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. McCandless — 9th Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Kelly McCandless's appeal from an apartment-construction fraud case in Idaho. He and two partners planned to build a property with bank financing; he could earn an ownership share by completing the construction. Prosecutors said he inflated subcontractor bills and used unauthorized signatures to draw overpayments from the loan, keeping the difference. A jury convicted him of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The question is whether misusing the subcontractors' identities was central to the fraud, or simply incidental to overbilling. A lien can secure a contractor's claim against property for unpaid work; a lien waiver gives up that protection for the work it covers. The second issue is restitution: payment to compensate victims for their losses. McCandless will argue that the ownership interest he gave up should reduce the amount owed. The district judge rejected that credit, finding he never earned the interest because he had not finished the project. USA v. McCandless (No. 24-4105) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/24-4105.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-4105&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Background and restitution ruling — District of Idaho Doc.123, July 29, 2025; prior district-court order, not this appeal’s outcome: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-4_22-cr-00032/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-4_22-cr-00032-2.pdf Trial background — U.S. Attorney report, July 3, 2024; prosecution account of prior proceedings: https://www.justice.gov/usao-id/pr/rexburg-man-convicted-wire-fraud-and-aggravated-identity-theft-sentenced-more-5-years Aggravated identity theft — 18 U.S.C. § 1028A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028A Identity use at the crux of the crime — Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/599us1r34_p86b.pdf Victim restitution — 18 U.S.C. § 3663A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3663A Construction liens — Idaho Code § 45-501: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title45/T45CH5/SECT45-501/

USA v. King — 9th Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears James Kirby King's appeal from a federal criminal case in Montana. The prosecution involved allegations of sexual abuse and child exploitation on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and elsewhere in Montana. King was convicted after a bench trial, meaning a trial before a judge rather than a jury. Before trial, the district court rejected his claim that tribal sovereignty prevented federal prosecutors from bringing the first twenty counts. King will argue that tribal sovereignty requires giving the tribal justice system the first opportunity to prosecute. The government will defend federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act and other federal criminal laws. The Major Crimes Act authorizes federal prosecution of specified serious crimes by Native Americans in Indian country. The Supreme Court upheld that authority in Kagama, so the discussion also concerns what a lower court can do with binding Supreme Court precedent. Rule thirty-three allows a new trial if the interest of justice requires it. Section twenty-two fifty-five offers a separate challenge to an unlawful federal conviction or sentence, including claims of constitutionally ineffective counsel. USA v. King (No. 25-5972) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-5972.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5972&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Indictment background and jurisdiction ruling — district court Doc.77, August 19, 2024; pretrial order, not this appeal’s decision: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00098/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-4_23-cr-00098-0.pdf Trial background — U.S. Attorney report, September 23, 2025; prosecution account of prior proceedings: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/billings-man-sentenced-more-24-years-prison-multiple-sex-crimes-spanning-approximately Major Crimes Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1153: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1153 Federal criminal authority — United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/375/ New trial — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_33 Collateral challenge to a federal sentence — 28 U.S.C. § 2255: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255 Ineffective-assistance claims on collateral review — Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/500/

Holtec International v. The State of New York — 2d Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers whether New York can stop Holtec from releasing water from the closed Indian Point nuclear power plant into the Hudson River. Holtec is decommissioning the plant, meaning dismantling it and dealing with its radioactive materials. The planned discharge includes tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen. In twenty twenty-three, New York enacted a law banning radiological discharges into the Hudson connected with nuclear plant decommissioning, subject to federal law. Holtec sued, saying federal nuclear law leaves this disposal decision to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A federal district judge agreed, and New York is appealing that judgment. The key legal term is field preemption: federal law occupies an area of regulation, so states cannot regulate within it. Section twenty twenty-one of the Atomic Energy Act divides responsibility between federal and state regulators, while preserving state authority for purposes other than radiation hazards. New York will argue that its law protects economic interests and does not set radiation safety levels. Holtec will contend that nuclear decommissioning and licensed radioactive-waste disposal remain federal responsibilities, even though the reactors no longer produce electricity. Holtec International v. The State of New York (No. 25-2657) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2657.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit audio index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and judgment under review — September 24, 2025 district court opinion, Doc. 48; not a decision of this appeal: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2024cv02929/619761/48/0.pdf?ts=1758815502 Federal and state nuclear regulation — Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2021: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2021 New York discharge prohibition — Environmental Conservation Law § 30-0103: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/30-0103 New York legislative findings — Environmental Conservation Law § 30-0101: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/30-0101 Tritium definition — Nuclear Regulatory Commission glossary: https://www.nrc.gov/education-regulatory-research/glossary/tritium

USA v. Scott — 9th Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Steven Scott's appeal following his federal trial in Montana. Prosecutors said that, in twenty twenty-four, he asked an undercover officer posing as a minor for sexually explicit pictures and offered gift cards. A second charge concerned images of a minor from a twenty eighteen Snapchat investigation. The jury convicted him of attempted coercion and enticement, and possession of child pornography. He also had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor. That background makes it important to distinguish direct proof of a charged crime from propensity evidence: using past conduct to suggest someone likely acted the same way again. Rule four-oh-four generally bars that inference, but allows other uses, such as proving identity. Rule four-fourteen creates a specific exception for other child-molestation evidence in cases covered by the rule. It is not a blank check: Rule four-oh-three still allows exclusion when the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the evidence's value. Those facts and rules set up the evidence question: which uses are permitted when a prosecution combines these different charges? Finally, a motion in limine asks the judge to exclude evidence before it is presented. USA v. Scott (No. 26-192) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-192.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-192&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Trial background and verdict — U.S. Attorney announcement, September 16, 2025; prosecution account, not this appeal’s decision: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/jury-finds-previous-sex-offender-guilty-coercion-and-child-pornography-charges Unfair prejudice — Federal Rule of Evidence 403: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403 Other-acts evidence — Federal Rule of Evidence 404: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404 Similar crimes and definitions — Federal Rule of Evidence 414: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_414 Rule 414 and unfair prejudice — United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/260/1018/494934/ Motion in limine — Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, footnote 2 (1984): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/38/ Motion in limine — independently authored Cornell Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine

Thomas v. Jacobs — 2d Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears James Thomas's appeal over a prison search and alleged retaliation. In February twenty nineteen, officers at New York's Sullivan Correctional Facility searched him for suspected contraband. Thomas says an officer sexually assaulted him during the search, and that he later faced threats and retaliation for complaining. The defendants dispute his account. A federal judge granted them summary judgment, ending the case without a trial, including qualified immunity on his Fourth Amendment search claim. Thomas will argue that his sworn evidence raises questions for a jury; the state will defend the judgment. Summary judgment is available when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the law entitles the moving party to win. The court must draw reasonable inferences in the opposing party's favor, rather than decide which witnesses to believe. Qualified immunity can protect an officer from civil damages even for unconstitutional conduct, unless the violated right was clearly established at the time. Here, the panel will consider the manner of the search, and whether recordings and logs resolve the contested facts or leave questions for a jury. Thomas v. Jacobs (No. 25-701) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording; both sides finish and exchange thanks; only the judge’s final closing phrase is cut off in the official file: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-701.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit audio index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and judgment under review — February 28, 2025 district court opinion, Doc. 98; not a decision of this appeal: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2019cv06554/519314/98/0.pdf?ts=1740837892 Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 Qualified immunity — Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–232 (2009), official U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep555/usrep555223/usrep555223.pdf

In re Stein — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears Jonathan Stein's dispute with the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. Stein had worked with the Tribe on a proposed casino project. After their relationship broke down, the Tribe obtained a state-court judgment against him for fraud and other wrongdoing. Stein later filed for Chapter Seven bankruptcy, where the Tribe sought to prevent that debt from being discharged. The bankruptcy court ruled that the judgment debt could not be eliminated through his discharge. Here, Stein will challenge the Tribe's legal capacity to pursue the bankruptcy action, pointing to tax-related documents and arguing that earlier rulings do not settle its later status. The Tribe will contend that the state court already resolved those objections. Issue preclusion, also called collateral estoppel, can prevent relitigating an issue actually and necessarily decided in an earlier final judgment, when the other requirements are met. An interlocutory order is an interim ruling, rather than a final judgment. Capacity means an entity's legal ability to sue or be sued. Civil Rule seventeen B three includes an exception allowing an unincorporated association without state-law capacity to sue in its common name to enforce a substantive federal right. Whether that exception applies is part of this dispute. Recording note: The official file cuts off during post-submission courtroom administration; the argument, formal submission and counsel's thanks are complete. In re Stein (No. 25-1204) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-1204.mp3 Case and date — official court recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1204&hearingDate=2026-10-15 CC-25-1204-GNS — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Casino-contract dispute and state-court findings — 2023 California appellate opinion; earlier litigation, not this appeal's outcome: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/unpublished-opinion-1.pdf Independent contemporaneous casino-project reporting — Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2006: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-nov-26-me-gabrielino26-story.html Earlier judgment and collection litigation — 2021 federal remand order, Document 24: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2021cv05871/826325/24/ Bankruptcy and dischargeability complaint — October 2023 official case calendar, pp. 31–33: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/RC_102523.pdf Capacity and preclusion in related adversary 23-01066 — January 2025 official reasons, pp. 91–96: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/RC_012825.pdf Court account of prior nondischargeability judgment 201 in adversary 23-01023 — May 2025 calendar, p. 31: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/RC_050725.pdf Capacity of unincorporated associations — Civil Rule 17(b)(3): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_17 Exceptions to discharge — 11 U.S.C. §523(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523 Issue preclusion — Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. 322, 326 and note 5: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep439/usrep439322/usrep439322.pdf Final and nonfinal orders — Civil Rule 54(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54 Interlocutory — Cornell legal glossary: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/interlocutory

In re Callaway — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears three related appeals in Christopher Callaway's bankruptcy. Callaway was involved in a contract dispute with M. Dattani Credit Trust and held interests in San Francisco cannabis ventures. The property involved includes business ownership interests and legal claims, not just physical assets. A bankruptcy estate is the pool of property administered for creditors. The trustee asked for approval to sell estate assets; Callaway asked to have property abandoned back to him. A later motion asked the court to define the scope of abandonment. Those competing requests are behind these related appeals. Section three sixty-three provides for estate-property sales outside the ordinary course of business after notice and a hearing. Under Section five fifty-four B, a court may order abandonment after notice and a hearing if property is burdensome to the estate, or of inconsequential value and benefit to it. Abandonment can return property to the debtor, rather than selling it. A scrivener's error is a clerical or drafting mistake; the speakers dispute clarification versus expansion of an earlier order while an appeal is pending. In re Callaway (No. 26-1006) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1006.mp3 Case and date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1006&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Related appeals NC-26-1006, NC-26-1007 and NC-26-1080 — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20SF.pdf Contract dispute, business interests and earlier estate-administration background — June 26, 2024 bankruptcy decision, Document 44; not the orders now on appeal: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-canb-3_24-bk-30082/pdf/USCOURTS-canb-3_24-bk-30082-0.pdf Sale motion 116 and abandonment motion 114 — December 19, 2025 official calendar; scheduled motions, not dispositions: https://www.canb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge/calendar/12.19%20at%2010_0.pdf Later motion 181 to define and compel abandonment — March 13, 2026 official calendar; scheduled motion, not disposition: https://www.canb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge/calendar/03.13%20at%2010_0.pdf Bankruptcy-estate property — 11 U.S.C. §541(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/541 Sale outside the ordinary course — 11 U.S.C. §363(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/363 Abandonment and retained estate property — 11 U.S.C. §554: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/554 Clerical mistakes in orders — Civil Rule 60(a); term context, not an opinion on these appeals: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_60

Joshua Jeter v. Miguel Cleveland — 4th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears an appeal in a prisoner's civil-rights suit against South Carolina correctional officers. Joshua Jeter says officers assaulted him at Broad River Correctional Institution, and that others stood by instead of intervening. The claims include an incident behind his complaint under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, called PREA, and a separate April twenty twenty-one use of force. The officers dispute his account and say videos contradict it. The district court found genuine factual disputes and let some claims proceed; the officers now seek qualified immunity before trial. Qualified immunity protects officials from civil damages unless their conduct violates a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have known. The two prongs discussed here ask whether the plaintiff's supported version describes a constitutional violation, and whether the right was clearly established at the time. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the case has ended. The court can review legal immunity questions now, but generally cannot revisit which disputed events actually happened. Under Scott versus Harris, a court need not accept a version of events so blatantly contradicted by the record that no reasonable jury could believe it. Carmen Ganjehsani will ask the court to reverse the denial of immunity; John Warren will defend the ruling allowing Jeter's disputed claims to proceed. Joshua Jeter v. Miguel Cleveland (No. 25-6425) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-6425-20261014.mp3 Case, date and advocates — official recording archive: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files October 14, 2026 hearing — official Greenville calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct142026.pdf Allegations, video dispute and prior ruling — May 6, 2025 district order, Document 132; public copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2:2022cv01651/272151/132/0.pdf?ts=1746708926 Case identity and counsel appearance — appellate docket; older snapshot: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-6425 Qualified-immunity protection and two questions — Pearson versus Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231–232: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-555/pdf/USREPORTS-555-223.pdf Limits on immediate fact-based appeals — Johnson versus Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 309–313: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep515/usrep515304/usrep515304.pdf Record blatantly contradicting an account — Scott versus Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378–381: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep550/usrep550372/usrep550372.pdf

Jack Williams v. Sig Sauer, Inc. — 4th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Jack Williams's challenge to the dismissal of his product-liability lawsuit against Sig Sauer. His P three-twenty discharged while he sat on a motorcycle with the holstered pistol in his back pocket. He says a design defect allowed it to fire without a full trigger pull; Sig Sauer disputes that explanation. The district court excluded his two proposed experts and granted summary judgment, ending the case without a trial. The dispute is whether their testing and experience reliably connected an alleged defect to this particular discharge. Federal Evidence Rule seven-oh-two makes the judge a gatekeeper for expert testimony. The party offering an expert must show, more likely than not, that the testimony meets the rule's requirements, including sufficient facts, reliable methods and reliable application to the case. The twenty twenty-three amendment made that burden express; admissibility means whether the jury may hear the opinion, while weight concerns how persuasive an admitted opinion is. Abuse-of-discretion review gives the trial judge leeway on that evidence ruling, rather than simply asking what the appeals court would have done. Lawson Hester will argue for Williams; Eric Lasker will defend Sig Sauer's judgment. Later, the panel turns to a separate firearms-industry liability law and a dispute over concealed carrying. Jack Williams v. Sig Sauer, Inc. (No. 25-2196) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-2196-20261014.mp3 Case, date and advocates — official recording archive: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files October 14, 2026 hearing — official Greenville calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct142026.pdf Incident, expert rulings and procedural background — actual September 8, 2025 district order, public copy; allegations distinguished from findings: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-e-d-nor-car-eas-div/117709766.html Counsel identities and sides — current-case appearance entries 3 and 13; older docket snapshot: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-2196 Expert testimony — Federal Evidence Rule 702, including the 2023 amendment: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf Review of expert-evidence rulings — General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141–143; general doctrine: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-522/pdf/USREPORTS-522-136.pdf Firearms-industry liability protection — 15 U.S.C. §7902: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/7902 PLCAA definitions and product-defect exception — 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(v): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/7903 Firearm-design liability — N.C. General Statutes §99B-11; underlying state-law context: https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_99B/GS_99B-11.html

In re Gonzalez — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

Creditor Angela Arnone challenges Gerardo Gonzalez's bankruptcy discharge before the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Gonzalez entered bankruptcy owing Arnone a judgment debt. She challenged his reported household expenses and payments within his family, alleging that the financial picture he presented was dishonest. The bankruptcy court ruled for Gonzalez without a trial, leaving her debt covered by his discharge. A discharge releases the debtor from personal liability for covered debts, subject to statutory exceptions. Arnone represents herself and will argue that the court improperly accepted Gonzalez's explanations instead of allowing disputed questions of intent to be tried. Emily Thompson will defend the judgment as Gonzalez's lawyer. Section seven twenty-seven's false-oath provision requires a material false statement made knowingly and fraudulently in the bankruptcy case; an innocent mistake is not enough. Materiality concerns the statement's connection to the debtor's property or the administration of the bankruptcy estate. Summary judgment means deciding without a trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the law entitles one side to win. Sua sponte means on the court's own initiative; Rule fifty-six permits that after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The three-forty-one meeting you will hear mentioned is the creditors' meeting, where the trustee questions the debtor. In re Gonzalez (No. 26-1066) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1066.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1066&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and full docket CC-26-1066-NSG — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Background and challenged summary judgment — actual bankruptcy memorandum, February 2, 2026, pages 1–9 and 21–29; allegations distinguished from findings: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/opinions/SV-24-01028-MB_GerardoErnestoGonzalezJr.pdf Procedural history and link to this appeal — actual reconsideration order, April 30, 2026; not the appellate result: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/opinions/SV-24-AP-01028-MB_GerardoErnestoGonzalezJr.pdf Discharge and false oaths — 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(4)(A), (b): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/727 Exceptions to discharge — 11 U.S.C. §523(a): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/523 Summary judgment and court-initiated rulings — Civil Rule 56(a), (f), December 1, 2025 edition: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Materiality and fraudulent intent — actual Retz v. Samson opinion, 606 F.3d 1189, 1196–1199; general doctrine only: https://openjurist.org/606/f3d/1189/retz-v-samson Creditors’ meeting — 11 U.S.C. §341(a), (d): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/341

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected