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:

Butlak v. DHS — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears a federal border officer's challenge to his dismissal for dishonesty. Butlak asked a co-worker to give his supervisor false information about why he was late to work. The Department of Homeland Security removed him from his Customs and Border Protection officer position on charges of lack of candor and conduct unbecoming an officer. When he appealed, the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the removal. His lawyer will argue that the administrative judge overstated the misconduct and mishandled the penalty analysis. This is a job-discipline appeal, not a criminal trial. Listen for the distinction between whether the misconduct occurred and whether dismissal was a reasonable punishment. Butlak v. DHS (No. 25-1501) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1501_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Underlying conduct, removal and Board review — MSPB final order: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/Butlak_GeoffreyAT-0752-23-0120-I-1_Final_Order.pdf Witness-credibility disclosure — Giglio v. United States, official opinion: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep405/usrep405150/usrep405150.pdf Independent witness-disclosure guidance — DOJ Justice Manual: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings Douglas factors discussed in the appeal — MSPB penalty-review explanation: https://www.mspb.gov/studies/adverse_action_report/10_DeterminingthePenalty.htm

Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee — SCOTUS (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court hears a dispute over how Intel's retirement-plan managers invested employees' savings. After the two-thousand-eight financial crisis, the managers shifted more money into hedge funds and private equity as part of a strategy intended to limit losses when markets fell. Two former Intel employees sued the plan fiduciaries, the people responsible for those investment decisions, alleging high fees and returns below comparable investments. The managers answer that protecting against downturns can mean giving up some gains when the stock market rises. The workers rely on ERISA, the federal law governing these employer retirement plans, and its requirement that plan managers act prudently. That duty concerns a careful investment process under the circumstances, not a guarantee of the best returns. The trial court dismissed their amended complaint before trial, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision. The appeals court found that their performance comparisons did not adequately account for differences in the funds' investment goals and risks. At issue now is what workers must put in their complaint when they use poor investment performance to allege mismanagement: must they identify a meaningfully similar investment that did better? The question is whether the lawsuit can proceed, not whether the workers have already proved their case. Matthew Wessler, of Gupta Wessler, will speak for the workers. He will urge the Court to assess the complaint as a whole, rather than discard performance allegations that lack the required benchmark. Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee (No. 25-498) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-498.mp3 Official argument transcript and appearances — October 6, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-498_febh.pdf Case, argument date and counsel — Supreme Court docket 25-498: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-498.html Question before the Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/25-00498qp.pdf Case history and ruling below — Ninth Circuit, May 22, 2025: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/05/22/22-16268.pdf Workers' allegations and position — Petitioners' merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-498/405222/20260423233610550_Anderson.%20Opening%20brief.pdf Plan managers' position — Corrected respondents' merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-498/416147/20260710094009631_Intel%20Merits%20Response%20Brief%20rev%207%209%2026.pdf Government's position — United States amicus brief: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/anderson_v_intel_amicus.pdf Duty of prudence — ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1)(B): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title29/pdf/USCODE-2023-title29-chap18-subchapI-subtitleB-part4.pdf

Ferguson v. Texas Farm Bureau — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears an overtime-pay dispute brought by eleven former insurance agency managers. They worked for Texas Farm Bureau and related insurers, were paid commissions and bonuses, and were treated as independent contractors rather than employees. The managers say they regularly worked more than forty hours a week. A federal trial court ruled that they were employees covered by the overtime rules, but a jury found that none had proved working overtime. The trial judge then refused to overturn the verdict or order a new trial. The managers now seek a new trial, saying improperly admitted witnesses and evidence about their high incomes undermined their case. Farm Bureau will defend the verdict and, alternatively, dispute whether the managers were entitled to overtime in the first place. Avi Moshenberg will represent Christopher Ferguson and the other managers. He will argue that the trial was unfair and that the absence of time records should not defeat their claims. Ferguson v. Texas Farm Bureau (No. 25-50660) — 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/25/25-50660_10-6-2026.mp3 Argument date, case and appearing counsel — Fifth Circuit recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Case facts, jury verdict and post-trial ruling — July 18, 2025 judicial order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-6_17-cv-00111/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-6_17-cv-00111-10.pdf Employee status and asserted overtime exemptions — August 21, 2024 pretrial order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-6_17-cv-00111/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-6_17-cv-00111-8.pdf Witness disclosure and impeachment exception — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Retail or service commission exemption — 29 U.S.C. 207(i): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title29/pdf/USCODE-2023-title29-chap8-sec207.pdf Commission exemption requirements — U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet 20: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/20-flsa-commissions-retail

United States v. Daniel J. Valdez — CAAF (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces considers an Army sergeant's appeal over a prolonged delay after his court-martial. In 2022, he was convicted of leaving his unit without permission, disrespect toward superiors, and battery upon his wife. His sentence was reduction by one rank and thirty days of hard labor without confinement. His case did not reach the Army Court of Criminal Appeals until 952 days after the trial ended, including 736 days after judgment was entered. The government agreed that the extraordinary delay warranted setting aside his sentence. The Army Court nevertheless affirmed his convictions and sentence. Article sixty-six, D, two, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows a military appeals court to grant appropriate relief for excessive delay after entry of judgment. The questions are how this Court should review that decision, and whether he should receive relief. De novo means deciding anew, without deferring to the lower court's answer. Abuse-of-discretion review is more deferential: it requires more than a different view, such as an arbitrary or unreasonable decision. Major Kelsey Mowatt-Larssen, an Army judge advocate, will seek sentence relief, contending that the Army Court failed to address the excessive delay. United States v. Daniel J. Valdez (No. 26-0122/AR) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/CourtAudio13/20261006B.mp3 Argument date, granted issues and counsel — CAAF calendar: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/calendar/202610.htm Case facts, procedural history and defense position — Appellant's brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Valdez260122AppellantBrief.pdf Defense response — Appellant's reply brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Valdez260122AppellantReplyBrief.pdf Case facts and government position — Appellee's brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Valdez260122AppelleeBrief.pdf Article 66(d)(2) and appropriate relief — CAAF's Valentin-Andino opinion: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/opinions/2024OctTerm/240208.pdf De novo review — CAAF's Bergdahl opinion, page 5 footnote 2: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2019OctTerm/190406.pdf

USA v. Frazier — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears an appeal from a federal gun-possession conviction. After the car Frazier was driving crashed, officers found two firearms on its passenger-side floorboard. He was the only person in the car when officers approached. They also found a spent cartridge case stuck in one firearm and a bullet hole in a window. A jury convicted Frazier of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, and he now appeals his conviction and sentence. Section nine twenty-two g one is the federal prohibition on firearm possession by people with a qualifying felony conviction. Possession is different from ownership: a person can possess a gun that belongs to somebody else. Actual possession means knowing physical control; constructive possession means knowingly having the power and intention to control something without physically holding it. Voir dire is the questioning of prospective jurors before trial. Rachel Conner represents Frazier and will challenge the judgment against him. USA v. Frazier (No. 25-30349) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-30349_10-06-2026.mp3 Argument date, case and counsel — official Fifth Circuit recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Trial and sentencing account — U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Louisiana: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdla/pr/local-rapper-sentenced-illegal-possession-firearms Appeal and formal appearances — public Fifth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-30349 Actual and constructive possession — Fifth Circuit jury instructions, section 1.33: https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/Fifth/PJI-CRIMINAL_2024_EDITION_FINAL.pdf Possession versus ownership — Supreme Court's Henderson opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/622/ Felon-in-possession statute — 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 Prospective-juror examination — Federal Criminal Rule 24: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_24 Obstruction and attempted subornation — Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.1: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-3 Perjury definition — 18 U.S.C. § 1621: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621 Subornation definition — 18 U.S.C. § 1622: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1622

Titan International Technologies, Ltd. v. Cobra Firing Systems, LLC — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears a patent dispute over automated fireworks firing systems. Titan International Technologies sued Cobra Firing Systems and Phantom Fireworks in Nevada, alleging that sales of the Ignite i18 and i36 systems infringed two of its patents. Titan submitted its inventor's declaration, product pictures, and evidence of Cobra-branded wires used with the accused systems. The district judge found insufficient evidence that either named defendant sold or offered to sell the allegedly infringing products, and entered summary judgment for both. Summary judgment resolves a case without a trial when no genuine dispute over an important fact remains and the law entitles one side to win. The key distinction here is between evidence that a product infringes and evidence connecting that product to the defendant being sued. The blue brief they mention is Titan's opening written argument on appeal. The judges also distinguish direct infringement from contributory infringement, a separate theory for supplying certain components used in infringement; Titan pleaded direct infringement. The Supreme Court's Celotex decision allows a defendant to identify a missing essential element of the plaintiff's proof, rather than always supplying evidence disproving the claim; the defendant still must support its motion. Rule fifty-six also allows a party to explain why it needs discovery to obtain essential evidence, rather than treating every request for discovery as automatically sufficient. Patrick Bright represents Titan and will argue that its inventor's evidence was enough to keep the infringement claims alive. Titan International Technologies, Ltd. v. Cobra Firing Systems, LLC (No. 25-1950) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1950_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ District court summary-judgment order — Doc. 52: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2024cv00861/168487/52/0.pdf Counsel appearances — Federal Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1950 Fireworks patent — U.S. Patent 11,733,009: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11733009B2/en Patent infringement — 35 U.S.C. § 271: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271 Summary judgment and discovery — Federal Rule 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 Celotex v. Catrett — Supreme Court opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/317/ Blue brief — Federal Appellate Rule 32: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_32

Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit considers a dispute over a patent for machinery that plants individual seeds. The disputed design uses suction to hold seeds against holes in a rotating disc. A rotating support called a thrust-bearing element takes some of the disc's load off a rubbing seal, reducing wear. Maschio Gaspardo sued Precision Planting in Delaware in 2022, alleging patent infringement. Precision challenged the patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, relying on earlier seed-planter designs. The Board found that Precision had not proved any challenged claim unpatentable, and Precision now appeals. The argument focuses on whether parts shown in an earlier design actually touch and bear that load, and whether a skilled designer would have had reason to combine earlier designs. Obviousness asks whether an ordinarily skilled person would have reached the claimed invention from what was already known. Substantial-evidence review asks whether a reasonable mind could accept the evidence supporting the Board's factual findings, not which view the appeal judges would choose for themselves. Mr. Brown will argue for Precision that the drawings and expert evidence support its challenge and that the Board wrongly demanded an express statement of the component's function. Precision Planting LLC v. Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. (No. 25-1809) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1809_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Board decision — IPR2024-00008, Paper 39: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2024-00008/39 Underlying infringement action — District of Delaware opinion: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/22-1394_0.pdf Federal Circuit Cisco opinion cited for substantial-evidence review: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/18-1806.opinion.7-10-2019.pdf

Intel Corporation v. BeSang Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

Intel and BeSang dispute a patent for three-dimensional memory chips. BeSang sued Intel in Oregon in 2023, alleging infringement of its patent. The patent describes adding memory-cell layers above a separately fabricated base to increase chip density. Intel challenged claims one and thirteen through seventeen at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, arguing that earlier publications made them obvious. Obviousness asks whether an ordinarily skilled person would have arrived at the claimed invention from what was already known. The Board found Intel had not proved any of those claims unpatentable, and Intel now seeks reversal or a new Board review. This appeal concerns patent validity, not whether Intel's products infringe. Two questions dominate: whether Intel's original petition properly set out its challenge to the claimed stackable add-on layer, and whether there was sufficient reason to combine earlier techniques. Claim construction means deciding what a patent claim's words cover. Mr. Bowen will argue for Intel that its petition did identify the relevant teachings and that the Board demanded too much proof before combining them. Intel Corporation v. BeSang Inc. (No. 25-1377) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1377_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Board decision — IPR2023-00991, Paper 40: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2023-00991%2F40 Underlying infringement action — Oregon district court order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3%3A2023cv00113/171421/80/ Intel's stay motion in the district court: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554117/download-documents?artifactId=NOKUqxX9bMPVJBDATp1xPnL3UHzXxsqbPLOTQYSSyuvxUhFcmrSA7aE Counsel appearance record — Federal Circuit docket 25-1377 (public mirror): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1377

Eriksmoen v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

Army veteran Eric Eriksmoen appeals the denial of benefits for a lower-back condition. He says he was treated for back spasms in Italy in 1954, and he sought VA benefits decades later, in 2019. The Board denied his claim, and an earlier court remand directed it to reconsider why it disbelieved his account. A remand sends a case back for further proceedings. The Board denied benefits again in March 2024. The Veterans Court found that the Board had not followed its earlier direction, but still affirmed because a separate, unchallenged finding independently defeated the claim. That finding rejected the medical link between his current condition and military service. The court treated the Board's mistake as harmless: an error that did not change the result. Mr. Dojaquez will argue for Eriksmoen that the court overlooked harm to procedural rights, not just whether benefits would immediately be granted. One protection matters here: favorable findings generally bind later VA adjudicators unless clear and unmistakable error is shown, a particularly high threshold for overturning them. The judges also question whether they can hear this appeal at all. In veterans appeals, the Federal Circuit generally reviews legal questions, not factual findings or how the law was applied to particular facts. Eriksmoen v. Collins (No. 25-1535) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1535_10052026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Claim background and harmless-error ruling — Veterans Court decision, No. 24-1947: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011055070 Independent claim history and veteran's position — appellant's Veterans Court brief: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010655416 Independent claim history and government's position — Secretary's Veterans Court brief: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010957676 Current counsel appearances — Federal Circuit docket 25-1535 (public mirror): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1535 Federal Circuit review limits — 38 U.S.C. § 7292 (statutory text mirror): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/7292 Prejudicial-error rule — 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (statutory text mirror): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/7261 Binding favorable findings — 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c) (regulatory text mirror): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.104

Micron Technology, Inc. v. BeSang Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Micron's challenge to BeSang's memory-device patent. BeSang sued Micron in Texas in 2023, alleging that its products infringed the patent. The patent describes vertically arranged memory cells added above a separately fabricated substrate containing circuitry. Micron challenged claims thirteen through seventeen at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, relying on earlier patents to argue that the claimed structures were obvious. The Board found that Micron had not proved those claims unpatentable, and Micron appealed. This appeal concerns patent validity, not whether Micron's products infringe. Claim thirteen specifies nonvolatile memory cells but does not state a manufacturing temperature. Obviousness asks whether the claimed invention would have been evident to an ordinarily skilled practitioner from earlier knowledge. An enabled teaching is one a skilled practitioner can put into practice without undue experimentation. A reference can still contribute to an obviousness analysis even if it does not enable everything it describes. Mr. Zhou will argue for Micron that the challenged claims were obvious. Micron Technology, Inc. v. BeSang Inc. (No. 25-1320) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1320_10062026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Patent challenge and Board decision — PTAB Paper 35, IPR2023-00900: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554010/download-documents?artifactId=P0uYmsOWM1o7X1HuDT1c48d-R91JkHcddBA8sH2XkdIBG4rbiwe-9pc Texas lawsuit and related proceedings — district court order (public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2%3A2023cv00028/219877/129/0.pdf Independent lawsuit disclosure — Micron SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/723125/000072312526000006/R17.htm Memory structure and claim thirteen — U.S. Patent 7,378,702 (text mirror): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7378702B2/en Counsel appearances — public mirror of Federal Circuit docket 25-1320: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1320 Enablement and obviousness — Antor judicial opinion (text mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/11-1465/11-1465-2012-07-27.html Independent obviousness and enablement analysis — Raytheon judicial opinion (text mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/20-1755/20-1755-2021-04-16.html

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected