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:

Lopez Belloza v. Hyde — 1st Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears the case of a college student deported after she tried to fly home for Thanksgiving. In November 2025, nineteen-year-old Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, a Honduran student at Babson College, was arrested at Boston's Logan Airport while traveling to visit her parents in Texas. ICE was enforcing a removal order entered in 2017, when she was eleven. Agents transferred her to Texas before her lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition in Massachusetts. A habeas corpus petition asks a court to review whether government custody is lawful. A judge temporarily barred deportation, but ICE sent her to Honduras the next day in violation of that order. The district court later ordered the government to facilitate her return, while ruling that Massachusetts lacked jurisdiction over the original petition because she was already detained in Texas when it was filed. She declined the government's offer to return her to Texas; her lawyers wanted the protection of the Massachusetts court. The court dismissed her petition, and she appealed. That leaves two questions: could Massachusetts hear the case when her lawyer could not locate her, and is the appeal now moot, meaning there is no live dispute a court can remedy? Erica Ross represents Lopez Belloza. She will argue that undisclosed transfers cannot defeat access to habeas review and that returning her under Massachusetts court protection remains meaningful relief. Lopez Belloza v. Hyde (No. 26-1236) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit, No. 26-1236: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/26-1236_20261005.mp3 Argument date and parties — official First Circuit calendar: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Initial facts and claims — filed November 21, 2025 habeas petition: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Lopez-Belloza-v.-Hyde-1-25-cv-13499-D.-Mass.-Petititon-Nov.-21-2025.pdf Detention and deportation timeline — January 16, 2026 district order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-13499/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-13499-0.pdf Return remedy — February 13, 2026 district order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-13499/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_25-cv-13499-1.pdf Dismissal and appeal — public district clerk entries through March 6, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2025cv13499/292111 Counsel — public appellate clerk entries through September 9, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/26-1236 Unknown-custodian doctrine — filed former-judges amicus brief: https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/clinic/document/2026-05-26-amici-curiae-brief-of-former-federal-and-state-judges-with-addendum-of-amici-curiae.pdf Habeas corpus — 28 U.S.C. § 2241: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partVI-chap153-sec2241.htm Mootness rule — Supreme Court, Chafin v. Chafin (2013): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/568bv.pdf

Harvard v. HHS — 1st Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Harvard's challenge to the termination of federal research grants. 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 rejected the demands, saying they threatened its academic freedom. That same day, the government announced a freeze of two point two billion dollars in multiyear grants. Harvard sued, and federal agencies subsequently terminated research grants. In September 2025, the district judge ruled that the government had unlawfully retaliated against Harvard and bypassed Title Six's procedures for withdrawing funding over discrimination. The court set aside the freeze orders and grant terminations, and the government appealed. This appeal does not challenge the court's jurisdiction over the general freeze orders; it focuses on the individual grant terminations and the relief ordered. The Tucker Act gives the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over contract claims against the United States. The government says Harvard is seeking payment under grant contracts and must use that court. Harvard says it is enforcing constitutional and civil-rights protections, not merely collecting a contract debt. The judges will examine which court can hear these claims, what funding rules apply, and whether the terminations were unlawful retaliation. Michael Velchik will argue for the federal government. Harvard v. HHS (No. 25-2230) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit, No. 25-2230: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-2230_20261005.mp3 Argument date and parties — official First Circuit calendar: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Events and district ruling — September 3, 2025 order: https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/09/gov.uscourts.mad_.283718.238.0_1.pdf Precise relief — October 20, 2025 final judgment: https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/10/Final-Judgment-Harvard-v.-HHS.pdf Government's position — April 15, 2026 appellate brief: https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Harvard-Defs-brief-1st-Circuit.pdf Harvard's position — July 15, 2026 appellate brief: https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2026/07/Harvard-v.-HHS-as-filed.pdf Counsel — public clerk entries through April 30, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-2230 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 Grant termination — 2 C.F.R. § 200.340, 2025 edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title2-vol1/pdf/CFR-2025-title2-vol1-subtitleA.pdf

Johnson v. United States Congress — SCOTUS (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court hears Johnson versus United States Congress. Floyd Johnson is an Army veteran with service-related post-traumatic stress disorder. While serving a forty-year prison sentence for state felonies, he obtained disability benefits based on an eighty-percent disability rating. The VA later cut his payments to the amount paid for a ten-percent rating, under Section 5313. That law limits disability payments after more than sixty days' imprisonment for a felony. Johnson sued Congress in Florida, arguing that the law itself was unconstitutional. The trial court dismissed his claims as legally frivolous. The Eleventh Circuit ordered dismissal instead for lack of jurisdiction. It said Congress was immune from suit, and changing the defendant would not help because this challenge belonged in the veterans' review system. That system normally runs from the VA's Board of Veterans' Appeals to the Veterans Court, then the Federal Circuit. Section 511 restricts other courts' review of VA benefits decisions. In nineteen seventy-four, Johnson versus Robison allowed constitutional challenges to benefits laws in ordinary federal court. Congress changed the review system in nineteen eighty-eight. The question now is whether that change closed the ordinary-court route, even when a veteran attacks the statute rather than the agency's handling of a claim. This is about which court may hear the challenge, not whether the benefit cut is constitutional. Jeffrey Chen, of Bondurant Mixson and Elmore, represents Johnson. He will argue that Section 511 leaves that route open. Johnson v. United States Congress (No. 25-735) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States, No. 25-735: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-735.mp3 Argument date — official Supreme Court listing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2026 Official argument transcript — October 5, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-735_k5fl.pdf Case docket and arguing counsel — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-735.html Factual allegations and Johnson's position — petitioner's merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-735/412251/20260601114507068_25-735_ts.pdf Government's position and statutory appendix — respondent's merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-735/416400/20260713192231875_25-735_Johnson_bs_with%20appendix.pdf Lower-court opinions and veterans' benefits statutes — petition appendix: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-735/387696/20251217122004405_25-_%20Johnson%20v%20US%20Congress_Pet%20App.pdf Payment cap for felony incarceration — 38 U.S.C. § 5313: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/html/USCODE-2024-title38-partIV-chap53-sec5313.htm Referenced ten-percent compensation rate — 38 U.S.C. § 1114(a) (2024 text; no dollar amount narrated): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/html/USCODE-2024-title38-partII-chap11-subchapII-sec1114.htm VA decisions and review limits — 38 U.S.C. § 511: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/html/USCODE-2024-title38-partI-chap5-subchapI-sec511.htm Jeffrey W. Chen — Bondurant Mixson & Elmore attorney biography: https://bmelaw.com/our-team/jeffrey_w_chen/ Appointments Clause — Constitution, Article II section 2: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-118/html/HMAN-118-constitution.htm Principal and inferior officers — United States v. Arthrex, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf

Luxer Corp. v. Package Concierge, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Luxer versus Package Concierge, a patent lawsuit that became a dispute over whether the parties had settled. Luxer makes systems that let delivery drivers and recipients enter secure package rooms using access codes. It sued Package Concierge and Parcel Pending over a patent for controlling storage-room locks. On February 4, 2025, Luxer and Quadient executives discussed a two-hundred-thousand-dollar payment to resolve both lawsuits and permit future sales. They told the court they had reached a settlement in principle, with details still to be agreed. Two days later, the district court dismissed the cases. Luxer asked the court to enforce the earlier deal and undo that judgment. The court refused, finding essential terms, including the license's scope, had not been settled. Luxer now argues that a binding deal had already ended the dispute, leaving no live case for the court to decide. The judges will ask whether that deal covered all essential terms and whether conflicting accounts of the negotiations require a hearing. Jason Balich will argue for Luxer. Luxer Corp. v. Package Concierge, Inc. (No. 25-1482) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit, No. 25-1482 (consolidated appeals): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1482_10052026.mp3 Argument date — official Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Package-room patent and original dismissal — February 6, 2025 district opinion: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-603.pdf Parallel Parcel Pending dismissal — February 6, 2025 district opinion: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-604.pdf Settlement negotiations and refusal to reopen — June 30, 2025 district opinion: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-603_0.pdf Package-room operation — Luxer's product description (company source): https://www.luxerone.com/smart-locker-solutions/automated-package-room/ Storage-room lock patent — US 11,625,675 B2, official grant: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11625675 Luxer's counsel — public appellate entries through April 25, 2025: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1482 Four consolidated appeals — July 23, 2025 public docket entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1931 Martin Martos — Fox Rothschild attorney biography: https://www.foxrothschild.com/martin-r-martos-ii Relief from a judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/pdf/USCODE-2024-title28-app-federalru-dup1-rule60.pdf Indicative ruling during an appeal — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/pdf/USCODE-2024-title28-app-federalru-dup1-rule62.1.pdf

CEMCO, LLC v. KPSI Innovations Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears CEMCO versus KPSI Innovations, a dispute over patents for fire-blocking building products. The inventor, James Klein, transferred those patents to CEMCO to settle earlier litigation. Other settlements restricted his right to sell products covered by the patents, while another company, ClarkDietrich, became the exclusive licensee. Klein and his family continued in the business through KPSI. CEMCO sued KPSI, Klein, his wife Serina, and their son Kevin for inducing patent infringement and for fraudulent asset transfers. After discovery sanctions, the district court barred their patent-invalidity defenses and entered judgment for CEMCO. The three Kleins appeal, but KPSI itself is not an appellant. The argument centers on whether CEMCO retained the right to sue after its licensing deal, and whether Kevin can challenge patents his father assigned. Section 281 of the Patent Act authorizes a patent holder to sue for infringement; the dispute is who retains the relevant rights. Joseph Levy will argue for dismissing the lawsuit, or letting Kevin raise an invalidity defense. CEMCO, LLC v. KPSI Innovations Inc. (No. 25-1623) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit, No.25-1623: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1623_10052026.mp3 Argument date — official Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and assignor estoppel — October9,2024 district order, Doc149: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2023cv00918/323391/149/0.pdf?ts=1728575435 Patent licensing and right to sue — redacted2023 district order, Doc48: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2023cv00918/323391/48/0.pdf?ts=1699548687 Original judgment — March3,2025 district judgment, Doc248 (court document hosted by CEMCO): https://cemcosteel.com/app/uploads/2025/05/248-Judgment.pdf CEMCO's account — May22,2025 management update (party statement): https://cemcosteel.com/app/uploads/2025/05/Legal-Update-KPSI-May-23-2025-1.pdf Appellants and counsel — public appellate docket entries through September5,2025: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1623 Assignor estoppel limits — Supreme Court, Minerva Surgical v.Hologic,2021: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-440_9ol1.pdf Right to sue for patent infringement —35U.S.C.§281: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/pdf/USCODE-2024-title35-partIII-chap29-sec281.pdf Definition of patentee —35U.S.C.§100(d): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/pdf/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec100.pdf

United States v. Reginald Brown and Katrina Brown — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears consolidated appeals by Reginald Brown and Katrina Brown. The case began with loans and a city grant for Katrina Brown's family's barbecue-sauce business in Jacksonville, Florida. Prosecutors alleged that false invoices drew money from an SBA-backed loan into companies controlled by the Browns, instead of paying for the claimed goods and services. A jury convicted both of fraud-related crimes, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed their convictions and sentences in 2021. The sentences required restitution to the lender, BizCapital, and the City of Jacksonville. Restitution is money ordered to compensate victims for crime-related losses. After the business defaulted, the Small Business Administration paid the lender under its loan guarantee. In 2024, the district court substituted the SBA for BizCapital as a victim in the restitution order. The Browns challenge that change, not their original convictions. They question the court's power to amend a final order, the evidence linking the SBA's payment to the particular losses, and their chance to object. Katrina Brown's lawyer will argue that the statute does not authorize adding a new victim this way. United States v. Reginald Brown and Katrina Brown (No. 24-13677) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit, consolidated Nos. 24-13677 and 24-13708: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-13677%20Consolidated%2024-13708_10012026.mp3 Argument date and consolidated case — official Eleventh Circuit listing: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Original charges and business background — filed May 23, 2018 indictment (allegations): https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/press-release/file/1067311/dl Trial-evidence background — September 15, 2026 district court order, pp. 8–19 (separate collateral proceeding): https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-01093-24-3-cv= Original convictions and sentences affirmed — November 19, 2021 opinion, No. 20-14254: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202014254.pdf Scope of Reginald Brown's current appeal — March 12, 2025 partial-dismissal order: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202413677.ord.pdf Scope of Katrina Brown's current appeal — March 20, 2025 partial-dismissal order: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202413708.pdf Restitution and crime-victim definition — 18 U.S.C. § 3663A: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap232-sec3663A.pdf Compensation providers, evidence and finality — 18 U.S.C. § 3664: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap232-sec3664.pdf

Power Contracting v. Thurman — 5th Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Power Contracting versus Thurman. David Thurman was a vice president at Power, which had taken over his former employer, Mesa Line Services. He and another employee, Travis Golden, left for a rival business owned by Quanta Services. Power accused Thurman of sharing confidential information and helping recruit Golden while still working for Power. Thurman disputes that he recruited Golden or caused him to leave. His employment contract restricted competition, recruitment and disclosure, but tied its protections to a corporate group whose parent later dissolved. The district court ruled that those provisions did not protect Power, and rejected its separate loyalty claim without a trial. Power now appeals, seeking to revive the contract claims and have a jury decide the loyalty dispute. Summary judgment allows a decision without trial when no important fact is genuinely disputed and the law entitles one side to win. There is also a dispute over who must pay Thurman's defense lawyers. Advancement pays covered defense expenses while a case is ongoing, with repayment possible later; indemnification concerns who ultimately bears eligible expenses. Aaron Nielson represents Power and will argue for reversal. Power Contracting v. Thurman (No. 26-40057) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/26/26-40057_10-05-2026.mp3 Argument date and appearing counsel — official Fifth Circuit listing: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Case background and disputed rulings — district court's August 20, 2025 order (Doc. 211): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/3%3A2024cv00078/1953649/211/0.pdf Defense-fee advancement — district court's July 2, 2025 order (Doc. 199): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/3%3A2024cv00078/1953649/199/0.pdf Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Advancement and indemnification — Pontone v. Milso, Delaware Court of Chancery: https://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=210610

United States v. Jonathan López-Díaz — 1st Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears United States versus Jonathan Lopez-Diaz. Lopez-Diaz served a prison term for bank robbery and a firearm offense, then came under supervised release in Puerto Rico. Supervised release means a period of supervision after prison, with conditions the person must follow. He completed inpatient drug treatment, then had more positive drug tests. In December 2025, the district court revoked his release and imposed twelve months in prison, with no further supervision. The appeal asks whether drug use was properly treated as felony possession when calculating his violation grade. A violation grade is the severity category used to calculate the recommended prison range. His lawyer will argue that the judge overlooked treatment and less restrictive alternatives. Esteras is a Supreme Court ruling. It bars punishment for the original crime as a reason for discretionary revocation. United States v. Jonathan López-Díaz (No. 25-2179) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-2179_20261005.mp3 Official argument listing — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background — district court's January 7, 2026 bail-pending-appeal order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-prd-3_13-cr-00204/pdf/USCOURTS-prd-3_13-cr-00204-0.pdf Supervised release — 18 U.S.C. § 3583: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap227-subchapD-sec3583.pdf Violation grades and sentencing — 2025 Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter 7, Part C: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-7 Esteras v. United States — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-7483_6k4c.pdf

Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Wuhan China Star versus Samsung Display. The dispute concerns Samsung's patent on a circuit controlling the light emitted by individual pixels in OLED screens. The design aims to keep brightness uniform despite differences between transistors. Wuhan and other display companies asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to cancel eighteen patent claims, arguing that the invention was obvious from earlier technology. Obviousness asks what a designer with ordinary technical skill would have understood at the time, without hindsight. The Board found none of those claims proven unpatentable. Wuhan now seeks to have that ruling set aside and the case returned to the Board. Listen for two connected questions: whether changing transistor types had a sound technical justification, and whether the Board adequately considered and explained its treatment of the evidence. APA refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how courts review agency decisions. Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (No. 25-1426) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1426_10052026.mp3 Official argument listing — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Patent challenge — petition, IPR2023-00941, Paper 1 (filed original, mirrored): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/1 Board decision — December 6, 2024, embedded Paper 68 (filed original, mirrored): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/70 Notice of appeal — February 6, 2025, Paper 71 (filed original, mirrored): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/71 Samsung's sur-reply — Paper 45 (filed original, mirrored): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00941/45 Obviousness — 35 U.S.C. § 103: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/pdf/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec103.pdf KSR v. Teleflex — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-550/pdf/USREPORTS-550-398.pdf Administrative Procedure Act — statutory title note: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/pdf/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec551.pdf Review of agency decisions — 5 U.S.C. § 706: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/pdf/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap7-sec706.pdf Ultratec v. CaptionCall — Federal Circuit opinion: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/16-1706.opinion.8-24-2017.1.pdf

United States v. Victor McMillar — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears United States versus Victor McMillar. The case grew out of two shootings in Savannah in November 2018: one killed a man and wounded his wife, and the other killed another man. Prosecutors accused McMillar of both killings, but a Georgia jury acquitted him in 2023. Federal authorities then brought different charges: possessing firearms and ammunition as a convicted felon. A federal jury convicted him in 2024, and he received a twenty-year prison sentence. This appeal concerns that federal case, not the state murder verdict. Keep two juries distinct: the grand jury decides whether to bring charges; the trial jury decides guilt. You will also hear Giglio, a Supreme Court decision requiring disclosure of material evidence affecting a prosecution witness's credibility. At trial, the related false-testimony rule bars prosecutors from knowingly presenting material false testimony or leaving it uncorrected. Tina Maddox, who also defended McMillar at trial, will speak for him. United States v. Victor McMillar (No. 25-11215) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11215_10012026.mp3 Official argument listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 District court order and report — May 20, 2024 (court-authored text, mirrored): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/664ec68587313315896130e6 Federal trial and sentence — Justice Department, March 28, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/convicted-felon-sentenced-20-years-illegally-possessing-pistol-and-ammunition-used-two Trial prosecutor's case account — Frank Talbot application, question 21, pp. 8–9: https://volusiaexposed.com/jnc/2025/jnc102025/applications/talbot.pdf Giglio v. United States — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-405/pdf/USREPORTS-405-150.pdf Napue v. Illinois — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-360/pdf/USREPORTS-360-264.pdf United States v. Bagley — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/473/667 United States v. Mechanik — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/475/66 Grand jury — Federal Criminal Rule 6: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_6 Trial jury verdict — Federal Criminal Rule 31: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_31

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected