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 District court reconsideration opinion — August 13, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2021cv05255/407700/71/0.pdf Federal employee administrative routes — Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-568/pdf/USREPORTS-568-41.pdf

American Oversight v. HHS — D.C. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears American Oversight versus HHS. In 2017, American Oversight requested communications between Congress and two agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget. When neither agency responded on time, it sued. Records were later released with portions withheld. Some email chains contained a footer claiming congressional control. The question is whether those emails are agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act, or congressional records outside it. In an earlier appeal, this court rejected the agencies' use of an exemption for certain internal agency communications. On remand, the district court found that the footers did not establish congressional control. The House Ways and Means Committee appeals that ruling. Brooks Hanner represents the Committee. He will argue that the footers sufficiently express its intent to retain control. American Oversight v. HHS (No. 25-5375) — 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/2026/10/25-5375.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 District court opinion — September 24, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-00827/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-00827-1.pdf Earlier appeal opinion — May 17, 2024 (22-5281): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/05/22-5281-2055001.pdf Vaughn index — DOJ Guide to the Freedom of Information Act, p. 27: https://www.justice.gov/oip/media/1341081/dl?inline= Vaughn index — Ninth Circuit opinion, p. 5 n. 1: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/02/01/16-15178.pdf

Harvard College v. DHS — 1st Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

We hear Harvard College against the Department of Homeland Security in the First Circuit. In April twenty twenty-five, Harvard rejected government demands to change its admissions, hiring and university governance. DHS also requested disciplinary records about foreign students and disputed whether Harvard had adequately responded. On May twenty-second, DHS revoked Harvard's certification to enroll international students on F visas. Harvard sued the next day, and the district court blocked that withdrawal. On June fourth, President Trump issued a separate proclamation restricting entry for foreign students and exchange visitors headed to Harvard, but not to other universities. On June twenty-third, the judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking its implementation, finding Harvard likely to succeed on First Amendment claims. That was temporary protection during the lawsuit, not a final decision on the case's merits. The government appeals that injunction. The central statute, section eleven eighty-two, subsection f, allows the President to restrict entry by noncitizens after finding it detrimental to United States interests. The government says the proclamation lawfully addresses national security and reporting concerns; Harvard says it punishes the university's views and lawsuits. Tiberius Davis will argue for the government. The presidential entry restriction expired on December fourth, twenty twenty-five. That raises mootness: whether a live dispute remains for the court to decide, rather than an abstract legal question. Harvard College v. DHS (No. 25-1627) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1627_20261006.mp3 Case and argument date — First Circuit recording list: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case history and preliminary injunction — D. Mass. DHS case 25-cv-11472, document 75, June 23, 2025 (Harvard-hosted court document): https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/06/show_temp-234.pdf Harvard's position and counsel — actual appellee brief, January 12, 2026 (public PDF copy): https://aip.brightspotcdn.com/a1/1c/6f78cb7d479cb50176de6683b895/2026-01-12-harvard-brief.pdf Government's position and counsel — actual DHS-case opposition, document 67, June 14, 2025 (UniversalHub public copy): https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2025/harvard-dhs-norights.pdf Challenged entry policy — Proclamation 10948, June 4, 2025, official Federal Register: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-06-10/pdf/2025-10668.pdf Presidential entry authority — 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), 2024 Code edition, read with the case materials: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title8/html/USCODE-2024-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm Vacatur — United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-340/pdf/USREPORTS-340-36.pdf Equitable limits on vacatur — U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. 18 (1994): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-513/pdf/USREPORTS-513-18.pdf Mootness and voluntary cessation — Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-528/pdf/USREPORTS-528-167.pdf Mandel and rational-basis immigration review — Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018), majority opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-585/pdf/USREPORTS-585-667.pdf Student education-record privacy — FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, 2024 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title20/html/USCODE-2024-title20-chap31-subchapIII-part4-sec1232g.htm

Gore v. State Farm — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

We hear Gore against State Farm in the Fifth Circuit. After a fire damaged Wendy Gore's home, she sought insurance payments for the building and the belongings inside. State Farm made payments, but Gore says it still owes her more. She sued for breach of contract and other claims, including bad faith and misrepresentation. The district court rejected most of her claims at summary judgment. Gore now challenges the summary-judgment decision. Under Civil Rule fifty-six, a court can decide a claim without trial if no genuine dispute exists over a fact that matters to the outcome, and the law entitles a party to judgment. Rule fifty-six calls for specific record citations; a judge may consider other materials but need not search everything submitted. Gore argues that the court wrongly disregarded her supporting exhibits, while State Farm says the brief failed to identify the evidence precisely enough. They also disagree about whether the house was a total loss and whether Gore needed an expert to prove the extent of structural damage. Evidence Rule seven oh two governs expert opinions using specialized knowledge to help decide a factual issue. Lay opinion must be based on the witness's own observations, not scientific or technical expertise. Philip Mansour will seek to restore Gore's claims for further proceedings; Michael Myers will defend the judgment for State Farm. Gore v. State Farm (No. 25-60625) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60625_10-06-2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Fifth Circuit recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Underlying facts and partial summary judgment — Northern District of Mississippi order, September 30, 2025, document 64 (Justia mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/mississippi/msndce/4%3A2024cv00027/49040/64/0.pdf Counsel spellings — historical appellate docket entries, checked against recorded introductions: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-60625 Summary judgment and record citations — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (December 2025 rules): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Lay and expert opinions — Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 (December 2024 rules): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf

Jones v. King — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

We hear Jones against King in the Fifth Circuit. The case began when three registered voters in Loving County, Texas, reported for jury qualification in 2022. According to their complaint, Justice of the Peace Amber King declared them nonresidents, held them in contempt for what she called obstruction and disrespect of the court, and ordered them jailed; they were handcuffed and detained for about five hours. The voters allege that King, the sheriff and the constable used the proceeding to retaliate against political opponents. Those are allegations, not findings that the officials committed such a plot. The discussion also refers to Senate Bill eleven eleven, a 2021 Texas voter-residence measure. Its enacted text barred establishing residence anywhere the person had never lived. The voters sued under Section nineteen eighty-three, a federal law allowing claims against state and local officials for violations of federal rights. But judicial immunity generally protects judges from civil damages suits for their judicial acts, even when bad faith or malice is alleged; nonjudicial acts are different. In an earlier appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that jury qualification was a protected judicial function, but it could not yet review the dismissal of the contempt claims. After a final judgment, the voters returned to the court to challenge that dismissal and the protection claimed by the officers. The debate now includes whether alleged advance planning was separate, nonjudicial conduct, and whether the officers merely carried out court orders or joined an unlawful scheme. Jason Davis will seek to revive the voters' damages claims. Daniela Peinado Welsh, of Graves Dougherty Hearon and Moody, will defend the officials' immunity. Jones v. King (No. 25-51009) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-51009_10-06-2026.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — Fifth Circuit recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Alleged underlying events and earlier immunity appeal — Fifth Circuit opinion, August 1, 2025 (23-50850): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-50850-CV0.pdf Officials' position, case history and counsel — filed brief in opposition in related Supreme Court proceeding 25-658: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-658/395032/20260129170425377_260122a%20BIO%20for%20efiling.pdf Civil-rights cause of action — 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2024 Code edition): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.htm Judicial immunity — Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-502/pdf/USREPORTS-502-9.pdf Counsel affiliation — Daniela Peinado Welsh's firm profile: https://www.gdhm.com/attorneys/daniela-peinado-welsh/ Voter-residence measure mentioned in argument — Texas Senate Bill 1111, 2021 enrolled text: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB01111F.pdf Independent explanation of Senate Bill 1111 — House Research Organization bill digest, May 23, 2021: https://hro.house.texas.gov/pdf/ba87r/sb1111.pdf Voters' account of the contempt proceeding — petition in related Supreme Court proceeding 25-658, printed pages 8–10: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-658/386462/20251204160111263_25-%20Petition.pdf

United States v. Dean A. Tran — 1st Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

We hear United States against Dean Tran in the First Circuit. After his term as a Massachusetts state senator ended, Tran collected pandemic unemployment benefits while working as a paid consultant. The case also involves consulting and rental income he failed to report on his federal tax returns. A jury convicted him of wire fraud and false-tax-return offenses, and he now appeals those convictions. Federal wire-fraud law requires use of interstate or international communications to carry out a scheme to defraud. The debate includes whether it was reasonably foreseeable that Tran's online submissions would cross state lines. Tran also challenges an extra instruction given after jurors asked what would happen if they could not agree on some counts. An Allen charge encourages jurors to keep deliberating without surrendering their honestly held views. Whether the defense properly raised its objection at trial can affect appellate review. Plain-error review addresses an error not properly raised at trial: it must be clear, affect substantial rights, and seriously harm the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings; relief remains discretionary. Michael Walsh represents Tran and will seek to overturn the convictions; Donald Lockhart will defend them for the United States. United States v. Dean A. Tran (No. 25-1142) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1142_20261006.mp3 Case and argument date — First Circuit recording list: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Underlying facts and jury-instruction challenge — district court posttrial order, December 16, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_23-cr-10299/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_23-cr-10299-4.pdf Conviction and case background — U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Massachusetts: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/former-massachusetts-state-senator-sentenced-18-months-prison-covid-and-tax-fraud Counsel names — historical appellate docket entries, checked against recorded introductions: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-1142 Wire-fraud statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2024 Code edition): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap63-sec1343.htm Supplemental jury instructions — Allen, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), read with the district court's modern instruction: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep164/usrep164492/usrep164492.pdf Harmless and plain error — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52 (December 2025 rules): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf Plain-error review — Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-507/pdf/USREPORTS-507-725.pdf

USA v. Ron Deming — 7th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

We hear United States against Ron Deming in the Seventh Circuit. Deming possessed a large collection of child sexual abuse material and was convicted of federal child-pornography offenses. The district court imposed a prison sentence and ordered him to pay one hundred forty-eight thousand five hundred dollars in restitution to victims. Restitution is money paid to victims to compensate for their losses. How should a court calculate that compensation, and when can its calculation be challenged on appeal? Section twenty-two fifty-nine requires an individual possessor's payment to reflect his relative role in causing the victim's losses. Two procedural terms matter: waiver means intentionally giving up a known right; forfeiture means failing to assert it on time. In criminal appeals, forfeiture can leave room for limited review, while waiver generally prevents review of the waived claim. USA v. Ron Deming (No. 25-2472) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2472.25-2472_10_06_2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Seventh Circuit recording list: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Conviction and district sentence — U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Indiana: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndin/pr/laporte-man-sentenced-228-months-prison Mandatory restitution — 18 U.S.C. § 2259 (2024 Code edition, including 2018 amendments): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap110-sec2259.htm Causation and individual role — Paroline, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), read with the amended statute: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-572/pdf/USREPORTS-572-434.pdf Waiver and forfeiture — Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-507/pdf/USREPORTS-507-725.pdf Seventh Circuit restitution and waiver analysis — Hernandez, Nos. 21-1481 and 21-1935 (2022): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-21-01935/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-21-01935-0.pdf

Motorola v. ASC — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

A European patent dispute brings Motorola and Lenovo to a Texas federal court. Advanced Standard Communication, or A S C, sued the companies in Germany and the Unified Patent Court over alleged patent infringement. Motorola and Lenovo then sought documents from A S C about its purchase of the patents and its litigation funding, saying the records would help their defenses abroad. A federal magistrate judge authorized that discovery, and the district judge upheld it after A S C objected. A S C is now asking the Fifth Circuit to undo that order. The fight is about access to evidence, not whether the companies infringed the patents. Section seventeen eighty-two lets a U.S. district court order evidence for use in foreign proceedings; it does not make that assistance automatic. FRAND means fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory patent-licensing terms. Clark Gordon will argue for A S C that the lower court used the wrong standards and failed to give proper weight to the foreign court's refusal to order production. Motorola v. ASC (No. 26-10747) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/26/26-10747_10-06-2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Fifth Circuit recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Foreign patent disputes and initial discovery order — district court Doc.21: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-mc-00088/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_25-mc-00088-0.pdf ASC objections and district judge's ruling — district court Doc.33 (public judicial PDF copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3:2025mc00088/412813/33/0.pdf?ts=1785351293 Appellate parties and Clark Gordon — public copy of appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/26-10747 Evidence for foreign proceedings — 28 U.S.C. §1782 (official 2024 Code edition): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partV-chap117-sec1782.htm Review of magistrate judges' orders — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure72: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Discretionary factors and foreign discoverability — Intel, 542 U.S.241 (2004): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep542/usrep542241/usrep542241.pdf FRAND definition — Federal Trade Commission: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/01/ftc-charges-qualcomm-monopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used-cell-phones FRAND definition — UK Supreme Court case explanation: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2018-0214

Barinaga v. ExxonMobil — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears a retaliation dispute between ExxonMobil and its employee, Zoe Barinaga. An ExxonMobil executive, Barinaga complained to human resources about a colleague's conduct. She says the company then blocked her path to the Baytown Chemical Plant Manager job and withheld increases in her classification level, a separate form of promotion. ExxonMobil says its decisions reflected experience, performance and business needs, not retaliation. The district court dismissed her claims on summary judgment, without a trial. Jakki Hansen will ask the court to revive her retaliation claims, contending that the company's own records support her account. The appeal also asks whether her agency complaints timely covered the disputed promotion decisions. The question is whether the record contains enough evidence for a jury, not whether the appeal judges would have made different promotion choices. Barinaga v. ExxonMobil (No. 25-20476) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20476_10-06-2026.mp3 Case, argument date and appearing counsel — Fifth Circuit recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Underlying events, promotion decisions and summary judgment — district court order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_22-cv-03462/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_22-cv-03462-0.pdf Summary-judgment standard — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Gupta exception and its limits — Fifth Circuit explanation in Sapp v. Potter (unpublished): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/10/10-40364.0.wpd.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected