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:

233rd Street Partnership, L.P. v. US — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears 233rd Street Partnership versus the United States. The Partnership claims a property interest in a former railroad corridor beside its land in the Bronx. The city wants to turn that corridor into a recreational trail. In 2023, the Surface Transportation Board issued a notice permitting negotiations for interim trail use, and the Partnership sued the federal government for compensation. But the Court of Federal Claims rejected the claim: it concluded that an 1872 deed had already transferred ownership of the disputed land to the railroad. The Partnership now challenges that ruling. The distinction is between an easement, a right to use another owner's land, and fee simple, ownership of the land itself. The Partnership says an earlier condemnation gave the railroad only an easement, and the later deed merely acknowledged that taking. The government says the later deed separately transferred ownership. That historical ownership question determines whether the Partnership has a property interest for which it can seek compensation. 233rd Street Partnership, L.P. v. US (No. 25-1849) — 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/25-1849_10052026.mp3 Official argument listing — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Court of Federal Claims opinion — No.23-1358, May7,2025: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cv01358-31-0 Surface Transportation Board — Putnam Branch interim-trail-use notice: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1685114195940/51729.pdf Partnership counsel's account of the lawsuit — Stewart, Wald & Smith: https://www.swslegal.com/media/overview.html/article/2023/08/31/new-york-landowner-brings-suit-in-federal-court-over-rail-trail-conversion New York easement and ownership distinction — Mertowski v. Werthman: https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_08524.htm

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

Show notes

Wuhan China Star and other display companies challenge Samsung Display's patents on OLED screens. These screens use red, green, and blue light-emitting elements called pixels. Samsung's patents describe layouts intended to improve screen life and manufacturing reliability. The companies asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to cancel patent claims as obvious in light of earlier display designs. A claim specifies the invention protected by a patent. Obviousness asks whether that invention would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled designer, using existing knowledge rather than hindsight. Three related patents are involved. The Board rejected the challenge to the patent ending in five seventy-eight, but found several claims of the related eight oh three patent unpatentable. The Federal Circuit now hears both sides' challenges to parts of those rulings. The opening dispute concerns a pixel-defining layer, a physical layer that defines the pixels' areas. The challengers say the Board overlooked what display designers already knew; Samsung disputes that reasoning. This is a review of patentability rulings, not a trial deciding whether a particular product infringes. Wuhan China Star Optoelectronics Semiconductor v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (No. 25-1517) — 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/25-1517_10052026.mp3 Official argument listing — Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ PTAB decision — IPR2023-00987, '803 patent (public copy): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00987/46 Challengers' filed petition — IPR2023-00987 (public copy): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-00987/1 PTAB decision — IPR2023-01075, '578 patent (public copy): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-01075/46 Challengers' notice of appeal — IPR2023-01075 (public copy): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2023-01075/47 Samsung's filed notice identifying related appeals (public copy): https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings/IPR2025-01545/4 Inter partes review — USPTO explanation: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/inter-partes-review

Humana v. Kennedy — 5th Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Humana versus Kennedy. Under Medicare Advantage, private insurers receive government payments based partly on enrollees' diagnoses. Federal audits check those diagnoses against medical records and recover payments for unsupported diagnoses. In 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, adopted a rule allowing it to extrapolate audit findings from a patient sample across an entire insurance contract. The rule also rejected a fee-for-service adjuster, an offset insurers sought for differences between the data used to set payments and the records used to audit them. Humana challenged the rule, saying CMS changed its legal justification without fair notice and an opportunity to comment. The district court set aside the rule on that procedural ground without deciding Humana's other challenges. The government now appeals. The debate over logical outgrowth asks whether the final rule was reasonably foreseeable from the proposal, and whether that test also covers the agency's reasons. Humana v. Kennedy (No. 25-11293) — 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/25/25-11293_10-05-2026.mp3 Official argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 District court's summary-judgment order and judgment — September 25, 2025: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Humana-Inc._2025.09.25_ORDER-ON-MOTION-FOR-SUMMARY-JUDGMENT.pdf Government's filed opening brief and court-record addendum: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Humana_2026.03.21_DEFENDANTS-OPENING-BRIEF.pdf Medicare Advantage risk adjustment — 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-23(a)(1)(C): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395w-23 Medicare rulemaking — 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395hh Jonathan Schneller — O'Melveny official profile: https://www.omm.com/professionals/jonathan-schneller/

Hernandez-Landaverde v. U.S. Attorney General — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears Hernandez-Landaverde versus the U.S. Attorney General. Juan Carlos Hernandez-Landaverde seeks protection against being sent to El Salvador, where he says he would be detained as a suspected gang member and tortured. He denies gang membership. An immigration judge found that he was more likely than not to face torture and granted protection under the Convention Against Torture. A divided Board of Immigration Appeals, which reviews immigration judges' decisions, reversed that ruling. Under its regulations, the Board reviews factual findings only for clear error; it cannot overturn them simply because it would weigh the evidence differently. Hernandez-Landaverde says the Board crossed that line by substituting its own assessment of the evidence about prison abuse and his individual risk. The appeal asks whether the Board applied the required standard and lawfully reversed the judge's prediction. Hernandez-Landaverde v. U.S. Attorney General (No. 25-10166) — 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/25-10166_10012026.mp3 Official argument listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Filed amicus brief — former immigration judges and Board members, supporting petitioner: https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Hernandez-Landaverde-Roundtable-Amicus-Brief.pdf Board's scope of review — 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3): https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1003/subpart-A/section-1003.1 Clear-error standard — Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573–575 (1985): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/470/564/

Bass v. Pershing — 2d Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 06, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Bass versus Pershing. Robert Bass says a one-billion-dollar transfer from Deutsche Bank to his Citi brokerage account in May 2019 was never credited. FINRA arbitrators dismissed his claim, finding his transfer evidence was not genuine. Bass later sued Citi, Pershing, Bank of New York Mellon, and FINRA. This appeal concerns his civil RICO claims, under the federal racketeering law. The district court found the claims late and barred by arbitration, found that Bass had fabricated an email, and dismissed the suit. Representing himself, Bass will challenge the deadline, the arbitration's effect, and the fraud finding. The appellees will contend that he knew of the alleged injury in 2019 and cannot relitigate the same dispute. They invoke res judicata, or claim preclusion: a final decision can prevent parties, or others legally bound by it, from bringing the same claim again. Bass v. Pershing (No. 26-191) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-191.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District-court dismissal — Bass v. Pershing: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv02478/639384/115/ District-court reconsideration — Bass v. Pershing: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv02478/639384/131/ Earlier arbitration opinion — Bass v. Citi Global Markets: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv04586/623316/37/ Appellate docket — Bass v. Pershing: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-191 Civil RICO statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1962: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1962&num=0&edition=prelim Kauff Laton Miller: https://www.klmllp.com/attorneys/adam-m-kauff/ Nicholas J. Mazza — Reed Smith: https://www.reedsmith.com/news/reed-smith-announces-2026-promotion-class/ Counsel listing — Second Circuit summary order: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/26-191_so.pdf

Edward Camargo v. AbbVie, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Seventh Circuit in Edward Camargo versus AbbVie. Camargo says he had to stop taking Humira after losing insurance coverage because he could no longer afford it. He and other patients sued the drug's manufacturer. They allege that high list prices and undisclosed rebates to pharmacy benefit managers, companies negotiating drug coverage, left patients exposed to costs based on the higher price. The district judge dismissed their claims, and the patients appealed. The patients will argue that this scheme violates state consumer-protection laws even without fraud. AbbVie will respond that high prices and negotiated rebates are not, by themselves, unlawful, and that the complaint lacks legally sufficient consumer injury. You'll hear the cigarette rule, an unfairness test considering public policy, unethical or oppressive conduct, and substantial consumer harm. The federal anti-kickback statute also comes up. It generally prohibits knowingly and willfully paying or accepting something of value in exchange for directing federally funded health-care business, subject to exceptions. This appeal asks whether the allegations can proceed, not whether the patients have already proved wrongdoing. Edward Camargo v. AbbVie, Inc. (No. 26-1543) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. §105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.26-1543.26-1543_09_23_2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District-court order — N.D. Illinois, Document 64 (court-authored PDF, Justia mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2023cv02589/432823/64/0.pdf Federal anti-kickback statute — 42 U.S.C. §1320a–7b(b), official U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title42-section1320a-7b&num=0&edition=prelim Anti-kickback explanation and exceptions — HHS Office of Inspector General: https://oig.hhs.gov/compliance/physician-education/fraud-abuse-laws/

Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, et al. v. Weiser, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears a challenge to Colorado's land-use attorney-fee law. Residents and neighborhood groups had sued over local development decisions. Under a Colorado law, a losing challenge to certain housing developments can leave residents paying the local government's legal fees, but winning gives them no matching right to fees. They sued the governor, attorney general and Colorado Springs, saying this one-sided risk discouraged them from going to court. The district judge dismissed the suit without deciding whether the law was constitutional. He found that the state officials did not enforce the provision and that the residents lacked a live dispute with the city. Ex parte Young allows federal suits against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law. The official must have a connection to enforcing the challenged law. Their lawyer will seek to revive the challenge; the defendants will defend the dismissal. Sanctuary Field Neighborhood Network, et al. v. Weiser, et al. (No. 25-1391) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-1391.mp3 Official argument listing and date — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F05%2F2026 District-court dismissal order — District of Colorado, September 30, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_24-cv-01847/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_24-cv-01847-0.pdf Enacted attorney-fee law — Colorado HB24-1107: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_1107_signed.pdf

United States of America v. Arias — 2d Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear United States versus Arias, a sentencing appeal in the Second Circuit. Arias used a freight-forwarding service to ship seven firearms from the United States to the Dominican Republic. Suspecting that an employee had cooperated with law enforcement, he threatened to come after her. The sentencing judge treated the threats as obstruction of justice, raising his guideline range and denying a reduction for accepting responsibility. Arias's lawyer will contend that the threats were an angry outburst, not an attempt to interfere with an investigation. The government will defend the judge's finding that Arias meant to intimidate a potential witness. United States of America v. Arias (No. 25-252) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-252.mp3 Official argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case record — Second Circuit summary order, September 29, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-252_so.pdf Fatico hearing — United States v. Oladokun, Second Circuit opinion: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-6141_complete_opn.pdf Sentencing fact disputes — U.S. Sentencing Commission, §6A1.3 and commentary: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-6#6a13

Colburn Kelly v. Deputy Cody Jett, et al. — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit considers Kelly's civil-rights lawsuit against two Florida sheriff's officers. Police detained him outside a McDonald's while arresting a woman on an outstanding warrant. He was convicted of driving with a suspended license and drug offenses. Kelly says Deputy Jett kept him on the curb for forty-two minutes without investigating him. He sued over that detention, but the district court dismissed his case because winning would undermine convictions that had not been overturned. His lawyers will argue that those convictions could remain valid even if the detention was unlawful. They will also argue that his two-day driving sentence left no opportunity for habeas corpus, a federal challenge to unlawful custody. The officers will defend the dismissal and also invoke qualified immunity: protection from damages when officials do not violate clearly established rights. Colburn Kelly v. Deputy Cody Jett, et al. (No. 24-10553) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-10553_09302026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=1 Summary-judgment order — Middle District of Florida, Document 81: https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020-01376-81-3-cv= Earlier order on dismissal motions — Middle District of Florida, Document 55: https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020-01376-55-3-cv= Heck v. Humphrey — 512 U.S. 477: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/512bv.pdf Qualified immunity — Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/555bv.pdf Qualified immunity — Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/800

Brianna McCarty v. Village of Lakemoor — 7th Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Seventh Circuit consider Brianna McCarty's lawsuit against the Village of Lakemoor. McCarty was a police officer involved in an on-duty shooting in 2018. She later struggled with patrol work and spent periods on light duty before the Village fired her. She sued over disability accommodation and sex discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the Village, ending her case without a trial. McCarty will argue that she could continue on light duty and that male officers received longer assignments. The Village will contend that she could not perform a patrol officer's essential duties and rejected a reasonable ride-along arrangement. The argument tests whether those accommodations were reasonable and whether the male officers were comparable to her. Brianna McCarty v. Village of Lakemoor (No. 25-2013) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. §105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-2013.25-2013_09_25_2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Summary-judgment opinion — Northern District of Illinois, Document 89: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2022cv05751/422640/89/0.pdf?ts=1727171654 Later procedural history — Northern District of Illinois, Document 120: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2022cv05751/422640/120/0.pdf?ts=1765446980 Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected