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:

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, et al. v. Trump, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Ninth Circuit consider a dispute over federal homelessness funding in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA, submits the joint grant application for the area's Continuum of Care, a regional network of homeless-service organizations. On June 11, 2026, HUD suspended LAHSA pending an investigation into suspected financial mismanagement and other grant violations. That blocked LAHSA from applying on the region's behalf; HUD proposed letting service providers apply directly instead. LAHSA sued, and the Continuum joined the case. On August 13, the district court temporarily restored LAHSA to its administrative roles and ordered HUD to execute already-approved grant agreements. At this September 22 hearing, the government will ask the Ninth Circuit to stay parts of that injunction—to pause those requirements during the appeal. It will contend the suspension protects federal funds and direct applications can keep services funded. LAHSA and the Continuum will contend the abrupt change puts housing and funding at risk. Their 'arbitrary and capricious' challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act asks whether HUD explained why immediate action was needed and considered the consequences for the region. Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, et al. v. Trump, et al. (No. 26-5367) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/22/26-5367.mp3 Case and argument date — Ninth Circuit, September 22, 2026: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-5367&hearingDate=2026-09-22 Preliminary injunction — C.D. Cal., August 13, 2026 (Doc. 63): https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Dkt.-63-PI-Final.pdf Government request for a stay — August 24, 2026 (Doc. 71): https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Request-for-Stay.pdf District court denial of a stay — September 9, 2026 (Doc. 82): https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Dkt.-82-Denial-of-Stay-Pending-Appeal_1.pdf Continuum of Care response and counsel — August 10, 2026 (Doc. 61): https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Intervenor-Response.pdf LAHSA response and counsel — August 10, 2026 (Doc. 62): https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Plaintiff-Resoponse.pdf Keri Curtis Axel — Waymaker attorney profile: https://www.waymakerlaw.com/attorneys/keri-curtis-axel/ Shayla Myers — Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles profile: https://lafla.org/management-and-attorneys/shayla-myers/ Administrative Procedure Act, scope of judicial review — 5 U.S.C. § 706, GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title5/html/USCODE-2023-title5-partI-chap7-sec706.htm

Michael Sheridan v. Ally Financial Incorporated — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

Michael Sheridan challenges fees charged when he made payments on a car loan held by Ally Financial. Ally offered online and telephone payments through outside companies. Each transaction carried a fee of a few dollars. Sheridan sued on behalf of West Virginia borrowers, saying the fees violated the state's consumer-credit law. Ally says the processors were not its agents, and it received none of those fees. A federal district judge allowed a class of about fifteen thousand borrowers to proceed together. Ally appealed that class-certification order to the Fourth Circuit. The question here is not simply whether the fees were lawful. It is whether the borrowers' claims can be decided together, or require separate inquiries into what each borrower believed and relied on. Michael Sheridan v. Ally Financial Incorporated (No. 25-2145) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. §105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-2145-20260916.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Appealed class-certification order — S.D. West Virginia, Doc.131, July22,2025 (public court filing mirrored by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/west-virginia/wvsdce/5%3A2023cv00616/237622/131/0.pdf Summary-judgment order — S.D. West Virginia, Doc.130, July22,2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/west-virginia/wvsdce/5%3A2023cv00616/237622/130/0.pdf Ally-supporting amicus — Chamber/AFSA, filed Dec19,2025 (advocacy, not court holding): https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/U.S.-Chamber-Coalition-Amicus-Ally-Financial-Inc.-v.-Sheridan-Fourth-Circuit.pdf Sheridan-supporting amicus — NACA/NCLC, filed Feb13,2026 (advocacy, not court holding): https://www.consumeradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026.02.13-Amici-Curiae-NACA-and-NCLC-dkt.-31-1.pdf Class certification and predominance — Federal Rule23, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23 Debt-collection definitions — West Virginia Code §46A-2-122: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/46A-2-122/ Deceptive debt-collection practices — West Virginia Code §46A-2-127: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/46A-2-127/ Unfair debt-collection practices and extra fees — West Virginia Code §46A-2-128: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/46A-2-128/

Ayestas v. Harris County — 5th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit rehears a dispute over prosecutors' records in Carlos Ayestas's death-penalty case. Ayestas was convicted of killing a woman during a robbery or burglary, and sentenced to death. Years later, his lawyers found a charging memo listing his non-citizen status as a reason to seek death. That line was crossed out; whether the memo shows discrimination is contested. He sought to add that claim to his federal habeas case, a challenge to his state conviction and sentence. The district court reopened the case and permitted discovery. A magistrate judge then ordered the Harris County District Attorney's Office to produce records from other capital cases. The office appealed without first seeking district-judge review of that order. The full court is rehearing the appeal. The questions are whether this appeal is proper and whether the claim can proceed as part of the original case. Meagan Scott represents the District Attorney's Office. She will ask the court to block discovery. Ayestas v. Harris County (No. 25-70014) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit (public domain,17 U.S.C. §105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-70014_9-23-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-04 District court background and discovery permission — S.D. Texas,Doc131,March16,2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_09-cv-02999/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_09-cv-02999-3.pdf En banc rehearing and panel vacatur — Fifth Circuit,July6,2026: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-70014-CV1.pdf Historical panel opinion — March9,2026; VACATED July6 (public filing mirrored by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-70014/25-70014-2026-03-09.pdf?ts=1773099030 Earlier Supreme Court opinion — crime and habeas background only,2018: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-6795_c9dh.pdf Collateral-order doctrine — Mohawk Industries v.Carpenter: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-558/pdf/USREPORTS-558-100.pdf Mandamus — Cheney v.U.S. District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-542/pdf/USREPORTS-542-367.pdf Solicitor General identity — Texas Attorney General: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/about-office/ken-paxtons-leadership-team Habeas corpus and amicus definitions — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary

Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co v. Shermar Oil, LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears an insurance dispute after an employee at Shermar Oil's Indianapolis gas station shot a customer. The customer sued over the shooting, including claims that Shermar negligently hired, retained and supervised the employee. Grinnell Mutual, the insurer, asked a federal court to declare that it did not have to defend Shermar or pay damages under the policy. The court ruled for Grinnell, and Shermar appeals. The policy covers bodily injury caused by an occurrence—an accident—and applies separately to each insured. The dispute is whether the employee's intentional shooting also defeats coverage for Shermar, including claims about its own negligence. Vicarious liability means holding an employer responsible for an employee's conduct; negligent hiring or supervision instead concerns the employer's own conduct. Miranda Steele represents Shermar. She will argue that the employee's intent should not eliminate coverage for the business. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co v. Shermar Oil, LLC (No. 25-3188) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/sk.25-3188.25-3188_09_22_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 coverage ruling — S.D. Indiana, Doc. 76, November 6, 2025 (public court filing mirrored by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/1%3A2023cv00931/207695/76/0.pdf Counsel appearances — appellate docket mirrored by Justia (not current outcome proof): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3188

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears the lawsuit brought by X against the Center for Countering Digital Hate and the European Climate Foundation. CCDH published reports about hate speech and misinformation on X, formerly Twitter. X says CCDH scraped public posts and used the foundation's login credentials to access a separate Brandwatch database. X alleges contract violations and unlawful computer access, claiming the reports drove advertisers away. The defendants dispute liability and say the suit punishes protected research and speech. A federal district court dismissed the case. It struck the state-law claims under California's anti-SLAPP law, an early-dismissal procedure for claims arising from protected speech or petitioning. It dismissed the federal computer claim for inadequate allegations of qualifying loss and found no personal jurisdiction over the Dutch foundation. Personal jurisdiction means the court's authority to require a defendant to answer the lawsuit. For the foundation, the dispute concerns its own suit-related United States contacts. X now seeks to revive the suit or amend its complaint. Pete Patterson represents X. He is with Cooper and Kirk. He will argue that the claims target improper data access, not protected speech. X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, Inc., et al. (No. 24-2643) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/30/24-2643.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-2643&hearingDate=2026-09-30 District court state-law and computer-law dismissal — Doc. 75, March 25, 2024 (public court filing mirrored by Knight Institute): https://s3.amazonaws.com/kfai-documents/documents/227ddc1b49/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.75.0.pdf District court European Climate Foundation dismissal — Doc. 76, March 25, 2024 (public court filing mirrored by Knight Institute): https://s3.amazonaws.com/kfai-documents/documents/aaba44f514/gov.uscourts.cand.416212.76.0.pdf X Corp. opening brief — July 5, 2024 (party advocacy, not a court finding): https://kfai-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/c56dba0c32/2024.07.05-OPENING-BRIEF-submitted-for-filing-by-Appellant-X-Corp.pdf CCDH answering brief — September 20, 2024 (party advocacy, not a court finding): https://kfai-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/080707bd3b/2024.09.20-ANSWERING-BRIEF-submitted-for-filing-by-Appellee-Center-for-Countering-Digital-Hate.pdf European Climate Foundation answering brief — September 20, 2024 (party advocacy, not a court finding): https://kfai-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/972b858aae/2024.09.20-ANSWERING-BRIEF-submitted-for-filing-by-Appellee-Stichting-European-Climate-Foundation.pdf Pete Patterson — Cooper & Kirk attorney profile: https://www.cooperkirk.com/lawyers/peter-a-patterson/ Nathaniel Bach — Manatt attorney profile: https://www.manatt.com/nathaniel-l-bach Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 Personal-jurisdiction principles — Walden unanimous opinion, II–III, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-574

Rafael Pons-Puig, Appellant v. Director, Texas Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears Rafael Pons-Puig's challenge to the denial of an immigrant-worker petition. He sought classification based on extraordinary ability, but USCIS rejected his Form I-140. That petition is a step toward permanent residence, not a green card by itself. Pons-Puig sued under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction—the authority to review it—without deciding whether the agency was right on the merits. The dismissal turns on a law limiting review of decisions about adjustment of status, the process of becoming a permanent resident while in the United States. The petition here instead requested visa processing through a consulate. The appeal asks whether the review restriction also covers this earlier petition. The lawyers will also debate USCIS's final-merits assessment. After checking specific evidence categories, the agency weighs the record as a whole for sustained acclaim and standing at the top of the field. Is that an interpretation of existing requirements, or a new rule that required public notice and comment? Rafael Pons-Puig, Appellant v. Director, Texas Service Center, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (No. 25-11236) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11236_10012026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Case background and counsel — AILA amicus brief supporting appellant, July 3, 2025 (not a court decision): https://assets.aila.org/files/a6fc06ca-9b8f-4e24-a268-ad07118513b6/26042100.pdf?1776795078= Mark Prada — Prada Dominguez attorney profile: https://pradadominguez.com/mark_prada Extraordinary-ability and final-merits framework — USCIS Policy Manual,Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-2 Immigrant-worker petition — USCIS Form I-140 guidance: https://www.uscis.gov/i-140 Immigration judicial-review restrictions and zipper clause — 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1252 Adjustment of status — 8 U.S.C. § 1255, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1255 Notice-and-comment and interpretive-rule exception — 5 U.S.C. § 553, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/553 Interpretive-rule explanation — Perez majority opinion, Part I(A), Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-1041 Limits of removal-review channeling — Jennings opinions, Part II(A), Cornell LII (plurality jurisdiction discussion): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-1204

US v. Myron Henderson — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears a second sentencing appeal by Myron Henderson. He pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine near a protected location in West Virginia and received a 110-month prison sentence. In the first appeal, his lawyer filed an Anders brief, reporting no meritorious grounds for appeal. That procedure still requires the court to review the record itself. The Fourth Circuit upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence. It found that the judge had not adequately addressed Henderson's request for leniency based on his difficult upbringing and supporting letters. Federal sentencing law, Section thirty-five fifty-three, requires consideration of both the offense and the defendant's history, as well as punishment, deterrence, and public protection. The judge must explain why that sentence is appropriate. The case returned to the district court for resentencing; this recording is from Henderson's appeal following that remand. US v. Myron Henderson (No. 24-4536) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain,17 U.S.C. §105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/24-4536-20260916.mp3 Argument date and counsel listing — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Original conviction and sentencing explanation — Fourth Circuit, prior appeal22-4235, March20,2024: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224235.U.pdf Original sentence and admitted offense — DOJ, April6,2022 (not the resentencing judgment): https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndwv/pr/ohio-man-sentenced-selling-methamphetamine Appeal origin and counsel appointment — court docket mirrored by Justia, October10,2024 snapshot (not current case status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/24-4536 Sentencing factors and reasons —18 U.S.C. §3553, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3553 Appointed counsel and independent review — Anders v. California, Supreme Court opinion, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/386/738 Appeal-waiver forfeiture — Melvin, Fourth Circuit opinion, pages3–5: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/234622.P.pdf Second-appeal waiver question left undecided — Murray, Fourth Circuit unpublished opinion, page3: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Unpublished/004746.U.pdf Timing of procedural dismissal motions — Fourth Circuit Local Rule27(f)(2): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/rules/Rule27.html

Trees v. Service Employees International Union Local 503, OPEU, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

Oregon transportation employee Staci Trees challenges union dues taken from her paychecks after she tried to resign. SEIU Local five oh three relied on a 2016 electronic membership card that limited when dues deductions could end. Trees says her signature was forged. She sued the union and state officials in federal court. The union then brought an unfair-labor-practice proceeding before Oregon's Employment Relations Board. The board dismissed the union's charges but found that Trees had signed the card. The federal judge treated that finding as binding and dismissed her claims against the union. That is issue preclusion: a decided issue may not be litigated again when the required conditions, including a full and fair opportunity to contest it, are met. Her constitutional claims invoke Section nineteen eighty-three, a federal law providing a remedy for rights violations committed under state authority. The appeal asks whether preclusion was properly applied and whether she can seek an order against future deductions, which have already stopped. Trees v. Service Employees International Union Local 503, OPEU, et al. (No. 25-1155) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/16/25-1155.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1155&hearingDate=2026-09-16 Plaintiff's allegations — filed 2021 complaint, hosted by Freedom Foundation (not findings of liability): https://www.freedomfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Trees-Complaint-Filed.pdf Case background and district ruling — January 24, 2025 Doc. 85, District of Oregon, mirrored by Justia: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/6%3A2021cv00468/159628/85/0.pdf Counsel appearances — appeal docket, Justia snapshot March 12, 2025 (not current case status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-1155 Counsel affiliation — Freedom Foundation profile: https://www.freedomfoundation.com/author/rmillard/ Oregon issue preclusion — Nelson, Oregon Supreme Court opinion, mirrored by Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1993/318-or-99.html Federal civil-rights remedy — 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Section 1983 and preclusion — Allen v. McCurry, Supreme Court opinion, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/449/90

Shanice Mathews v. State of Illinois — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a Chicago mother's challenge to Illinois's regulation of gun dealers. Shanice Mathews alleges that repeated exposure to neighborhood shootings has left her son, identified in court as D. W., with post-traumatic stress and other disabilities. She wants the state police to require dealers near Chicago to document precautions against straw purchases: buying a gun for someone else while falsely claiming it is for yourself. Her lawsuit invokes disability and race discrimination laws. The district judge dismissed the case for lack of standing, concluding that the police lacked statutory authority to impose the requested licensing rule. The appeal asks whether the police already have that authority and whether the proposed rule is likely to reduce the child's continuing harm. Standing requires a concrete, personal injury that is actual or imminent, linked to the defendant, and likely to be remedied by a court order. Shanice Mathews v. State of Illinois (No. 25-2182) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-2182.25-2182_09_29_2026.mp3 Argument date and case caption — Seventh Circuit official recordings: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Requested gun-dealer rule and jurisdictional dismissal — district court, Doc. 212, June 13, 2025 (public court-record copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2018cv06675/357147/212/0.pdf Alleged childhood trauma and earlier proceedings — district court, Doc. 175, September 5, 2023 (public court-record copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2018cv06675/357147/175/0.pdf Disability discrimination in federally assisted programs — 29 U.S.C. § 794, Section 504: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/794 Section 504 and meaningful access — Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, pages 300–306 (court-opinion copy): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/287/ Standing: injury, causation and redressability — Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, pages 560–562 (court-opinion copy): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/555/

American Water Works Association v. EPA — D.C. Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The American Water Works Association challenges EPA's lead-pipe replacement rule in the D.C. Circuit. Lead service lines connect water mains to homes and other buildings. As these pipes corrode, they can release lead into drinking water. Some portions belong to property owners rather than the water utility. EPA's 2024 rule requires replacement of lead service lines under a water system's control, with a ten-year replacement period starting in 2027 for most systems. The association supports removing lead pipes but challenges the rule's legal reach and deadline. It petitioned this court directly to set the rule aside. A key question concerns privately owned pipes: does permission to access them mean the utility controls them under the Safe Drinking Water Act? First, Corinne Snow of Vinson and Elkins will argue for the association that EPA wrongly treats access as control and imposes an unworkable deadline. American Water Works Association v. EPA (No. 24-1376) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/24-1376.mp3 Argument date and counsel — official court recording list: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Case background and petitioner position — AWWA filed opening brief (NRDC-hosted copy): https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2025-10/2025-09-12_%28AWWA%29_Opening_Brief_LCR.pdf Government position and counsel — EPA/DOJ filed brief (NRDC-hosted copy): https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/2026-04-17_EPA_Final_Brief_w_exhs.pdf Intervenors and their position — NRDC, Newburgh Clean Water Project and Sierra Club filed brief: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2026-03/Proof_brief_respondent_intervenors_2026.03.13_AWWA_v_EPA.pdf Challenged rule — EPA Lead and Copper Rule Improvements, October 30, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-10-30/pdf/2024-23549.pdf Counsel background — Corinne Snow, Vinson & Elkins: https://www.velaw.com/people/corinne-snow/ Counsel background — Jared Thompson, NRDC: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/jared-thompson

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected