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:

Li Men v. Inguran, LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

Li Men challenges the loss of her laboratory job at Inguran during a cost-cutting layoff. Before she was let go, she had received a written warning and a negative performance evaluation. She says younger workers received better treatment, including a co-worker who kept his job despite a lower evaluation score. The company says it selected her because of performance and conduct, not age. Men sued for age discrimination. The district court ruled for the company without a trial, finding insufficient evidence for a jury to attribute the decision to age. She appeals. We hear the Seventh Circuit argument from September 29, 2026. Her advocate will argue that the evidence belongs before a jury, and that the court used too demanding a standard for the warning and evaluation. Li Men v. Inguran, LLC (No. 25-3342) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (court original): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/gw.25-3342.25-3342_09_29_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 — E.D. Wisconsin, document 120, September 4, 2025 (court PDF via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiedce/2%3A2024cv00474/107569/120/0.pdf Counsel appearances — appellate docket mirrored by Justia (June 1, 2026 snapshot; not current status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3342 Summary judgment — Cornell LII Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgment Pretext — Cornell LII Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pretext

Northwestern Memorial Healthcare v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia — 7th Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Oct 05, 2026

Show notes

Northwestern Memorial Healthcare is trying to collect payment for treating five patients insured by Blue Cross Georgia. Northwestern Memorial Healthcare says Georgia approved the care in advance but paid none of the disputed claims. Northwestern had a contract with Blue Cross Illinois, not Georgia. It sued Georgia, arguing that their dealings created an implied agreement to pay and that Georgia should pay for the value of the services. The district court dismissed both claims before trial, holding that Northwestern's existing Illinois contract already required the treatment and covered payment. Northwestern appeals, arguing that the court misread the contract and overlooked additional administrative work. We hear the Seventh Circuit argument from September 28, 2026. Marcus Morrow will argue for Northwestern, seeking to revive its claims. Northwestern Memorial Healthcare v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of Georgia (No. 25-2951) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (court original): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/gw.25-2951.25-2951_09_28_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 dismissal — N.D. Illinois, document 37, September 30, 2025 (court PDF via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2024cv02768/457325/37/0.pdf Counsel appearances — appellate docket mirrored by Justia (April 16, 2026 snapshot; not current status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2951 Illinois quantum-meruit doctrine — Archon Construction, official appellate opinion: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/3d8f4036-6b76-4c4f-91f2-d41abf8c79fa/1153409.pdf Quantum meruit — Cornell LII Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quantum_meruit Implied-in-fact and implied-in-law contracts — Cornell LII Wex explanation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_contract

Sacks Holdings, Inc. v. Grin Natural USA Limited — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears a dispute over who first acquired United States trademark rights to Grin, a name used on toothpaste, toothbrushes and other oral-care products. Sacks Holdings sued the Grin Natural companies for trademark infringement, and Grin claimed that it had the earlier rights. Before Sacks filed its trademark application on August 1, 2017, Grin Natural sent products to American customers on two occasions through its New Zealand website. The district court ruled for Sacks on trademark priority through summary judgment, deciding that issue without a trial. Grin now challenges that ruling in this appeal. Sacks used an intent-to-use application, a way to apply before beginning commercial use of a mark. The central question is whether Grin's two earlier sales already established protected use, and whether later sales can help show that the early use was deliberate and continuous. Gayle Elings will ask the court to reverse the ruling that Sacks has priority. Sacks Holdings, Inc. v. Grin Natural USA Limited (No. 26-1079) — 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/mp3/26-1079-20260915.mp3 Argument date, case and counsel — Fourth Circuit listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Case background and recorded priority ruling — district court document 209, May 9, 2025 (GovInfo court PDF): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_23-cv-01058/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_23-cv-01058-3.pdf Independent case background — Northern District of California document 16, November 7, 2024 (GovInfo court PDF): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-mc-80197/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-mc-80197-0.pdf Intent-to-use applications — 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (statutory text, Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1051 Filing priority — 15 U.S.C. § 1057 (statutory text, Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1057 Use in commerce — 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (statutory text, Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127 Intent-to-use applications and genuine commercial use — USPTO guidance: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/intent-use-itu-applications Constructive-use priority — USPTO Trademark Manual § 201.02: https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?href=TMEP-200d1e1.html&version=current Deliberate and continuous use — Larsen v. Terk, Fourth Circuit, 1998 (official opinion): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/971032.P.pdf Common-law trademark priority — Emergency One, Fourth Circuit, 2003 (official opinion): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/021483.p.pdf

William Dickerson v. Joel Anderson — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Dickerson's challenge to the denial of federal habeas relief in a South Carolina death-penalty case. In 2006, a man was tortured to death in a Charleston-area apartment. A jury convicted Dickerson of murder, kidnapping and sexual assault, and he was sentenced to death in 2009. His state appeals and post-conviction proceedings did not overturn those convictions or the death sentence. The federal district court then rejected his habeas petition, which challenged his imprisonment and sentence under federal law. Dickerson says the prosecutor excluded Black jurors because of their race. Batson is the Supreme Court rule forbidding race-based jury strikes. A central dispute is whether procedural barriers prevent federal review of that discrimination claim and evidence obtained after trial. The lawyers also distinguish a claim against the prosecutor's jury strikes from a claim that Dickerson's defense lawyers handled the objection ineffectively. The appeal separately concerns access to prosecutors' notes about possible promises of leniency to witnesses. David Weiss will seek further review for Dickerson; the state will defend the denial of relief. William Dickerson v. Joel Anderson (No. 25-0004) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (court original): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-0004-20260916.mp3 Argument date, case and counsel — Fourth Circuit listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Trial facts and direct appeal — State v. Dickerson, South Carolina Supreme Court, October 3, 2011: https://www.sccourts.org/media/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27048.htm Independent trial reporting and sentence — WCSC, May 7, 2009: https://www.live5news.com/story/10322671/jury-hands-down-death-sentence-in-dickerson-trial/ Federal habeas ruling and procedural history — district court, September 24, 2024, document 112 (actual opinion reproduced by Justia): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/9:2022cv00108/269281/112/ State-prisoner federal habeas review — 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (statutory text, Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2254 Race-based jury strikes — Batson v. Kentucky, Supreme Court majority, 1986 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/476/79 Independent and adequate grounds, cause and prejudice — Coleman v. Thompson, Supreme Court majority, 1991 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/501/722 Cause for procedural default — Murray v. Carrier, Supreme Court majority, 1986 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/477/478 Disclosure of favorable material evidence — Brady v. Maryland, Supreme Court majority, 1963 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/373/83 Material evidence affecting witness credibility — Giglio v. United States, Supreme Court majority, 1972 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/405/150

Rahman v. Carlin — 2d Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Rahman's appeal in a workplace-retaliation case. In April 2019, while working for New York state, she filed a discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. Over the following year, she received criticism in her performance reviews, faced disciplinary questioning and was placed on paid administrative leave. She says these actions were punishment for complaining. The supervisors say her work performance and refusal to provide information for an investigation justified their actions. The district court dismissed her federal and state retaliation claims without a trial, finding insufficient evidence that their explanations concealed retaliation. Her lawyer will argue that supervisors' emails connect the discipline to her complaints and that a jury should decide their meaning. The appeal concerns how courts separate legitimate workplace management from unlawful retaliation, and when disputed evidence requires a trial. Rahman v. Carlin (No. 25-2876) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (court original): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2876.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and summary-judgment ruling — district court, October 28, 2025, document 52 (actual judicial opinion reproduced by Justia): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2%3A2022cv03309/480829/52/ Retaliation burden-shifting analysis — Hicks v. Baines, Second Circuit, 2010 (actual opinion reproduced by OpenJurist): https://openjurist.org/593/f3d/159/hicks-v-baines Independent explanation of burden shifting and pretext — McDonnell Douglas, Supreme Court majority, 1973 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/411/792

United States of America v. Menendez (Nadine Menendez) — 2d Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Nadine Menendez's appeal from her federal corruption conviction. A jury found that she participated in a scheme with her husband, then a United States senator, in which cash, gold and a luxury car were exchanged for his political influence. The scheme included attempts to interfere with criminal investigations and actions benefiting Egypt. Her trial was held separately from her co-defendants' and ended in conviction. This recording focuses on her claim that she lost the lawyer of her choice. Before trial, her lawyer David Schertler told prosecutors that car and mortgage payments were loans, not bribes. Prosecutors said that he might need to testify; after the parties failed to agree on a substitute for his testimony, he withdrew. He was never called as a trial witness. The district court rejected her request for a new trial, concluding that conflicts of interest remained. Sarah Krissoff of Cozen O'Connor will argue that prosecutors should have explicitly updated Menendez and the court, and that a fresh conflict hearing was needed. United States of America v. Menendez (Nadine Menendez) (No. 25-2322) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (court original): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2322.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case facts and counsel-conflict ruling — district court, July 31, 2025 (actual judicial opinion reproduced by FindLaw): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/117564521.html Defense request for acquittal or new trial — filed June 6, 2025, document 868 (public court-filing PDF): https://newjerseymonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/6-6-25-Menendez-motion-for-acquittal.pdf Conviction background and government counsel — U.S. Attorney’s Office, September 11, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/nadine-menendez-sentenced-54-months-prison-bribery-foreign-agent-and-obstruction Advocate affiliation — Sarah Krissoff, Cozen O’Connor: https://www.cozen.com/people/bios/krissoff-sarah Counsel-of-choice structural error — Gonzalez-Lopez, Supreme Court majority, 2006 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-352.ZO.html Independent counsel-of-choice analysis — Gonzalez-Lopez, Eighth Circuit, 2005 (opinion reproduced by OpenJurist): https://openjurist.org/399/f3d/924/united-states-v-gonzalez-lopez Unsworn-witness doctrine — Locascio, Second Circuit, 1993 (opinion reproduced by OpenJurist): https://openjurist.org/6/f3d/924/united-states-v-locascio Independent application of lawyer-witness conflict rules — Kliti, Second Circuit, 1998 (opinion reproduced by OpenJurist): https://openjurist.org/156/f3d/150

Frank DiFranco v. Henderson Yarbrough — 7th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

Frank DiFranco asks the Seventh Circuit to revive a lawsuit over a 2020 Cook County judicial election. Patricia Fallon was declared the winner. DiFranco alleges that election officials improperly counted mail ballots after the statutory deadline, changing the result. He brought an election contest in state court and a separate federal lawsuit asserting constitutional violations. The federal case was paused while the state case proceeded. After the state challenge failed, the district court dismissed the federal suit under res judicata, or claim preclusion—the rule that a final judgment can bar another suit over the same dispute. DiFranco will argue that Illinois's limited election-contest procedure could not resolve his federal claims and that he reserved those claims for federal court. Fallon's lawyer will contend that the dispute was already litigated and cannot be reopened. The question is whether the state judgment blocks DiFranco's federal claims, despite his attempt to reserve them. Frank DiFranco v. Henderson Yarbrough (No. 25-2624) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (court original): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2624.25-2624_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 Federal dismissal and case history — district court, September 2, 2025, document 169 (court PDF reproduced by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2020cv07813/394747/169/0.pdf State election-contest decision — DiFranco v. Fallon, Illinois Appellate Court, October 5, 2023 (official court PDF): https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/df378a05-d18f-49f7-8a52-9fa0569bee7f/DiFranco%20v.%20Fallon%2C%202023%20IL%20App%20%281st%29%20220785.pdf Mandatory and directory election rules — Pullen v. Mulligan, Illinois Supreme Court, 1990 (opinion reproduced by Justia): https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/1990/70496-7.html Directory does not mean optional — People v. Robinson, Illinois Supreme Court, 2005 (opinion reproduced by Justia): https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/2005/97267.html

A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville — 7th Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears an Indiana school district's appeal over a transgender student's access to boys' restrooms. A.C. sued after Martinsville's school district barred him from those restrooms. A temporary injunction let him use them while the case proceeded. The district court later ruled the policy unlawful under Title Nine and the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, and granted a permanent injunction. Title Nine prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education. The district's policy assigns shared restrooms by sex at birth, without exceptions for transgender students. The school district will argue that its no-exceptions rule applies equally to everyone and protects student privacy. A.C. will argue that the rule depends on sex and the district hasn't shown that his restroom use threatens anyone's privacy. In B. P. J., the Supreme Court allowed states to reserve girls' school-sports teams for biological females. The lawyers disagree about whether that reasoning changes the rules for bathroom access. A.C. v. Metropolitan School District of Martinsville (No. 25-1094) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (court original): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.25-1094.25-1094_09_28_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 permanent-injunction ruling — district court, January 7, 2025 (GovInfo court PDF): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_21-cv-02965/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_21-cv-02965-4.pdf Filed state amici brief — Seventh Circuit No. 25-1094, document 51: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/amicus-brief-case-25-1094.pdf Sex-discrimination prohibition — Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (Cornell LII reproduction): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1681 School-sports decision — West Virginia v. B. P. J., Supreme Court majority opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf

Gordon v. Aetna Life Insurance Company — 2d Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Aetna's challenge to an order requiring it to reconsider coverage for gender-affirming facial surgery. Dr. Gennifer Herley sought surgery to treat gender dysphoria. Aetna denied coverage under its policy treating facial procedures for gender transition as cosmetic. She sued, alleging sex discrimination. The district court ordered an individualized medical-necessity review, not automatic payment for surgery. The claim rests on Section fifteen fifty-seven of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded health programs. Aetna contends its policy distinguishes medical uses, not sexes. It also challenges standing: whether an order against Aetna could remedy the alleged injury when an employer controls and funds the plan. Two Supreme Court cases frame the dispute. Bostock held that firing someone for being gay or transgender violates Title Seven's ban on sex discrimination in employment. Skrmetti upheld Tennessee's restriction on certain gender-transition treatments for minors against an equal-protection challenge. The lawyers disagree about what those different rulings mean for this insurance-coverage claim. Gordon v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (No. 26-820) — 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/26-820.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and preliminary injunction — district court ruling, March 8, 2026 (Justia PDF mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3%3A2024cv01447/161202/153/0.pdf Health-program nondiscrimination — ACA § 1557, Cornell LII reproduction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18116 Employment-discrimination holding — Bostock, Supreme Court opinion reproduced by Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1618 Equal-protection holding — Skrmetti, Supreme Court opinion reproduced by Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-477

Hernandez v. Jafri — 2d Cir. (Sep 21, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Second Circuit argument in Hernandez's appeal from the dismissal of his federal civil-rights lawsuit. The dispute grew out of his state-court personal-injury case, where he alleges misconduct surrounding a deposition. He sued lawyers involved in that case, including his own lawyer. Hernandez wants the case sent back so he can obtain a video of the deposition. The district court dismissed his federal claims and declined to decide his remaining state-law claims. The issue here is whether his allegations support a federal civil-rights claim, rather than a possible claim under state law. Section nineteen eighty-three generally requires a rights violation attributable to state government, not purely private conduct. Hernandez v. Jafri (No. 25-1609) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 21, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (court original): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1609.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and appellate decision — Second Circuit summary order, September 25, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-1609_so.pdf District judgment text — court docket mirrored by Justia (October 31, 2024 snapshot): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv06972/628435 Federal civil-rights statute — 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Cornell LII reproduction: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 State-action requirement — American Manufacturers v. Sullivan, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-526/pdf/USREPORTS-526-40.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected