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:

General Cigar Company, Inc. v. Empresa Cubana del Tabaco — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

Two cigar makers fight over the name Cohiba. General Cigar, an American company, and Cuba's state-owned Cubatabaco both sell cigars using that name. Cubatabaco's application to register its mark in the United States was blocked by General Cigar's existing registrations. It asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or TTAB, to cancel them. The Board agreed under an international trademark treaty because Cubatabaco had earlier protection in Cuba and General Cigar knew of its use. A federal district court upheld that result. General Cigar now appeals. It says the court's judgment violates the Cuban embargo and that earlier litigation prevents Cubatabaco from trying again on the same claim or issue. First, Stanley Panikowski will argue for General Cigar that the embargo bars this court-backed cancellation. General Cigar Company, Inc. v. Empresa Cubana del Tabaco (No. 25-1645) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1645-20260916.mp3 Argument date and advocates — Fourth Circuit official recordings: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files District court background and ruling — corrected Doc. 134, May 7, 2025 (public court-record copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2023cv00227/534741/134/0.pdf Trademark cancellation decision — official TTAB, Cancellation No. 92025859, December 20, 2022: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92025859-CAN-380.pdf Two court-review routes — 15 U.S.C. § 1071, official 2023 U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title15/pdf/USCODE-2023-title15-chap22-subchapI-sec1071.pdf Cuban embargo licenses — 31 C.F.R. §§ 515.317–318, 515.421 and 515.527, official eCFR text as of September 29, 2026: https://www.ecfr.gov/api/versioner/v1/full/2026-09-29/title-31.xml?part=515 Michael Krinsky's firm and representation — official RBSKL attorney biography: https://rbskl.com/attorneys/michael-krinsky/

Moriah Aharon, et al. v. PetroChina International (America), Inc. — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

Medical workers sue over shortages of masks and other personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. They accuse China, the Chinese Communist Party and PetroChina International America of hoarding supplies and restricting exports. The workers say this left them without adequate protection. They seek damages for infections and other harms they attribute to those shortages. These are allegations, not findings of liability. The district court allowed their antitrust claims, concerning restrictions on competition, to proceed against the Chinese defendants. Foreign states are generally immune from civil suits, with exceptions for certain commercial activities. PetroChina, a New Jersey company without sovereign immunity of its own, appeals that ruling. The first question is whether it can appeal an immunity ruling about someone else. The company will also argue that the challenged conduct was sovereign, not commercial. Moriah Aharon, et al. v. PetroChina International (America), Inc. (No. 25-12241) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-12241_09302026.mp3 Argument date — Eleventh Circuit official recordings: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=1 PPE allegations and filed claims — first amended complaint, Doc. 19, July 7, 2020 (counsel-hosted filed copy; allegations, not findings): https://www.bermanlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/de19-first-amended-complaint.pdf District court's immunity ruling and procedural history — Doc. 145, May 27, 2025 (public court-record copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/9%3A2020cv80604/569667/145/0.pdf Foreign sovereign immunity and commercial activity — 28 U.S.C. §§ 1603–1605, official U.S. Code, pages 422–423: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/pdf/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap97.pdf Appeal and advocate appearances — public appellate docket (metadata only; snapshot through December 24, 2025): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-12241 Matthew Moore's firm — Berman Law Group attorney biography: https://www.bermanlawgroup.com/meet-our-team/attorneys/matthew-moore/

United States v. Geno St. Flerose, Appellant — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

Geno Saint Flerose appeals his federal convictions in the Eleventh Circuit. The case grew out of two shootings in Miami. A man was shot and killed; Saint Flerose also fired at a federal agent's vehicle. Prosecutors tied him to Everybody Eats, a street gang, and investigators also found other people's identifying information. A jury convicted him of gang-related murder, assaulting a federal officer, fraud and identity theft. A confession obtained through coercion by government agents cannot be used at trial. Courts examine the whole situation, including how police behaved and the suspect's vulnerability. Hector Flores represents Saint Flerose. Listen for the difference between choosing to talk and being coerced into confessing. United States v. Geno St. Flerose, Appellant (No. 24-11540) — 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/24-11540_10012026.mp3 Argument date — Eleventh Circuit official recordings: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Shootings, identity-theft evidence and jury verdict — U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida, February 8, 2024: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/miami-man-found-guilty-murder-aid-racketeering Criminal appeal and Hector Flores's appointment — public appellate docket, entries 1–2 (May 2024 snapshot; metadata only): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-11540 Government coercion and confession voluntariness — Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, pages 163–171: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-479/pdf/USREPORTS-479-157.pdf Whole-circumstances confession analysis — Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, pages 285–287: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-499/pdf/USREPORTS-499-279.pdf

Derek Lauritsen v. Hiawatha National Bank — 7th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Derek Lauritsen's appeal over a troubled repossession in Wisconsin. Hiawatha National Bank had a court order to take property securing a debt. Sheriff's officers and private contractors spent three days collecting cattle, farm equipment, and tools. Some property was damaged, and belongings stored there by other owners were taken too. The order was a writ of replevin: a direction to recover possession of personal property. The owners sued the officers and Polk County under Section nineteen eighty-three, the federal law used to seek relief for constitutional violations by people acting under state authority. The federal judge ruled for the county defendants by summary judgment, deciding those claims without a trial. The appeal asks whether the officers' involvement made the seizure unreasonable and whether the other owners had adequate procedures to recover their property. Derek Lauritsen v. Hiawatha National Bank (No. 25-3320) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-3320.25-3320_10_01_2026.mp3 Argument date — Seventh Circuit official recordings: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Repossession, constitutional claims and summary judgment — district court, Doc. 107, November 18, 2025 (public court-record copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiwdc/3%3A2024cv00331/52702/107/0.pdf Advocate appearances and bank nonparticipation — public appellate docket, entries 5, 7, 19 and 21 (metadata only): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3320 Replevin — Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 810: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/810/01 Civil-rights action — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Qualified immunity — Pearson v. Callahan, U.S. Reports volume 555, pages 223–245: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/555bv.pdf Independent property-seizure and immunity analysis — Bins v. Artison, 721 F. Supp. 1034 (court-opinion copy): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/721/1034/1420068/

Olachi Mezu-Ndubuisi v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, et al. — 7th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears an employment-discrimination appeal by Dr. Olachi Mezu-Ndubuisi. She was a University of Wisconsin physician who also treated newborns at Meriter Hospital. Her clinical work was restricted after medical leave and patient-safety reviews, with further assessments required before a return. She says those conditions were discriminatory and retaliatory, not justified by patient safety. She first sued in California, where the case was dismissed because that court lacked authority over the Wisconsin defendants. She filed again in Wisconsin twelve days later. The Wisconsin judge rejected her Title Seven and Americans with Disabilities Act claims as late. A right-to-sue notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission permits a court lawsuit, ordinarily within ninety days of receipt. Equitable tolling can suspend the deadline when someone diligently pursuing a claim makes a good-faith filing error or faces an extraordinary obstacle. The questions are when that clock started and whether that exception applies. Bruce Fein represents her and will argue that missing notices and the earlier California filing justify letting the case proceed. Olachi Mezu-Ndubuisi v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, et al. (No. 25-3143) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/sk.25-3143.25-3143_09_22_2026.mp3 Argument date — Seventh Circuit official recordings: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case background — district court, Doc. 95, February 14, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00031/pdf/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00031-1.pdf Filing deadlines and dismissal — district court, Doc. 140, July 9, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00031/pdf/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00031-3.pdf Clinical-work evidence and later ruling — district court, Doc. 193, November 14, 2025 (public court-record copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiwdc/3%3A2024cv00031/52066/193/0.pdf Advocate appearances — public appellate docket, entries 4, 7, 11 and 13 (metadata only): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3143 Clinical specialty — Meriter hospital provider directory: https://doctors.unitypoint.org/provider/olachi-j-mezu-ndubuisi/1167947 Right-to-sue notices — EEOC filing guidance: https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-lawsuit Equitable tolling — Threadgill v. Moore U.S.A., 269 F.3d 848 (court-opinion copy): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/269/848/532765/ Transfer statute — 28 U.S.C. § 1631: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1631 Interest-of-justice analysis — Wigglesworth v. INS, No. 02-1209, pages 14–17: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Path=Y2003%2FD02-14%2FC%3A02-1209%3AJ%3A_%3Aaut%3AT%3Aop%3AN%3A0%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display Counsel office — Wisconsin Department of Justice signature, February 25, 2025 court filing, page 6 (title only): https://www.rid.uscourts.gov/sites/rid/files/suppauthority.pdf

Richard Stanley, Jr. v. Brown County Election Board — 7th Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Oct 04, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a dispute over Republican primary-ballot access in Brown County, Indiana. Richard Stanley and Tim Clark complained to the Indiana Republican Party about their local chairman. The party rejected the complaint and declared both men not Republicans in good standing for five years. They dispute the party's allegations and say the county election board cannot constitutionally enforce that decision against their candidacies. They sued the board before it decided whether to exclude them. The federal district court found the threatened exclusion concrete enough for judicial review, but dismissed their claims under an earlier decision called Hero. They now appeal. The judges will consider whether the lawsuit was premature and whether the party's right to choose its candidates permits the board to enforce this ban. Hero involved another Indiana candidate removed from a Republican primary ballot after a party ban. Richard Stanley, Jr. v. Brown County Election Board (No. 26-1186) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.26-1186.26-1186_09_25_2026.mp3 Argument date — Seventh Circuit official recordings: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case background and district-court dismissal — Doc. 41, January 27, 2026 (public court-record copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/1%3A2025cv01482/223299/41/0.pdf Advocate appearances — public appellate docket, entries 7 and 13 (metadata only): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1186 Earlier primary-ballot ruling — Hero v. Lake County Election Board, No. 21-2793: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2022%2FD08-02%2FC%3A21-2793%3AJ%3ASt__Eve%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A2911821%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display Claim preclusion — Cole v. Board of Trustees, No. 06-2161: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Path=Y2007%2FD08-16%2FC%3A06-2161%3AJ%3A_%3Aaut%3AT%3Aop%3AN%3A0%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display Claim preclusion — Ross v. Board of Education, No. 06-2060: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Path=Y2007%2FD05-11%2FC%3A06-2060%3AJ%3A_%3Aaut%3AT%3Aop%3AN%3A0%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA — D.C. Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Vanda Pharmaceuticals' challenge to an FDA decision about its sleep drug, Hetlioz. The drug, also called tasimelteon, was already approved for other sleep disorders. Vanda applied to add insomnia involving difficulty falling asleep and submitted clinical studies to support that use. FDA rejected the application and denied a hearing. Its objections include long-term safety and effectiveness, evidence about older patients, and patients' own reports of improved sleep. Vanda seeks an opportunity to contest that decision at a hearing. The court's central question is whether FDA could reject the application on the written record or whether a factual dispute required a hearing. A hearing would test the evidence, not automatically approve the drug. You will hear references to Vanda One, an earlier case about using the same drug for jet lag; this is a separate application for insomnia. Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA (No. 25-1105) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-1105.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit official recordings: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 FDA's insomnia-application objections and hearing notice — 89 Fed. Reg. 48647–48649: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-06-07/pdf/2024-12564.pdf FDA's hearing-denial and refusal notice — 90 Fed. Reg. 11542: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-03-07/pdf/2025-03697.pdf Vanda's application and litigation account — company-authored 2025 Form 10-K: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1347178/000162828026007460/vnda-20251231.htm Earlier jet-lag ruling, Vanda One — D.C. Circuit No. 24-1049: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/08/24-1049-2130249.pdf Holding and dicta — D.C. Circuit, In re Grand Jury Investigation, No. 18-3052: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2019/02/18-3052.pdf Holding and dicta — Sixth Circuit, Wright v. Spaulding, No. 17-4257: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/19a0245p-06.pdf

Bluestar Operations, LLC v. U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration — 4th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Bluestar Operations' challenge to a Drug Enforcement Administration rule concerning HHC, short for hexahydrocannabinol. Bluestar makes and sells cannabinoid products that it says are derived from hemp and protected by the 2018 Farm Bill. In May, DEA gave HHC its own listing and identification code among Schedule One controlled substances. The agency says HHC was already controlled; Bluestar says the rule threatens its business by treating its hemp-derived products as illegal. The company has asked this appeals court to review the agency's action directly, rather than appealing a trial-court judgment. One dispute is whether the Farm Bill's definition of hemp covers HHC produced by chemically processing hemp-derived material. The definition at issue includes hemp derivatives with no more than zero point three percent delta-nine THC by dry weight. Another is whether DEA could issue the rule without notice and comment: publishing a proposal and letting the public respond. The judges will also examine whether this particular rule, rather than an earlier agency position, caused an injury the court can remedy. Bluestar Operations, LLC v. U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration (No. 26-1691) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 18, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1691-20260918.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit official recording list: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Challenged DEA HHC final rule — 91 Fed. Reg. 23913–23915, May 4, 2026: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-05-04/pdf/2026-08595.pdf Bluestar's petition — party-authored public copy, not docket-stamped: https://themarijuanaherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Petition-for-Review-4th-Circuit_final.pdf Hemp definition at issue — 7 U.S.C. 1639o, 2023 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title7/pdf/USCODE-2023-title7-chap38-subchapVII-sec1639o.pdf Direct judicial review of DEA action — 21 U.S.C. 877: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title21/pdf/USCODE-2023-title21-chap13-subchapI-partE-sec877.pdf

Chantilly Auto Body, Inc. v. Truist Bank — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Chantilly Auto Body's appeal over unauthorized withdrawals from its account at Truist Bank. An impostor provided the repair business's account details to Paystand, a payment platform, triggering transfers from Chantilly's account into Paystand's account at a different bank. Chantilly sought reimbursement under Article Four A of Virginia's Uniform Commercial Code, which regulates certain electronic funds transfers. The district court granted Truist summary judgment, holding that these were debit transfers outside that statute's coverage. Summary judgment resolves a claim without a trial when no material facts are genuinely disputed and the law entitles one side to win. The appeal turns on who legally initiated the payment: the impersonated customer, or the platform asking its own bank to pull the money. Chantilly will contend that an instruction sent through a payment platform can still qualify for the law's protections. Truist will argue that the platform initiated debit transfers, and that permission to withdraw money is different from instructing a bank to pay. Chantilly Auto Body, Inc. v. Truist Bank (No. 25-1380) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1380-20260916.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit official recording list: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files District-court memorandum opinion and order — E.D. Va., Doc. 110 (court filing hosted by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2024cv01337/557929/110/0.pdf?ts=1741881223 Virginia UCC Article 4A — payment-order definitions, section 8.4A-103: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.4A/chapter1/section8.4A-103/ Virginia UCC Article 4A — funds-transfer definitions, section 8.4A-104: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title8.4A/chapter1/section8.4A-104/ Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf

In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation — 2d Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit reviews the dismissal of a proposed class action over allegedly overpriced glasses. Consumers accuse EssilorLuxottica of using acquisitions and exclusive licensing and distribution deals to suppress competition and raise eyewear prices. This appeal concerns indirect purchasers, who bought the company's eyewear through independent sellers instead of its own stores. The suits were consolidated in Minnesota and transferred to federal court in New York. The district judge dismissed their federal antitrust claims for failing to plausibly define a premium-eyewear market and declined to hear their state-law claims. Defining the relevant market means identifying which products consumers reasonably regard as substitutes, so a court can measure the company's competitive power. The consumers will argue that deciding their market's boundaries requires evidence, not dismissal on the complaint alone. The company will contend that those boundaries arbitrarily include its brands while excluding comparable competitors. CAFA, the Class Action Fairness Act, can give federal courts authority to hear qualifying interstate class actions independently of any federal-law claim. In re Eyewear Antitrust Litigation (No. 25-2703) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2703.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Dismissal and allegations — S.D.N.Y. order, September 26, 2025 (Doc. 250; Justia court-document mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv04826/623830/250/0.pdf Case origins and transfer — D. Minn. order, June 12, 2024 (Doc. 121; Justia court-document mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2023cv03065/210906/121/0.pdf?ts=1718401507 Class-action jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), official U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title28/pdf/USCODE-2023-title28-partIV-chap85-sec1332.pdf CAFA's independent jurisdiction — Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, official U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-568/pdf/USREPORTS-568-588.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected