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:

USA v. Truong — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

A Houston pharmacist challenges convictions for unlawfully dispensing prescription painkillers. Hieu Truong worked at S and S Pharmacy, where prosecutors said forged prescriptions were used to obtain controlled drugs. His first trial in 2022 ended with an acquittal on conspiracy but convictions on three dispensing counts. Then the Supreme Court decided Ruan, addressing what prosecutors must prove about a medical practitioner's knowledge that the dispensing was unauthorized. The district court found that Truong's original jury instructions had not required that subjective mental state and ordered a new trial. He was convicted again after the retrial, and this appeal challenges both the evidence and the instructions given to that jury. The central dispute is whether he actually knew the prescriptions were unauthorized, not simply whether a reasonable pharmacist should have spotted warning signs. Beau Brindley represents Truong and will ask the court to overturn the convictions. USA v. Truong (No. 25-20331) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20331_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 First trial and reason for retrial — May 2, 2024 district court order (judicial text mirror): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/6635bb8805f21143ce0517c4 Prosecution account and June 2024 retrial — Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/pharmacist-convicted-unlawfully-dispensing-controlled-substances-retrial Appeal and formal appearances — public docket mirror, No. 25-20331: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-20331 Authorization and subjective knowledge — Supreme Court's Ruan opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf Controlled Substances Act — 21 U.S.C. § 841 (statute text mirror): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/841

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

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears BeSang's patent dispute with Micron over memory chips and storage drives. In 2023, BeSang sued Micron in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of its patent for vertically arranged memory structures. The case turned on the phrase stackable add-on layer. Claim construction means determining what a patent's claim language covers. The district court interpreted that phrase to exclude layers built in place by sequential deposition. The practical question is whether the layer must be made separately and then attached, rather than built up directly on the underlying material. Both sides agreed that, under the court's reading, Micron's accused products did not infringe, and judgment was entered for Micron. BeSang appealed. The lawyers also refer to separate Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings about patent validity; this appeal concerns infringement. Ms. Haley will ask the court to reject the manufacturing restriction and permit a broader reading of the patent. BeSang Inc. v. Micron Technology Inc. (No. 26-1085) — 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/26-1085_10062026.mp3 Argument date and case — official Federal Circuit recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Lawsuit and accused products — district court's July 15, 2025 order (public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2%3A2023cv00028/219877/129/0.pdf Appealed noninfringement judgment — district court, September 17, 2025 (public copy): https://assets.alm.com/95/3c/8f99c3704b2c9a32aff830e2a6e9/2025-09-17-000146-00-final-judgment.pdf Independent party disclosure of lawsuit and appeal — Micron SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/723125/000072312526000006/R17.htm Patent language and memory structures — U.S. Patent 7,378,702 (patent text mirror): https://patents.google.com/patent/US7378702B2/en Counsel appearances — public mirror of Federal Circuit docket 26-1085: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/26-1085 Claim construction and evidence definitions — Phillips opinion (judicial text mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/03-1269/03-1269-2011-03-27.html Independent evidence definitions — Teva majority opinion (judicial text mirror): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-854

River Ventures v. Centaur — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears a marine-insurance dispute arising from a dock worker's injury on the Mississippi River. Centaur was building a containment wall at a terminal, while River Ventures provided crewboat transportation. Worker Devin Barrios was injured transferring a portable generator from River's boat, the Trooper, to a barge leased by Centaur. River was found solely at fault for his injury. River and its insurer, XL Specialty, now seek compensation from Centaur under the terminal's Master Service Contract. That contract required Centaur to obtain marine insurance protecting the terminal's group, including River and its vessels. In a previous appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that the contract required coverage for injuries to Centaur's employees and sent the case back. The district court again dismissed River and XL's claims, reasoning that the Trooper was not listed on the policy's vessel schedule, and the contract did not require Centaur to add it. Protection and indemnity insurance, or P and I, covers marine liabilities. An additional insured is added to someone else's policy, but that status does not automatically cover every loss. Kenneth Engerrand will argue for River and XL that the endorsement naming River and its vessels supplies the missing coverage without separately scheduling the Trooper. Listen for the distinction between what the actual policy covers and what Centaur promised to obtain. River Ventures v. Centaur (No. 25-30671) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-30671_10-6-2026.mp3 Argument date and appearing counsel — official court recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Case facts and appealed ruling — district court's October 23, 2025 order (public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/louisiana/laedce/2:2017cv00585/193016/371/0.pdf Previous appeal and insurance obligation — Fifth Circuit, November 15, 2024: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30892-CV0.pdf Bareboat charter — Fifth Circuit charter-control analysis: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/92/92-03924.CV0.wpd.pdf Bareboat definition — 26 CFR §1.883-1(e)(5)(i) (CFR text mirror): https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.883-1 Subrogation and policy waiver — Fifth Circuit, No. 17-20550: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20550-CV0.pdf Additional-insured and waiver limits — Fifth Circuit, No. 22-30371: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-30371-CV0.pdf

United States v. Sherwood E. Reed — CAAF (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces hears a domestic-violence appeal arising from an assault on a soldier's wife. In December 2023, Reed slapped his wife at their home in Washington. Her niece stepped between them; he pushed her aside and then punched his wife. He pleaded guilty to three domestic-violence allegations, called specifications, and received 180 days of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This appeal concerns specifications four and six, separate convictions for the slap and the punch. Article one-twenty-eight Bravo of the Uniform Code of Military Justice punishes a violent offense against a spouse. The question is whether this conduct counts as one offense or two, the unit of prosecution. Multiplicity concerns unlawful multiple punishment for the same offense. When lawyers say actus reus here, they mean the conduct, the slap or the punch. Reed's lawyer will seek dismissal of one of the convictions, arguing this was one continuous assault. Listen also for whether his guilty plea gave up the challenge to those convictions. United States v. Sherwood E. Reed (No. 26-0109/AR) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/CourtAudio13/20261006A.mp3 Argument date, issue and counsel — CAAF official calendar: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/calendar/202610.htm Case facts and defense position — Appellant's brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Reed260109AppellantBrief.pdf Guilty-plea and preservation arguments — Appellant's reply: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Reed260109AppellantReplyBrief.pdf Case facts and government position — Appellee's brief: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/briefs/2026Term/Reed260109AppelleeBrief.pdf Domestic-violence provision — 10 U.S.C. §928b (2023 Code): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title10/html/USCODE-2023-title10-subtitleA-partII-chap47-subchapX-sec928b.htm Multiplicity, charging fairness and lenity — CAAF judicial digest: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/digest/VD4.htm

Fuel Automation Station, LLC v. Permian Global Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears a patent dispute about trailers that refuel oilfield machinery while it keeps running. Fuel Automation Station patented mobile fueling equipment with pumps, hoses, and hose reels, and sued Permian Global for infringement in Texas. Permian and Manticore Fuels challenged the patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board ruled against Fuel Automation Station, which appealed. These related appeals come from inter partes reviews, or I-P-Rs. These proceedings test patent claims against earlier patents and publications. Much of this argument concerns hoses that deploy from opposite sides of a trailer, and whether a proposed combination uses an entire commercial hose reel or only components. Obviousness under section one-oh-three asks whether an ordinarily skilled person would have found the claimed invention obvious from earlier work before its effective filing date. Fuel Automation Station's lawyer will seek to overturn the Board's decisions. Listen for a separate procedural question: did the Board decide the challenge actually presented in the petition? References to A-P-A notice mean the Administrative Procedure Act's requirement of notice and a fair opportunity to respond. Fuel Automation Station, LLC v. Permian Global Inc. (No. 25-1730) — 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/25-1730_10052026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Federal Circuit official recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and ruling — PTAB IPR2023-01237, ’805 patent: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554410/download-documents?artifactId=IFmr3Un9rl-51TdALAOZXkX1EIOYheJknbRUI2HYUw_coNb67XlY1UI Appeal and attached ruling — PTAB IPR2023-01236, ’118 patent: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554409/download-documents?artifactId=lu5EWu_AYYJCHd43QNiCAWI2a6gMAUxF8XlieXRcmxt2ldb0rdb7niM Patent owner's independent response — IPR2023-01236: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554409/download-documents?artifactId=42A2OqYwsbLboqQE45hsHiu8xgFXtw7lCbUyVZGjA0-OqG0V9emGEc8 Appeal notice — IPR2023-01237: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554410/download-documents?artifactId=Gxk7NfsvjVId-nG0r1wRmTq7iolfL6mpmKcuSAMxx9gCcqfpPGfPaao Inter partes review — USPTO explanation: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/inter-partes-review Obviousness — 35 U.S.C. §103 (2024 Code): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec103.htm Agency notice and opportunity — 5 U.S.C. §554 (2024 Code): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/html/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec554.htm APA procedural explanation — Federal Circuit, Dell v. Acceleron (2016): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/15-1513.opinion.3-11-2016.1.pdf

Albarran-Sotelo v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Luis Albarran-Sotelo's asylum appeal. He was kidnapped by the Jalisco Cartel in Mexico's Guerrero state and held for ransom. An immigration judge accepted that this was past persecution, but denied asylum on the ground that he could live safely elsewhere in Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Because past persecution was established, the government had to show that relocation within his country would be safe and reasonable. University of Georgia law student Olivia Haas will argue that the agency instead made him disprove his ability to move. He also seeks humanitarian asylum. This is a discretionary alternative for a victim of past persecution: exceptionally severe past abuse, or a reasonable possibility of other serious harm on return, can sometimes justify protection even without future persecution. The central question is whether the agency actually assessed his individual safety, rather than assuming anywhere outside Guerrero would do. Albarran-Sotelo v. Blanche (No. 25-5904) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/14/25-5904.mp3 Argument date and docket — Ninth Circuit official archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5904&hearingDate=2026-09-14 Case record — Ninth Circuit memorandum, October 1, 2026: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/10/01/25-5904.pdf Advocate — University of Georgia Appellate Litigation Clinic: https://law.uga.edu/news/80130 Humanitarian asylum — DOJ/DHS regulatory explanation, footnote 208 (2023): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-02-23/html/2023-03718.htm

United States v. Washington — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit considers a weapons search during a Denver traffic stop. Kevin Washington was driving with his infant son when officers stopped him for traffic violations. They found a valid temporary plate, learned the car was not stolen, and met a cooperative driver in a well-lit McDonald's parking lot. An officer nevertheless searched the car for weapons, relying on Washington's arrest history and a baseball cap he associated with local gangs. The trial judge upheld the search; Washington challenges that ruling, not the initial traffic stop. A protective search guards officers against a weapon, rather than simply investigating a crime. It requires concrete grounds to suspect present danger and ready access to a weapon. The question is whether these officers had those grounds despite Washington's calm behavior and the child in his backseat. United States v. Washington (No. 25-1349) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-1349.mp3 Argument date and docket — Tenth Circuit official listing: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026 Case record — Tenth Circuit order and judgment, October 1, 2026: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111518958.pdf

United States of America v. Grimm — 2d Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

We hear United States v. Grimm in the Second Circuit. Michael Grimm pleaded guilty to wire fraud and received a five-year federal prison sentence. He was already serving a related state sentence. His plea deal specified five years, but he says that term should be reduced for time already served on the state sentence. The trial judge invited more briefing on whether the sentencing guidelines required that reduction. Grimm withdrew that argument and sought prompt federal sentencing, with the remaining state term running at the same time. He now says that concession rested on mistaken legal advice; the government calls it a deliberate waiver. That distinction may decide whether the court can reach the credit question at all. Waiver means intentionally giving up an argument and can bar appellate review entirely. Forfeiture means failing to raise an argument in time. It leaves the narrower possibility of plain-error review. United States of America v. Grimm (No. 25-545) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-545.mp3 Argument date — Second Circuit official search: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case record — Second Circuit summary order, October 2, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-545_so.pdf Conviction, sentence and prosecutor — U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of New York: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/spencerport-man-going-prison-role-fraud-scheme Counsel appointment — appellate clerk's docket, public Justia snapshot: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-545

United States of America v. King — 2d Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

We hear United States v. King in the Second Circuit. Gregory King's case arose from his admitted possession of a gun. He accepted a plea agreement with a prison-sentence cap of forty-six months. The judge calculated a higher sentencing-guidelines range after adding four levels for using a gun in connection with another felony, but still sentenced him to forty-six months. King says the added levels wrongly influenced the sentence. His plea agreement also waived appeals within the agreed range. He contends that the waiver bars challenges to the sentence's length, not to the process used to calculate it. The government says it bars both. The parties also agree that the case should return to the district court to address his conditions of supervision after prison. In this circuit, optional supervision conditions must be announced at sentencing, or expressly incorporated from written conditions made available to the defendant. They cannot simply be added to the written judgment later. United States of America v. King (No. 25-1491) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1491.mp3 Argument date — Second Circuit official search: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case record — Second Circuit summary order, September 21, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-1491_so.pdf Supervision conditions — United States v. Maiorana, Second Circuit en banc opinion: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-1115_complete_opn.pdf

Cowart, Jr. v. Arteta — 2d Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

We hear Cowart v. Arteta in the Second Circuit. Three Program Integrity Officers in the Orange County Sheriff's Office lost their jobs when Paul Arteta became sheriff. Their work included investigating officer misconduct and checking compliance with professional standards. They say they were fired for supporting Arteta's opponent in the sheriff's election. The district court dismissed their First Amendment claim without a trial, ruling that political affiliation could lawfully be considered for these jobs. The officers contend that their investigative duties required neutrality, not political loyalty. They ask the appeals court to overturn that ruling. After this argument, the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal. The federal courts did not decide the merits of their separate New York labor-law claim. Cowart, Jr. v. Arteta (No. 25-2616) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2616.mp3 Argument date — Second Circuit official search: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appeal decision — Second Circuit summary order, October 5, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-2616_so.pdf District-court opinion — SDNY Doc. 52, September 25, 2025 (court document hosted by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2023cv09412/609038/52/0.pdf Independent reporting — Law360, October 5, 2026 (public introduction; full article requires subscription): https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/discrimination/articles/2534110/2nd-circ-calls-sheriff-s-office-political-firings-fair-game

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected