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:

Richards v. County of San Bernardino, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

San Bernardino County asks the Ninth Circuit to overturn a civil-rights award of more than twenty-five million dollars to William Richards. Richards found his wife Pamela dead outside their home after returning from work. He was convicted of her murder in 1997, but California's Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2016 because of false evidence, and he was later found factually innocent. He then sued over the investigation and prosecution and won a civil jury verdict against the county. Two claims concern delayed coroner access that allegedly lost time-of-death evidence, and withheld laboratory notes suggesting another source for a hair beneath Pamela's fingernail. These Monell claims target the county's own policies and training failures, not merely an employee's mistake. Brady requires disclosure of material evidence favorable to a criminal defendant; Youngblood requires bad faith for a constitutional claim over failure to preserve potentially useful evidence. Which rule covers the missed time-of-death evidence is disputed. Rule Fifty allows a judge to reject a jury verdict when the evidence lacks a legally sufficient basis. The parties also dispute whether the county preserved its objections before the verdict. Farbod Moridani, of Miller Barondess, will seek reversal for the county. Ben Shaw, of McLane, Bednarski and Litt, will defend the verdict for Richards. Richards v. County of San Bernardino, et al. (No. 25-7587) — 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/2026/09/30/25-7587.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7587&hearingDate=2026-09-30 Prior appeal and criminal-case history — Ninth Circuit opinion, June 24, 2022 (19-56205): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/24/19-56205.pdf Civil verdict and post-trial ruling — C.D. Cal. judicial opinion, November 7, 2025 (FindLaw text reproduction): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-cd-cal/118146993.html County decision to appeal — official Board of Supervisors minutes, November 18, 2025, page 3: https://sanbernardino.legistar.com/View.ashx?GUID=7EE85A37-7A2F-43A5-9E7A-6DD1551CF577&ID=1350736&M=M Farbod Moridani's firm — Miller Barondess: https://millerbarondess.com/personnel/farbod-s-moridani Ben Shaw's firm — McLane, Bednarski & Litt: https://mbllegal.com/attorneys/ben-shaw/ Material favorable evidence — Brady v. Maryland, official U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-373/pdf/USREPORTS-373-83.pdf Potentially useful lost evidence — Arizona v. Youngblood, official U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-488/pdf/USREPORTS-488-51.pdf Judgment as a matter of law — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, official rules effective December 1, 2025: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf

USA v. Kentrell Flowers — D.C. Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

We hear Kentrell Flowers's sentencing appeal in the D.C. Circuit. In July twenty twenty-four, Flowers pointed a handgun at a deputy United States marshal during an attempted carjacking. Two marshals fired at him, injuring him. He later pleaded guilty to a federal firearm charge. A judge sentenced him to ten years in prison. The guideline recommendation was seven years, the statutory minimum, not a maximum. Judges must give specific reasons for a sentence above the guidelines. Plain-error review concerns legal errors not timely raised in the trial court. The appellant must establish an error, that it was clear or obvious, and that it affected substantial rights, usually meaning it affected the outcome. Even then, the appellate court has discretion to correct the error only if it seriously harms the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. USA v. Kentrell Flowers (No. 25-3060) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-3060.mp3 Argument date, case and advocates — D.C. Circuit official recording list: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Case background, guilty plea and sentence — U.S. Attorney's Office, May 22, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/man-who-attempted-carjack-deputy-us-marshal-sentenced-10-years-federal-prison Original incident account — Metropolitan Police Department, July 5, 2024: https://mpdc.dc.gov/release/mpd-investigating-us-marshals-involved-shooting Appeal identity — Justia public docket index, metadata only: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-3060 Firearm statutory minimum — 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), 2024 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap44-sec924.pdf Guideline recommendation — 2024 Guidelines Manual, § 2K2.4: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/CHAPTER_2.pdf Sentencing reasons — 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), 2024 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap227-subchapA-sec3553.pdf D.C. Circuit sentencing law — United States v. Brown, May 23, 2017: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2017/05/16-3076-1676302.pdf Plain-error rule — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf Plain-error standard — United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-507/pdf/USREPORTS-507-725.pdf

Neumann v. Red Rock 4 Wheelers, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Laura Neumann's challenge to a ruling for the organizers of an off-road Jeep event. In twenty nineteen, Neumann was a passenger on a trail ride near Moab, Utah. She stepped out to watch another driver climb a boulder, and his Jeep struck her, causing serious injuries. She sued Red Rock Four-Wheelers, alleging that its guides directed the Jeep toward bystanders and failed to move them to safety. Before the ride, she had signed a liability waiver: an agreement giving up certain legal claims. A federal judge ruled for Red Rock without a trial, relying on the waiver, the activity's inherent risks, and insufficient evidence of gross negligence. Gross negligence means a much more serious degree of carelessness than an ordinary mistake. The appeal asks whether those reasons justify ending her case. Neumann v. Red Rock 4 Wheelers, et al. (No. 25-4138) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit official recording: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-4138.mp3 Argument date and case — Tenth Circuit official recording list: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F17%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026 Case background and summary judgment — D. Utah, September 29, 2025, Doc. 90: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00516/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00516-1.pdf Earlier case background and transfer — D. Nevada, August 15, 2022, Doc. 43: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00516/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_22-cv-00516-0.pdf

Texas A&M Queer Empower v. Mahomes — 5th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears two appeals over drag performances at Texas A&M universities. At College Station, the Queer Empowerment Council had booked a campus theater for its annual drag show. In February twenty twenty-five, the system's Board of Regents restricted drag shows at campus event venues, and the university canceled the show. The student group sued. A district judge blocked the ban, allowing the planned performance to proceed, and university officials appealed. A related appeal concerns a drag show blocked by West Texas A&M's president. The universities say they are regulating discriminatory conduct; the students say officials are censoring their messages. A central question is whether campus venues are limited public forums: government spaces set aside for selected groups or purposes, where restrictions must be reasonable and must not disfavor a speaker's viewpoint. We hear the two cases together before a larger bench of circuit judges, rather than a usual three-judge panel, on September twenty-third, twenty twenty-six. Texas A&M Queer Empower v. Mahomes (No. 25-20108) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit official recording: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20108_9-23-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fifth Circuit official recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-03 Hearing date and combined arguments — Fifth Circuit official calendar: https://www-dev.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1977/ Initial en banc hearing and combined arguments — Fifth Circuit, June 22, 2026: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/cm-ecf/25-20108.pdf Case background and preliminary injunction — S.D. Texas, March 24, 2025 opinion (Justia copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/4%3A2025cv00992/1994726/24/0.pdf?ts=1742918154 Student group's allegations — filed verified complaint (FIRE copy): https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2025/03/Complaint%20-%20Texas%20A%26M%20Queer%20Empowerment%20Council%20v.%20Mahomes%2C%20et%20al.pdf Limited public forums — Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, Supreme Court opinion, page 679: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-661.pdf

Ronald Hardman v. Todd W. Blanche — 7th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

Ronald Hardman challenges the denial of an immigration petition filed by his current wife. Officials found that his earlier marriage was arranged for immigration benefits, pointing to evidence that the spouses lived apart and Hardman lived with another woman. Hardman disputes the fraud finding and says the living arrangements have innocent explanations. After the first marriage ended, he remarried, but the earlier fraud finding became the basis for denying his new wife's petition. A federal district court upheld the denial and declined to consider additional declarations outside the agency record. The appeal concerns the agency's explanation for its decisions and whether the court should consider that additional evidence. We hear the Seventh Circuit's oral argument on October first, twenty twenty-six. Ronald Hardman v. Todd W. Blanche (No. 25-2570) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit official recording: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2570.25-2570_10_01_2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Seventh Circuit official recording list: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case background and challenged ruling — S.D. Indiana, August 6, 2025 order (Doc. 47): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_23-cv-01321/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_23-cv-01321-0.pdf Civil appellate forfeiture — Henry v. Hulett, Seventh Circuit en banc opinion, pages 25–28: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-16-04234/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-16-04234-1.pdf Civil appellate forfeiture — Thomas v. Carmichael, Seventh Circuit opinion, pages 14–17: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026%2FD01-23%2FC%3A23-2552%3AJ%3ARipple%3Adis%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3483071%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

United States v. Adel Daoud — 7th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

Adel Daoud challenges convictions and a twenty-seven-year prison sentence in three linked criminal cases. In 2012, he tried to detonate what he believed was a car bomb outside a downtown Chicago bar. The device was inert and supplied by an undercover FBI agent. While jailed, Daoud solicited that agent's murder and later violently attacked another inmate. During pretrial proceedings, he was found incompetent to stand trial, then regained competence after treatment. In 2018, he entered an Alford plea: a guilty plea made while maintaining innocence. His original sixteen-year sentence was overturned after the government appealed, and he was resentenced to twenty-seven years. At this hearing, the court will consider his request to withdraw the plea, his decision to represent himself at resentencing, and his challenge to the sentence. The discussion focuses on his mental health, the risks of proceeding without a lawyer, and how much weight mitigating circumstances should receive. We hear the Seventh Circuit's oral argument on September thirtieth, twenty twenty-six. United States v. Adel Daoud (No. 24-2367) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit official recording: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ch.24-2367.24-2367_09_30_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit official recording list: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Earlier proceedings and sentencing remand — Seventh Circuit opinion, November 17, 2020: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Path=Y2020/D11-17/C:19-2174:J:St__Eve:aut:T:fnOp:N:2615481:S:0&Submit=Display Twenty-seven-year sentence — district court second amended judgment, August 8, 2024 (stamped court-record reproduction): https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/167090.pdf Case history and resentencing — Justice Department account, July 19, 2024 (prosecution source): https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/suburban-chicago-man-sentenced-27-years-federal-prison-attempting-detonate-explosive Alford plea — North Carolina v. Alford, official opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-400/pdf/USREPORTS-400-25.pdf Alford plea explanation — Justice Manual 9-27.440: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution Self-representation — Faretta v. California, official opinion, pages 835–836: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-422/pdf/USREPORTS-422-806.pdf Counsel-waiver inquiry — United States v. Johnson, Seventh Circuit opinion, pages 8–11: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2020%2FD11-17%2FC%3A19-2718%3AJ%3ASt__Eve%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A2615266%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

Seyb v. Labrador, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

Idaho physician Stacy Seyb challenges abortion restrictions that he says prevent needed care for high-risk pregnancies. One patient with kidney failure faced losing her place on the transplant list if she remained pregnant. Idaho law generally criminalizes abortion, with a medical exception to prevent the patient's death that excludes danger from self-harm. Seyb sued to protect care for serious health risks as well. After a trial, the district court barred enforcement in cases involving serious, lasting harm to the patient's health, or death from self-harm. It later limited that protection to Seyb himself while the case is appealed. At this September twenty-second hearing, the state seeks a stay—a temporary pause in that protection. Seyb seeks to restore the broader injunction. Mathew Hoffmann will argue for Idaho's Attorney General and the Ada County prosecutor that Dobbs leaves these policy choices to elected lawmakers. The court must consider the asserted constitutional right, medical evidence, and who an injunction can protect. This hearing concerns interim relief, not a final appellate ruling. Seyb v. Labrador, et al. (No. 26-5360) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit official recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/22/26-5360.mp3 Argument date, docket and panel — Ninth Circuit official listing: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-5360&hearingDate=2026-09-22 Case facts and original injunction — district court findings and order, August 13, 2026: https://lawyeringproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/20260813_ID-DENIALS_Ruling.pdf State's position and counsel — emergency stay motion, August 26, 2026 (advocacy): https://lawyeringproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026.08.26_ID-Denials_Appellants-Emergency-Mot-for-Stay-Pending-Appeal.pdf Dr. Seyb's position and counsel — response, September 8, 2026 (advocacy): https://lawyeringproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/09-08-2026_ID-Denials_Appellees-Consolidated-Response.pdf Request for broader protection — motion to vacate partial stay, September 8, 2026 (advocacy): https://lawyeringproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/09-08-2026_ID-Denials_Appellees-Motion-to-Vacate-Stay.pdf Partial stay — district court order, August 25, 2026 (court-filed reproduction): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/idaho/iddce/1:2024cv00244/54699/156/0.pdf?ts=1787739036 Hearing scope — Ninth Circuit scheduling and administrative-stay order, September 3, 2026: https://lawyeringproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026.09.03_ID-Denials_Order-Granting-Mot-to-Consolidate-Setting-Briefing-Schedule-Oral-Arg.pdf Defense of Life Act — Idaho Code 18-622, official legislature text: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-622/ Facial and as-applied challenges — Doe v. Reed, 561 US 186, 194, official opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/561bv.pdf Factual review — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), official rules: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Review-standard definitions — Ninth Circuit Staff Attorneys' research outline, I-2 and I-9: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/Standards-of-Review-Outline.pdf

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co v. FERC — D.C. Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. FERC. Panhandle transports natural gas for customers called shippers. Its charges included tax costs collected before the matching taxes were due—accumulated deferred income taxes, or ADIT. The 2017 federal tax law reduced corporate taxes, leaving part of those balances unnecessary. FERC investigated Panhandle's rates. In 2019, the pipeline became part of a master limited partnership and proposed rates without an income-tax allowance. It also moved the old tax balances into retained earnings. After an administrative hearing, FERC required the tax-cut surplus to flow back to customers through future rates and excluded deferred-tax balances from the equity used to calculate Panhandle's return. Panhandle challenges those decisions here. It also disputes the return allowed on construction financing and how refunds should be calculated for customers who paid its proposed rates during the proceedings. Section four of the Natural Gas Act allows refunds, with interest, of unjustified rate increases that take effect during agency review. The refund dispute is whether to compare individual charges or the total bill for a shipment. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co v. FERC (No. 20-1419) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/20-1419.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit official listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Case background and agency's position — FERC final brief, April 6, 2026 (advocacy): https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-04/20260406%20Final%20FERC%20Brief%200910.pdf Deferred-tax treatment — Commissioner Danly's partial dissent, September 25, 2023: https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/g-1-commissioner-james-danly-concurrence-part-and-dissent-part-regarding-panhandle Tax-normalization regulation — 18 CFR 154.305: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-18/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-154/subpart-D/section-154.305 Natural Gas Act section 4 — 15 USC 717c, official code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title15/pdf/USCODE-2024-title15-chap15B-sec717c.pdf Package-level settlement review — PJM order, 169 FERC 61,238, paragraphs 10–11: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/E-27_3.pdf

Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

Photographer Jeffrey Sedlik challenges a tattoo based on his portrait of Miles Davis making a shushing gesture. Kat Von D used the photograph to make a tattoo for a client and posted images of the work on social media. Sedlik sued her and High Voltage Tattoo for copyright infringement. The jury found the tattoo and several related works were not substantially similar to the photograph, and found separate process images showing the photograph were fair use. The trial judge refused to overturn that verdict. A three-judge appellate panel affirmed, but its opinion was later vacated for rehearing en banc—before a larger panel. William Patry will ask the Ninth Circuit to replace its similarity test and overturn the verdict. Allen Grodsky will defend the verdict for Von Drachenberg and her tattoo shop. Listen for two terms: extrinsic similarity compares protected expressive details; intrinsic similarity asks how the works look to an ordinary observer, in overall concept and feel. Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al. (No. 24-3367) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/29/24-3367.mp3 Argument listing and date — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-3367&hearingDate=2026-09-29 Post-trial order, May 3, 2024 — C.D. California (court text mirrored by Midpage): https://app.midpage.ai/document/jeffrey-b-sedlik-v-katherine-1000397217397 Earlier panel opinion, Jan. 2, 2026 — Ninth Circuit (vacated June 9; factual history and counsel only): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/02/24-3367.pdf Order granting rehearing en banc and vacating panel opinion, June 9, 2026 — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/09/24-3367.pdf Pending en banc case and hearing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/en-banc/ Copyright Act, §§ 106–107 — U.S. Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf

Meudy Osio, et al. v. PDVSA — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

Fernando Alban's family seeks to collect a judgment arising from his kidnapping and killing. They won against Nicolas Maduro and others, and now seek the frozen assets of the Venezuelan company PDVSA. PDVSA was not a defendant in the original action and wants the asset-seizure orders undone. The district judge accepted the family's jurisdiction theory, but ordered a fact-finding hearing on notice and the company's relationship to the Maduro regime. PDVSA appealed that immunity ruling. The rival statutes are the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, or TRIA. Section 201 of TRIA permits certain terrorism judgments to be collected from blocked assets of a terrorist party or its agencies and instrumentalities. Jurisdictional immunity protects a foreign state from court proceedings; execution immunity protects property from seizure. The company's lawyer will argue that TRIA overcomes only the latter and that an independent basis for jurisdiction is still needed. The family will argue that TRIA itself provides that basis. Meudy Osio, et al. v. PDVSA (No. 25-12365) — 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/25-12365_10012026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Appealed district order, July 9, 2025, Doc. 583 — S.D. Florida (court PDF mirrored by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2021cv20706/587361/583/0.pdf District report on PDVSA's motion, April 9, 2025, Doc. 401 — S.D. Florida / GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-1_21-cv-20706/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-1_21-cv-20706-20.pdf Appellate docket and counsel appearances — court docket mirrored by Justia (snapshot through Dec. 29, 2025): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-12365 Charles Rothfeld — Mayer Brown profile: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/r/rothfeld-charles-a Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, § 201 — Congress / GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ297/pdf/PLAW-107publ297.pdf Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, §§ 1604–1605, 1609 — U.S. Code / GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/pdf/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap97.pdf OBB Personenverkehr v. Sachs — Supreme Court opinion (court PDF mirrored by Cornell): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/13-1067.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected