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:

Jones v. Lamar County — 5th Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

Patty Jones challenges the dismissal of her civil-rights lawsuit arising from police visits to her home in Lamar County, Texas. In February twenty nineteen, officers investigated allegations of telephone harassment. Jones alleges that during the encounters officers pulled her from a bathroom while she was partially undressed and later took her to jail. These are disputed allegations, not findings that the officers violated the law. She sued in federal court, asserting false arrest, excessive force, and other claims. After other claims were dismissed, the court required a more detailed response to Deputy Anson Amis's qualified-immunity defense, then dismissed the remaining false-arrest and excessive-force claims. The appeal concerns both the alleged police conduct and whether Jones's filings satisfied court orders and preserved her arguments for appellate review. Ms. Lewis will ask the Fifth Circuit to revive Jones's claims; the defendants will urge the court to leave the dismissal in place. Jones v. Lamar County (No. 25-40806) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit, No. 25-40806: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-40806_10-05-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — official Fifth Circuit listing: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Case allegations, earlier proceedings and Rule 7 reply — actual magistrate report on Motion 45: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/639413bf9a341c7fcf9c593b Dismissal of remaining Amis claims — signed district order, Doc. 97: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/4:2021cv00156/204287/97/0.pdf?ts=1744289756 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — Rules 7, 15 and 41: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Magistrate recommendations and objections — 28 U.S.C. § 636: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partIII-chap43-sec636.htm Civil plain-error application — Fifth Circuit, Johnson-Williams: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/Opinions/unpub/16/16-10276.0.pdf Plain-error framework — Supreme Court, United States v. Olano: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-507/pdf/USREPORTS-507-725.pdf Qualified immunity — Supreme Court, Pearson v. Callahan: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-555/pdf/USREPORTS-555-223.pdf

California Communities Against v. EPA — D.C. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears a challenge to EPA's rules for toxic air pollution. Large industrial facilities are generally subject to strict standards called maximum achievable control technology, or MACT. A facility is normally a major source if it emits, or has the potential to emit considering controls, at least ten tons a year of one hazardous air pollutant, or twenty-five tons of combined hazardous pollutants. Other stationary sources are called area sources and can face less demanding requirements. EPA's former 'once in, always in' policy kept facilities under major-source standards even after those standards brought emissions below the thresholds. In 2020, EPA changed course: a facility could leave those standards by reducing its emissions and potential emissions below the cutoffs, becoming subject instead to any applicable area-source rules. Environmental organizations filed a direct challenge here in 2021, joined in a consolidated case by state and local governments. They warn that a factory could relax its pollution controls and increase emissions while still staying below the major-source cutoffs. EPA and industry supporters say classification should track a facility's current emissions and potential to emit, not permanently bind it to its former status. The court must decide whether the rule violates the Clean Air Act and whether EPA adequately explained its changed approach. Sanjay Narayan will argue first for the environmental groups, seeking to keep facilities bound by the stricter standards once they apply. California Communities Against v. EPA (No. 21-1024) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit, No. 21-1024: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/21-1024.mp3 Argument date and counsel — official court listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Environmental groups' original petition — January 15, 2021: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/ccat_21-1024_pfr_01152021.pdf State and local governments' position — January 23, 2026 opening brief: https://stateimpactcenter.org/files/AG_Actions_California_Communities_Against_Toxics_v_EPA_Opening_Brief_1.23.2026.pdf Industry groups' position and counsel — April 17, 2026 brief: https://www.mitchellwilliamslaw.com/webfiles/2026-04-17%20MM2A%20Air%20Permitting%20Forum%20et%20al%20Respondent%20Intervenor%20Proof%20Brief.pdf EPA's challenged 2020 reclassification rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/19/2020-22044/reclassification-of-major-sources-as-area-sources-under-section-112-of-the-clean-air-act Clean Air Act § 112 — 42 U.S.C. § 7412: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7412.htm Shannon Broome's current firm — Hunton Andrews Kurth: https://www.hunton.com/people/shannon-broome

American Association of University Professors v United States Department of Justice — 1st Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears academic organizations' challenge to federal research funding cuts at Harvard. In April 2025, a federal task force demanded changes to Harvard's governance, hiring and admissions, and an audit of faculty viewpoints, citing concerns about antisemitism. Harvard refused, saying the demands threatened its academic freedom. Within hours, the government announced a freeze of two point two billion dollars in multiyear grants, and federal agencies later terminated research awards. The American Association of University Professors, its Harvard faculty chapter and the UAW union had already sued, before the freeze and terminations. Their case is separate from Harvard's own lawsuit: they say the funding cuts harmed their members' research and freedom of speech. In September 2025, the district judge ruled that the government had unlawfully retaliated against protected speech and bypassed Title Six's funding procedures. The court set aside the freeze orders and terminations, and the government appealed. The appeal focuses on the individual grant terminations and the relief ordered, not the court's jurisdiction over the general freeze orders. Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims hears contract claims against the United States. The government says restoring these grants effectively enforces contracts and belongs in that court. The organizations say they are enforcing constitutional and civil-rights protections, not collecting a contract debt. Michael Velchik of the Justice Department will argue for the federal government. American Association of University Professors v United States Department of Justice (No. 25-2231) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit, No. 25-2231: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-2231_20261005.mp3 Argument date and parties — official First Circuit calendar: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Events and trial ruling — September 3, 2025 joint opinion: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/American-Association-of-University-Professors_2025.09.03_ORDER-ON-MOTIONS-FOR-SUMMARY-JUDGEMENT.pdf AAUP-specific relief — October 20, 2025 final judgment: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/AMERICAN-ASSOCIATION-OF-UNIVERSITY-PROFESSORS-HARVARD-FACULTY-CHAPTER-ET-AL_2025-10-20_JUDGMENT.pdf Government's position and counsel — May 1, 2026 corrected appellate brief: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/American-Association-of-University-Professors-et-al-v.-United-States-Department-of-Justice-et-al_2026.05.01_DEFENDANTS-BRIEF.pdf Organizations' position and counsel — July 15, 2026 appellate brief: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/American_Association-of-University-Professors_2026.07.15_PLAINTIFFS-RESPONSE-BRIEF.pdf Elizabeth Prelogar's current firm — Cooley: https://www.cooley.com/people/elizabeth-prelogar/in-depth Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. § 1491: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/pdf/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap91-sec1491.pdf Title VI nondiscrimination — 42 U.S.C. § 2000d: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap21-subchapV-sec2000d.htm Title VI funding procedures — 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap21-subchapV-sec2000d-1.htm

Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County — SCOTUS (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court hears Suncor Energy against the County Commissioners of Boulder County. Boulder's city and county governments sued Suncor and ExxonMobil in Colorado in twenty eighteen. They allege that the companies promoted and sold fossil fuels while misleading the public about climate risks, contributing to damage in Boulder. They seek money for climate-related property damage and costs of protecting their communities, including wildfire response and flood protection. Those are allegations, not findings that the companies caused those harms. After years of litigation over which court should hear the case, it returned to Colorado state court. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected the companies' argument that federal law barred these claims and allowed them to proceed. The companies now seek reversal, arguing that federal law, including the Clean Air Act, leaves no room for these state-law climate claims. Boulder says it seeks compensation for the companies' production and deception, not a court order limiting emissions. The underlying damages case is unfinished, and the Court must also decide whether it has jurisdiction to review this dispute now. Much of the debate concerns federal common law: specialized rules developed by federal judges rather than enacted by Congress. Displacement means a federal statute replaces those judge-made rules; preemption concerns federal law overriding state law. Replacing federal common law does not by itself answer whether these state-law claims survive. Kannon Shanmugam, of Davis Polk and Wardwell, represents the companies and will argue that Boulder's claims are barred. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States, No. 25-170: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-170.mp3 Argument date — official Supreme Court recording listing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2026 Official argument transcript — October 5, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-170_4fbi.pdf Case docket and arguing counsel — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-170.html Companies' position and procedural history — petitioners' merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-170/408810/20260514091116673_Boulder%20brief%20for%20petitioners%20FINAL.pdf Boulder's allegations, damages and review position — respondents' merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-170/418043/20260803182738077_25-170%20Brief.pdf Lower-court background and preemption ruling — Colorado Supreme Court opinion: https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2025-05/24SA206_0.pdf United States' position and counsel — Solicitor General's amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-170/409590/20260521184428959_25-170_Suncor_v_Boulder_Merits_FINAL.pdf Federal common law, displacement and state-law preemption — American Electric Power v. Connecticut: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-564/pdf/USREPORTS-564-410.pdf Kannon Shanmugam — current Davis Polk attorney biography: https://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/kannon-shanmugam Kevin Russell — current Russell & Woofter attorney biography: https://www.russellwoofter.com/who-we-are-kevin-k-russell

Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. ITC — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

Samsung Display seeks to keep allegedly patent-infringing mobile-device screens out of the United States. It brought an import complaint at the International Trade Commission over display panels and modules. The Commission ended the investigation with no violation because Samsung had not demonstrated a qualifying domestic industry. Samsung now challenges that result in the Federal Circuit. Section 337 of the Tariff Act can authorize exclusion of patent-infringing imports, but infringement alone is not enough. The patent owner must also establish a domestic industry tied to articles protected by the patent. You will hear two shorthand terms: the technical prong asks whether the domestic-industry products use the patented invention; the economic prong concerns qualifying United States investment. The statutory categories include significant investment in plant and equipment, or significant employment of labor or capital. Samsung will seek reversal of the domestic-industry finding; the Commission will defend it. We hear Samsung Display v. ITC in the Federal Circuit, argued October fifth, twenty twenty-six. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. ITC (No. 25-1791) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit, No. 25-1791: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1791_10052026.mp3 Argument date — official Federal Circuit recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Complaint, proceedings and domestic-industry finding — March 19, 2025 Commission notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-03-25/pdf/2025-04982.pdf Patent imports and domestic industry — 19 U.S.C. § 1337: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1337 Issue and argument preservation — 19 C.F.R. § 210.43: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/19/210.43 Review of an agency’s actual reasons — SEC v. Chenery, majority opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/318/80 Cathy Chen’s appearance — public Federal Circuit docket snapshot: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1791

Veritas Vincit v. Birnam Wood — 5th Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

A failed financing deal for a Texas pipeline contractor leads to a civil lawsuit over a criminal complaint. In 2015, Total Operating arranged half a million dollars in financing through Reticulum Management. William Dean was an officer of Total Operating. The money was not repaid as agreed, and litigation and arbitration followed. Fred Brown, acting for Reticulum, filed a criminal complaint against Dean over the transaction. Dean and Veritas Vincit later sued Brown, Charles Durham, and Birnam Wood, alleging malicious criminal prosecution and conspiracy. This is a civil damages claim, not the criminal prosecution itself. A jury awarded damages, and Birnam Wood and Durham are challenging that result. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs gained control of Reticulum through a bankruptcy sale. The district court dismissed Reticulum but allowed claims against the other defendants to proceed. The central questions are whether a genuine dispute remains and whether Brown can be held responsible for initiating a prosecution under Texas law. Meredith Parenti will argue for Birnam Wood and Durham that the plaintiffs' acquisition defeats the lawsuit. We hear Veritas Vincit v. Birnam Wood in the Fifth Circuit, argued October fifth, twenty twenty-six. Veritas Vincit v. Birnam Wood (No. 25-40549) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit, No.25-40549: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-40549_10-05-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — official recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Financing history — In re Dean,2020 bankruptcy opinion; publicly available partial text: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/reticulum-mgmt-llc-v-890462609 Case background and Reticulum dismissal — July25,2024 district-court order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/4%3A2024cv00079/227564/115/0.pdf Jury verdict and post-trial ruling — August18,2025 district-court order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/4%3A2024cv00079/227564/166/0.pdf Civil appeal time and bankruptcy exception — 28U.S.C.§2107: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partV-chap133-sec2107.htm Appeal clock and timely post-judgment motions — Appellate Rule4: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_4 Bankruptcy appeals and2025 amendment — Appellate Rule6: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_6 Bankruptcy post-verdict motion deadline — Bankruptcy Rule9015: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_9015 Civil post-verdict motion deadline — Civil Rule50: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_50 State substantive law in federal court — Erie Railroad v.Tompkins,majority opinion: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/64/ Restatements are persuasive,not controlling law — American Law Institute: https://www.ali.org/faq Certified questions — Texas Appellate Rule58,current2026 rules: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1463134/texas-rules-of-appellate-procedure-02062026.pdf

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

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Dojaquez v. Collins, a dispute over the calculation of attorney fees from a veteran's backdated benefits. Kenneth Dojaquez represented Phillip Poole, who was awarded a hundred-percent disability rating for a mental health condition. The benefit award covered an earlier period beginning in 2007. The dispute is whether the lawyer's twenty-percent fee should be calculated on the full award before offsets or on the smaller amount after those deductions. After proceedings at the VA and the Veterans Court, that calculation dispute is now before the Federal Circuit. Section 5904 of Title 38 limits fees paid directly by the VA under a contingent fee agreement to twenty percent of the past-due benefits awarded. Section 5304 generally prohibits awarding pension and disability compensation at the same time based on a person's own service. The distinction between the amount awarded and the amount paid is central to the discussion you will hear. John Niles represents Dojaquez. Reta Emma Bezak represents the government. Dojaquez v. Collins (No. 25-1831) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit, No. 25-1831: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1831_10052026.mp3 Argument date — official court recording index: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Arguing counsel and court of origin — official October 2026 calendar: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-October2026.pdf Earlier Poole benefit award and fee dispute — August 23, 2022 Veterans Court order, No. 21-8261; not the current merits decision: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/DojaquezKHandPooleP_21-8261.pdf Direct-payment attorney fees — 38 U.S.C. § 5904: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/html/USCODE-2024-title38-partIV-chap59-sec5904.htm Concurrent benefit awards — 38 U.S.C. § 5304: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/html/USCODE-2024-title38-partIV-chap53-sec5304.htm

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

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Deborah Cooper's appeal from convictions arising from two armed robberies at Igor's Bar in New Orleans. The robberies took place in February and March 2022. Police used surveillance footage to identify Cooper as one of the two suspected robbers. A federal jury later convicted her of robbery conspiracy, robbery and related firearm offenses. The robbery convictions are under the Hobbs Act, a federal law that prohibits robberies and conspiracies to rob that obstruct, delay or affect commerce. That commercial connection is a required part of a Hobbs Act prosecution, not just an optional detail about where the robbery occurred. Interstate commerce includes trade across state lines. The related firearm charges concern using or carrying a gun during a crime of violence, with the robberies serving as the underlying crimes. Sara Johnson represents Cooper on appeal. Kevin Boitmann represents the United States. USA v. Cooper (No. 25-30411) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit, No. 25-30411: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-30411_10-05-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — official court recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Case background and surveillance identification — February 4, 2025 signed district order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cr-00131/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cr-00131-4.pdf Jury verdict and prosecution account — official February 18, 2025 release: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/federal-trial-jury-convicts-new-orleans-woman-two-2022-robberies-igors-lounge Federal robbery law — 18 U.S.C. § 1951, the Hobbs Act: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap95-sec1951.htm

Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. DHS — D.C. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears an environmental challenge to changes in federal border policy. Steven Chance Smith works on a cattle ranch along the Arizona-Mexico border. He says increased border crossings brought more trash onto the ranch. His lawsuit challenges the Biden administration's decisions to halt border-wall construction and end the Migrant Protection Protocols, often called Remain in Mexico. He contends DHS should first have examined the environmental consequences under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. After President Trump returned to office and directed both programs to resume, the district court dismissed the remaining case as moot: changed circumstances, it concluded, left no effective relief for a court to provide. The appeal also challenges an earlier ruling that DHS's environmental-review manual could not itself be sued over under the Administrative Procedure Act. That law generally requires a final agency action: a completed agency decision with legal consequences. Scott St. John represents Smith and the other appellants. He will argue that DHS's broader policy of skipping environmental review remains open to challenge even if individual decisions have changed. Erika Norman represents DHS. She will argue that the policy reversals ended the dispute and that the manual is not a reviewable final agency action. Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform v. DHS (No. 25-5410) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit, No. 25-5410: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-5410.mp3 Argument date, case and counsel — official court recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Dismissal and procedural history — September 18, 2025 district opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2020cv03438/224456/96/0.pdf Earlier claims and manual dismissal — August 11, 2022 district order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_20-cv-03438/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_20-cv-03438-0.pdf Plaintiffs' ranch allegations — February 27, 2023 filed motion, pp. 36–37: https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/Filed-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf Directions on barriers and MPP — January 20, 2025 Executive Order 14165: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500132/html/DCPD-202500132.htm Judicial review of agency action — 5 U.S.C. § 704: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/html/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap7-sec704.htm MPP's common name — official February 19, 2025 program reference: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-ends-taxpayer-subsidization-of-open-borders/

Berens v. Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation — 2d Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears a lawsuit by seven employees over Yale New Haven Health's COVID-19 workplace rules. In 2021, the health system made COVID-19 vaccination a condition of employment. Some plaintiffs say they were fired after refusing vaccination; others say they had to undergo weekly testing. They claim the policies violated their constitutional rights, and that the health system jointly developed them with Connecticut's government. The district court dismissed their claims, gave them another chance to plead government involvement, and ultimately closed the case. The problem was state action: conduct attributable to government rather than an independent private employer. Their suit uses Section nineteen eighty-three, the federal law allowing remedies for violations of federal rights under state authority. The appeal asks whether the alleged partnership sufficiently links Connecticut to the vaccination, testing and employment decisions affecting these workers. Matthew Carlone represents the employees. He will argue that jointly designing the policy is enough to let the suit proceed, even without allegations that state officials personally ordered the individual firings. Attorney Spence represents Yale New Haven Health. She will argue that general public-health cooperation is not enough: the workers must allege government involvement in the specific firing or testing decisions, and their complaint does not do that. Berens v. Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation (No. 25-3232) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit, No. 25-3232: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-3232.mp3 Argument date and case — official Second Circuit audio index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html First dismissal and opportunity to amend — July 10, 2025 district order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01188/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01188-0.pdf Facts, legal analysis and final dismissal — November 24, 2025 district order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01188/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01188-1.pdf Counsel and appeal — public appellate clerk entries through June 25, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-3232 Federal civil-rights remedy — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.htm 2021 vaccination policy — Yale New Haven Health's own annual report: https://www.ynhhs.org/-/media/Files/YNHHS/PDF/annual-reports/19160_YNHHS_AnnualReport_FY2021_FINAL_.ashx

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected