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:

Appalachian Voices v. FERC — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear Appalachian Voices versus the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the Fourth Circuit. The dispute concerns expanding the electric grid and deciding who pays. In 2024, the commission adopted Order nineteen-twenty, requiring transmission providers to plan at least twenty years ahead and consult states about allocating costs. The commission says piecemeal planning can leave customers paying too much while failing to meet future grid needs. After two rounds of agency reconsideration, these consolidated petitions challenge the rule from different directions. Some states say it intrudes on their authority over power generation. Public-interest groups want stronger reforms, while consumer groups object to shifting costs from generators to electricity customers. Some transmission owners challenge mandatory state involvement, and competing developers challenge preferential construction rights for existing utilities. FERC will defend its rule as lawful and reasonable. The judges also ask whether the challengers have standing: the required personal stake in each claim, rather than only a disagreement with the rule. Appalachian Voices v. FERC (No. 24-1650) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/24-1650-20260915.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit recording list: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Respondent's brief — FERC, January 5, 2026: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/2026-1-5_24-1650etal.pdf Consumer petitioners' brief — filed August 29, 2025: https://www.ieca-us.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-Consumer-Petitioner-Brief-8-29-25-4th-Cir-24-1650-3.pdf Supporting states' amicus brief — filed February 4, 2026: https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/News-Room/Current-News/2026.02.04_State%20Amicus%20Br%20Supp%20FERC_FILED.pdf?language_id=1 Advocate background — Randolph Elliott, McCarter & English: https://www.mccarter.com/people/randolph-l-elliott/

Vincent Ambrosia Jr. v. Blazesoft Ltd. — 7th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Seventh Circuit in Ambrosia versus Blazesoft. Two Illinois customers sued online casino operators and related companies, alleging illegal gambling disguised as free-to-play sweepstakes. The companies invoked contract terms requiring arbitration instead of a lawsuit. The district court ordered arbitration, and the customers appealed. Their contracts also choose Ontario law. The question is whether that choice governs a court's decision to enforce arbitration under the New York Convention, a treaty covering international arbitration agreements and awards. The customers will rely on Ontario law, including unconscionability. In Canadian law, unconscionability means unequal bargaining power that produces an unfair bargain. The companies will argue that only narrow, internationally recognized defenses can defeat arbitration under the treaty. This appeal concerns where the claims are decided, not whether the casinos operated unlawfully. Vincent Ambrosia Jr. v. Blazesoft Ltd. (No. 26-1455) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. §105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.26-1455.26-1455_10_01_2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Original complaint — Northern District of Illinois, Document 1: https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Ambrosia-v-Blazesoft-complaint.pdf Order compelling arbitration — Northern District of Illinois, Document 75: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2025cv01723/473609/75/0.pdf Order certifying the appeal — Northern District of Illinois, Document 80: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2025cv01723/473609/80/0.pdf New York Convention — treaty text: https://www.newyorkconvention.org/english Canadian unconscionability — Supreme Court of Canada's Uber v. Heller case brief: https://www.scc-csc.ca/judgments-jugements/cb/2020/38534/ Canadian unconscionability — Norberg v. Wynrib, Supreme Court judgment: https://westcoastleaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/CASES-1992-NORBERG-V-WYNRIB-SCC-Decision-Part-1.pdf

Morae v. Nike, Inc., et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Ninth Circuit in Morae versus Nike. Antoinette Morae asked to be excused from Nike's COVID-19 vaccination requirement, saying prayer and her belief that her body is a temple prevented her from taking the vaccine. Nike says her objection rested on personal concerns about the vaccine, not religion. She brought a religious-discrimination claim under Title Seven, the federal law against workplace discrimination. The district court ruled for Nike without a trial. Her lawyer will ask for a jury to consider whether her objection was genuinely religious. Summary judgment permits a ruling without trial only if material facts are not genuinely disputed and the law entitles one side to win. Morae v. Nike, Inc., et al. (No. 25-2423) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. §105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/14/25-2423.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2423&hearingDate=2026-09-14 Case record and subsequent appellate decision — Ninth Circuit, October 1, 2026: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/10/01/25-2423.pdf District court's prior summary-judgment ruling and costs order — District of Oregon, Document 62: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00541/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00541-0.pdf Religious accommodation — 42 U.S.C. §2000e(j), Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Cooperstein v. University of Utah — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Tenth Circuit in Cooperstein versus the University of Utah. Ian Cooperstein was a personal trainer and supervisor in the university's recreation program. He says his supervisor sexually harassed him and the university fired him for complaining. The university says his position was eliminated in a planned restructuring. The district court ruled for the university without a trial. Cooperstein will argue that disputed evidence should have gone to a jury. The dispute is about when he complained, when his job was marked for elimination, and whether restructuring was the real reason. Summary judgment allows a ruling without trial when no genuine dispute remains over facts that matter and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Prima facie means the initial showing needed to support a claim; pretext means an explanation that covers up an unlawful reason. Cooperstein v. University of Utah (No. 25-4133) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. §105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-4133.mp3 Argument date and case listing — 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 Case facts and summary-judgment ruling — District of Utah Doc83, GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00537/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00537-3.pdf Earlier pleading-stage ruling — District of Utah Doc31, GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00537/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00537-0.pdf Appeal and counsel appearances — court docket mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-4133 Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure56, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Hammond v. Long — 2d Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Second Circuit in Hammond versus Long. Officer Kyle Long accompanied an animal control officer to Tammy Hammond's home to deliver a summons about her dog. A confrontation at the doorway ended in her arrest. Hammond sued, alleging that Long entered her home without a warrant and injured her by using excessive force. The district judge refused to end those two claims before trial because important facts were disputed. Long is appealing that refusal and seeking qualified immunity. That defense protects officials from civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established rights that a reasonable official would know. This is an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the case is finished. The court must distinguish legal questions it can review now from disputes about what actually happened. Hammond v. Long (No. 25-1953) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (court original): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1953.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and ruling — District of Connecticut, July 10, 2025: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cv0318-73= Appeal and counsel — clerk docket mirrored by Justia (January 16, 2026 snapshot; not current status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1953 Qualified immunity — Supreme Court, Pearson v. Callahan: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-751.ZO.html Immediate appeals and factual disputes — Supreme Court, Johnson v. Jones: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-455.ZO.html Second Circuit interlocutory jurisdiction — Salim v. Proulx, Part B: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1120964.html

United States v. José Balmore Romero — 9th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Ninth Circuit in United States v. José Balmore Romero. Romero, a former MS-13 leader in Los Angeles, was convicted of racketeering conspiracy and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Prosecutors described a gang organization that raised money through drug trafficking and extortion, with payments flowing from local cliques up its hierarchy. Romero is serving a thirty-year sentence and has appealed his conviction and sentence. Two legal distinctions will help with the discussion. Rule 702 requires the judge to screen expert testimony for reliability, not merely accept an expert's credentials. A Daubert hearing is one way a judge can examine that reliability, but it is not required in every case. Voir dire here means preliminary questioning of the proposed expert, not jury selection. At sentencing, joining a conspiracy does not automatically make a defendant responsible for all of its drug activity; the scope of the criminal activity he agreed to undertake matters. United States v. José Balmore Romero (No. 24-1702) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (court original): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/16/24-1702.mp3 Case listing and argument date — Ninth Circuit archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-1702&hearingDate=2026-09-16 Case background and appeal — Ninth Circuit calendar: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-09-16&loc=PAS Trial background — Justice Department prosecution account, May 22, 2023: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/one-time-shot-caller-ms-13-los-angeles-second-senior-member-gang-found-guilty-federal Sentence and counsel — appellate clerk docket mirrored by Justia (March 21, 2024 snapshot; not current status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/24-1702 Expert testimony — Federal Rule of Evidence 702: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702 Expert reliability — Supreme Court, Daubert: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZO.html Expert reliability proceedings — Supreme Court, Kumho Tire: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1709.ZO.html Expert reliability and preliminary questioning — Ninth Circuit, United States v. Holguin, Part II: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/13/19-50158.pdf Voir dire — Cornell LII Wex definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/voir_dire Individual sentencing accountability — U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 and commentary: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2023/GLMFull.pdf Conspiracy sentencing — Ninth Circuit, United States v. Garcia-Sanchez: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/189/1143/526605/

Pierre Thorsen v. Community Unit School District No. 300 — 7th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

An Illinois teacher says he was forced to resign because of his Christian faith. Parents complained that Pierre Thorsen encouraged their daughter to convert to Christianity. District Three Hundred suspended him, transferred him, and imposed written teaching restrictions. After further alleged violations, he resigned at an August 2019 meeting. Thorsen says he faced a resign-or-be-fired ultimatum; the district says it disciplined conduct, not belief. Constructive discharge means a resignation the law treats as a firing. He sued under Title Seven, which prohibits employment discrimination because of religion. The district court ruled for the school district without a trial, finding insufficient evidence of a forced resignation or religious discrimination. His counsel will argue those questions belong before a jury; Abigail Rogers will defend the district's judgment. We hear the Seventh Circuit argument from September sixteenth, twenty twenty-six. Pierre Thorsen v. Community Unit School District No. 300 (No. 25-2942) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (court original): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/cm.25-2942.25-2942_09_16_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 Case background and summary judgment — N.D. Illinois document 235, December 19, 2024 (court PDF via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/3%3A2020cv50132/375314/235/0.pdf Counsel appearances — appellate docket via Justia (April 7, 2026 snapshot; not current status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2942 Title VII employment-discrimination prohibition — 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), statutory text via Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2

United States v. Letitia James & James Comey — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears the government's appeals in criminal cases against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. James was accused of falsely claiming that she would use a Norfolk, Virginia, home as a second residence to obtain a more favorable mortgage rate. Comey's charges concern allegedly false statements and obstruction connected to his 2020 Senate testimony. Lindsey Halligan, appointed interim U.S. Attorney, obtained both indictments. In November 2025, the district court dismissed them without prejudice because it found her appointment unlawful. That ruling addressed prosecutorial authority, not whether either defendant was guilty. The government will seek reinstatement; the defendants will defend dismissal. The central dispute is whether the Attorney General could appoint Halligan after an earlier interim appointee's 120-day term had expired, and whether the indictments survive even if her appointment was invalid. The argument took place on September 15, 2026. United States v. Letitia James & James Comey (No. 25-4673) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (court original; consolidated James and Comey appeals): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-4673-20260915.mp3 Cases, counsel and argument date — Fourth Circuit listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files James allegations and dismissal — E.D. Virginia, Doc. 140, November 24, 2025 (court order, PDF mirror): https://whitecollarfraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-11-24-USA-v-Letitia-James-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Indictment.pdf Comey allegations and dismissal — E.D. Virginia, Doc. 213, November 24, 2025 (court order, PDF mirror): https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/comeyindictmentdismissed1124.pdf Government appeal and requested relief — consolidated opening brief, February 9, 2026 (Comey appeal Doc. 21; Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse copy): https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/167971.pdf Void ab initio — Cornell LII Wex definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ab_initio

MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. v. Secretary of HHS — 11th Cir. (Oct 2, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears MedEnvios Healthcare's challenge to Medicare overpayment demands. MedEnvios supplied medical equipment and billed Medicare. Two government-contractor audits examined samples of its claims and projected the results across larger groups of claims to calculate repayment demands. The company challenged those demands through administrative appeals and then sued. The district court set aside the demands because supporting recalculation documents arrived too late, but rejected MedEnvios's challenge to excluding zero-paid claims—claims for which Medicare paid nothing. MedEnvios now seeks a broader ruling and return of the money collected. It says the audits were biased and it lacked the original data needed to check how claims were filtered. The government says paid-claim audits need not include denied claims, which have a separate appeal process. This is case number 25-10870, argued on October 2, 2026. MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. v. Secretary of HHS (No. 25-10870) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 2, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit (court original): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-10870_10022026.mp3 Case and argument date — Eleventh Circuit listing: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Medicare audits, partial relief and recalculation documents — S.D. Florida, March 25, 2024, Doc. 84 (court order via GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_23-cv-20068/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_23-cv-20068-1.pdf Remaining audit-data, recoupment and accounting claims — S.D. Florida, November 25, 2024, Doc. 117 (court order via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1%3A2023cv20068/626463/117/0.pdf Judicial review — 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/405 Medicare application of judicial review — 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b), Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1395ff Substantial-evidence definition — Biestek v. Berryhill, Supreme Court opinion, pages 5–6: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1184_1b82.pdf

5th Congressional District Republican Committee v. John O'Bannon — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

Virginia Republican committees are fighting over how they choose candidates. Their rules limit their nominating processes to party supporters, but Virginia's state-run primaries are open to other qualified voters. A newer provision protects certain voters who cannot attend nominating meetings. The committees say its uncertain requirements effectively force them into open primaries, risking their ability to keep nonmembers out and to place a nominee on the ballot. They sued state election officials and the Department of Elections. The district court dismissed the case because the complaint did not establish standing or a dispute ripe for decision; it did not decide the constitutional merits. We hear their appeal in the Fourth Circuit on September 15, 2026. Jeffrey Adams will argue that the law already chills their choices and that review should not wait until an election is underway. 5th Congressional District Republican Committee v. John O'Bannon (No. 26-1000) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (court original): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1000-20260915.mp3 Argument date, case and counsel — Fourth Circuit listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Case background and dismissal — W.D. Virginia, document 69, December 8, 2025 (court opinion via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vawdce/5%3A2025cv00059/135349/69/0.pdf Counsel appearances — appellate docket via Justia (June 18, 2026 snapshot; not current status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/26-1000 Nomination methods and participation — Virginia Code § 24.2-509: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter5/section24.2-509/ Open-primary participation — Virginia Code § 24.2-530: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/chapter5/section24.2-530/ Standing — Cornell LII Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing Ripeness — Cornell LII Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Ripe

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected