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:

Trent Vanderzee v. University of Chicago Medical Center — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

Trent Vanderzee challenges medical charges after his daughter received a replacement cochlear implant at the University of Chicago Medical Center. He alleges that the hospital overbilled both him and his health insurer. His lawsuit accuses the hospital of fraudulent billing. The hospital seeks to send the case to binding arbitration, a private decision process outside court, under its facility contract with the insurer. Vanderzee did not sign that contract. The district judge refused to compel arbitration, and the hospital appealed. Today's argument concerns who must arbitrate, not whether the medical bill itself was fraudulent. One hospital theory is third-party-beneficiary status: a person can have rights under a contract intended for their direct benefit, even without being a party. Daniel Campbell will represent the hospital and argue that the contract's patient-billing protections give Vanderzee direct benefits that also bind him to arbitration. Trent Vanderzee v. University of Chicago Medical Center (No. 25-2962) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit official recording: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/gw.25-2962.25-2962_09_29_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit official listing: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case background and arbitration ruling — district-court Doc.39, September 29, 2025 (court-stamped Justia copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2025cv02207/474230/39/0.pdf Appeal and counsel appearances — public appellate docket displayed by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2962 Complaint, motions and counsel appearances — public district docket displayed by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/1:2025cv02207/474230 Nonsignatory arbitration doctrines — Seventh Circuit official Coatney opinion: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2024%2FD02-15%2FC%3A22-2813%3AJ%3ABrennan%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3169026%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

Pride Center of Terre Haute v. ISU Officials — 7th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The Pride Center of Terre Haute, an Indiana nonprofit supporting the LGBTQ community, challenges the loss of student workers funded through Indiana State University. Students worked at the Center while the university paid their wages through work-study programs. The Center required applicants to be affirming of the LGBTQ community and culturally responsive. In August 2025, the university ended the partnership, citing federal anti-discrimination guidance and concern about the hiring criteria. The Center sued two university officials and sought a temporary court order restoring the funding. The district judge denied that request, finding that the preliminary record did not show likely discrimination against the Center's viewpoint. That was not a final ruling on the lawsuit. This appeal asks whether ending the partnership unlawfully punished the Center's views and choice of staff, or was a permissible funding decision. Kenneth Falk will represent the Center and contend that the university cannot condition support on abandoning its message. Pride Center of Terre Haute v. ISU Officials (No. 26-1144) — 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.26-1144.26-1144_10_01_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit official listing: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Background and denial of preliminary relief — district-court Doc.28, January21,2026 (court-stamped Justia copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/2%3A2025cv00445/224415/28/0.pdf Appeal and counsel appearances — public appellate docket displayed by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1144 Complaint and preliminary-relief proceedings — public district docket displayed by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/indiana/insdce/2:2025cv00445/224415 Pretext terminology — Supreme Court's Hicks opinion (employment context, not this appeal's governing test): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-509/pdf/USREPORTS-509-502.pdf

Jorge Lujan v. FMCSA — D.C. Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Jorge Lujan v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. In February 2026, the agency issued a rule narrowing eligibility for non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses, a license category used by some immigrants working here. For foreign-domiciled applicants, work permits, known as EADs, no longer suffice; applicants must hold one of three specified visa types. That excludes many work-authorized people, including asylum seekers and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. For existing drivers, losing the ability to renew threatens their livelihoods driving trucks or buses. Two drivers and two unions petitioned this court to set the rule aside, alongside a related challenge by King County, Washington. The court declined to pause the rule while the cases proceeded. The challengers say the restrictions lack a reasoned safety basis and exceed the agency's authority. The government says they address inaccessible foreign driving records and licensing-document errors. Jorge Lujan v. FMCSA (No. 26-1032) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/26-1032.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit official listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Rule and agency's explanation — February 13, 2026 Federal Register final rule: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-02-13/pdf/2026-02965.pdf Drivers' and unions' account and claims — filed opening brief, August 5, 2026 (advocacy): https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/2026.08.05-Final-Rivera-Lujan-Pets-Opening-Brief.pdf Earlier refusal to pause the rule — D.C. Circuit May 5, 2026 order and statement (not a final merits ruling): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2026/05/26-1032LDSN2.pdf Consolidation and counsel appearances — public appellate docket entries displayed by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/26-1046 Wendy Liu's organization — Public Citizen attorney biography: https://www.citizen.org/about/person/wendy-liu/ Administrative review grounds — 5 U.S.C. § 706, official U.S. Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title5/html/USCODE-2024-title5-partI-chap7-sec706.htm

Lynne Russell v. DC — D.C. Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Lynne Russell v. District of Columbia. The plaintiffs want to carry their pistols in holsters inside purses, sling bags, or other bags rather than attached to their bodies. D.C. interprets its concealed-carry rule to require a pistol secured in a holster attached to the carrier's body. The plaintiffs sued, saying the on-body requirement violates their Second Amendment right to armed self-defense. They do not object to using holsters; they object to where those holsters must be carried. The district court upheld the rule, and they appealed. The dispute is whether historical restrictions on carrying weapons justify this modern on-body requirement. Lynne Russell v. DC (No. 25-7163) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-7163.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit official listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Case facts and district-court ruling — September 24, 2025 opinion, Doc. 47 (court text hosted by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2024cv01820/269925/47/0.pdf Appeal and counsel appearances — court docket displayed by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-7163 District's account of the lower-court result — OAG performance report, page 32: https://dccouncil.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/JPS-FY25-OAG-Performance-Oversight-Questions-and-Responses-020426-002.pdf Historical-regulation argument — Everytown amicus brief supporting the District (advocacy): https://everytownlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2026/05/April-30-2026-Everytowns-Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Defendants-Appellees-D.C.-Cir.pdf Caroline Van Zile's government office — official OAG biography: https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-racine-announces-caroline-van-zile-serve

B.R. v. Fairfax County School Board — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Oct 03, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears B.R. v. Fairfax County School Board. B.R. alleges that, as a middle-school student, she was sexually harassed and assaulted by other students, and that school officials failed to respond adequately to her reports. She sued the School Board under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs receiving federal funds. She also brought claims against individual school employees. A jury found for the School Board in 2024, and B.R. now challenges that result on appeal. Her position is that legal errors at trial undermined the verdict. This is a civil lawsuit about the school's responsibilities, not a criminal prosecution of the other students. B.R. v. Fairfax County School Board (No. 25-1836) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit official recording: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1836-20260917.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit official listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Case background and anonymity — Fourth Circuit's 2021 opinion in the same lawsuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211005.P.pdf Case background — district court's February 2024 damages opinion (court text on CaseMine): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/67946aa5f2278e6a6076a1ca/amp Counsel appearances and appeal filings — court docket displayed by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-1836 Trial result — original joint statement by SSAIS and I Have The Right To (advocacy): https://stopsexualassaultinschools.org/jury-rules-against-survivor-in-sex-abuse-cover-up-case-at-fairfax-county-public-schools/ Appellant supporters' stated appeal concerns — original public statement (advocacy): https://www.change.org/p/stop-fairfax-county-from-punishing-a-sexual-assault-survivor-with-250-000-in-court-costs Title IX — 20 U.S.C. Section 1681, official statutory text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title20/pdf/USCODE-2021-title20-chap38-sec1681.pdf Title IX — Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-526/pdf/USREPORTS-526-629.pdf Expert testimony — Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 704: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-119HPRT61923/pdf/CPRT-119HPRT61923.pdf Expert reliability and helpfulness — Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-509/pdf/USREPORTS-509-579.pdf Ultimate-issue opinions — Diaz v. United States, Rule 704 discussion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/602us1r39_2b8e.pdf

Richard Hornsby v. FHFA — D.C. Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Richard Hornsby's challenge to his firing from the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Hornsby was its chief operating officer. After accusations that he had threatened an agency official, he faced criminal charges and was acquitted. The agency then fired him, citing management misconduct, including intimidation of staff attorneys and pressure on a subordinate to seek him a better performance rating. Hornsby says the dismissal was retaliation for participating in employment-discrimination proceedings. An administrative judge overturned the firing but rejected retaliation. The agency appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which restored the firing. Hornsby did not challenge the retaliation ruling before the full Board. A federal district judge later ruled that he had abandoned that claim and upheld the firing and denial of interim relief. This appeal asks whether he may still pursue retaliation in court, whether the firing should stand, and whether he should receive interim relief for the time the agency's administrative appeal was pending. Richard Swick will argue for Hornsby, seeking to reverse those rulings. Richard Hornsby v. FHFA (No. 25-5351) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official court recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5351.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit official September 2026 listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Employment, acquittal and administrative review — MSPB Final Order, April 28, 2022: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/HORNSBY_RICHARD_DC_0752_15_0576_I_2_FINAL_ORDER_1920360.pdf Removal and interim-relief ruling — D.D.C., September 17, 2025, Document 53: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-03204/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-03204-1.pdf Retaliation and reconsideration ruling — D.D.C., July 10, 2024, Document 34: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-03204/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-03204-0.pdf Earlier transfer between courts — Federal Circuit, October 26, 2023: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1518.ORDER.10-26-2023_2212163.pdf Cat's-paw theory — Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-562/pdf/USREPORTS-562-411.pdf D.C. Circuit application of cat's-paw theory — Morris v. McCarthy, 2016: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2016/06/14-5074-1619192.pdf Retaliatory influence on another decisionmaker — EEOC retaliation guidance, footnotes 145 and 172: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-retaliation-and-related-issues

United States ex rel. William Coleman v. Anchorage SNF, LLC — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears a whistleblower suit over therapy billing at Anchorage, a Maryland nursing facility. Two therapy workers accuse the facility and its current and former owners of using falsified records to bill Medicare and Medicaid for unnecessary treatment. They sued under the False Claims Act, which lets private plaintiffs pursue fraud claims for the government. Their lawsuit went from Maryland to Pennsylvania and back. The Pennsylvania judge let it proceed, but the Maryland judge later dismissed it because an earlier whistleblower suit alleged a similar therapy-billing scheme. The first-to-file rule bars a later, related private suit while the earlier one is pending. This appeal asks whether the two suits are sufficiently related and whether the Pennsylvania ruling should govern. The lawyers also dispute whether this rule is jurisdictional—whether it limits the court's power to hear the case. Evan Bianchi will argue for the whistleblowers, seeking to restore their lawsuit. United States ex rel. William Coleman v. Anchorage SNF, LLC (No. 25-2283) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (official court recording): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-2283-20260916.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit official audio listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Case facts and dismissal — District of Maryland memorandum and order, October 9, 2025: https://www2.mdd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/OPINIONS/17-0722%20GOEBEL%20OPINION%20RE%20MTD.PDF Earlier case history and first-to-file ruling — Eastern District of Pennsylvania, September 29, 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cv-03277/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_19-cv-03277-0.pdf Private False Claims Act suits and first-to-file rule — 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title31/html/USCODE-2024-title31-subtitleIII-chap37-subchapIII-sec3730.htm Fourth Circuit first-to-file precedent — United States ex rel. Rosales v. Amedisys: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241418.P.pdf Law of the case — Christianson v. Colt Industries, 486 U.S. 800 (1988): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-486/pdf/USREPORTS-486-800.pdf Dicta definition — Carter v. Halliburton, Judge Agee's separate opinion, page 31: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121011.P.pdf

In re: Donald J. Trump, et al. — D.C. Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit considers a deportation dispute that became a fight over enforcing court orders. In March 2025, the government flew Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Judge James Boasberg ordered removals halted and told government lawyers the men must be brought back. They were transferred to Salvadoran custody; the government says the flights had already left U.S. territory and its actions complied with the written order. The Supreme Court later lifted the restraining orders, requiring challenges to these removals to be filed where the detainees were held. Boasberg’s separate inquiry asks whether officials willfully violated his order. Criminal contempt punishes disobedience rather than compelling future compliance. Now a larger panel, sitting en banc, hears the government’s request for mandamus: an extraordinary order stopping the lower court’s proceedings. Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate will argue that further inquiry is unauthorized and any contempt prosecution would be futile. In re: Donald J. Trump, et al. (No. 25-5452) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5452.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit official recording listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Case history and government's petition — D.C. Circuit panel opinion, April 14, 2026 (panel order later vacated): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/04/25-5452.pdf En banc rehearing and September 29 argument — D.C. Circuit order, June 22, 2026: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2026/06/25-5452CCEN.pdf District court's request for witness testimony — actual filed order, December 8, 2025, Doc. 200 (ACLU-hosted copy): https://www.acludc.org/app/uploads/2025/03/JGG.200.Order-to-produce-witnesses.pdf Restraining-order vacatur and habeas venue — Supreme Court, Trump v. J.G.G., April 7, 2025: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf Criminal-contempt procedure — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, official rules PDF, page 59: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf#page=78 Criminal contempt and a separate prosecutor — Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton, 481 U.S. 787 (1987): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-481/pdf/USREPORTS-481-787.pdf Counsel identity and represented detainees — Supreme Court official docket, Trump v. J.G.G.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a931.html

Ivan Stark, Jr. v. Brenton Bragan — 7th Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

Ivan Stark asks the Seventh Circuit for prison-program credits. He says he worked as an orderly and distributed meals while awaiting transfer to his designated prison, but the Bureau of Prisons denied credits for that period. Under the First Step Act, eligible prisoners can earn time credits through qualifying programs. Stark challenged the calculation, and the district court denied his petition. He has since left prison and is under court-ordered supervision. He wants additional credits to shorten that supervision; the government says credits can move its start earlier, but cannot shorten the term. The judges also ask whether meaningful relief remains, the issue called mootness. Becca Steinberg will argue for Stark and seek credit against his remaining supervision. Ivan Stark, Jr. v. Brenton Bragan (No. 25-2609) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2609.25-2609_09_24_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 denial and judgment — N.D. Illinois, August 14, 2025, Docs. 18–19 (filed opening-brief appendix, PDF pages 60–64): https://www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential-learning/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2025/12/13-Stark-Opening-Brief-12.3.2025-2.pdf#page=60 Stark's factual account and appeal — filed opening brief, December 3, 2025: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential-learning/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2025/12/13-Stark-Opening-Brief-12.3.2025-2.pdf Supervised-release status and requested relief — filed reply brief, March 31, 2026: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/experiential-learning/wp-content/uploads/sites/59/2026/04/28-Stark-Reply-public-version.pdf Qualifying First Step Act time credits — 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4), Cornell LII statutory text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3632 Time-credit program overview — Bureau of Prisons official First Step Act FAQ: https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/faq.jsp Mootness and effectual relief — Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172–174 (Supreme Court opinion, Cornell LII): https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1347

Alex El Bachiri v. Medicredit, Inc., et al. — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Eleventh Circuit consider Alex El Bachiri's debt-collection lawsuit. He says MD Now billed him for medical services he never received, and Medicredit sent letters demanding payment. He disputed the debt and sued the clinic and collector under debt-collection laws, alleging lost time and emotional distress. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing. Here, standing turns on whether he has alleged a real, personal injury. For intangible harms, courts look for close comparisons with injuries traditionally recognized in lawsuits. The appeal asks whether the distress and time spent responding to allegedly wrongful collection letters supply that injury, or amount to self-imposed harm. This argument concerns access to federal court, not whether the companies ultimately violated debt-collection law. Alex El Bachiri v. Medicredit, Inc., et al. (No. 25-10356) — 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/25-10356_10012026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?title=25-10356 Historical allegations and district dismissal — October 2, 2025 opinion, VACATED; background only, not current law or outcome: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202510356.pdf Prior opinion's VACATED status — Eleventh Circuit official opinion index: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/searchcase.php?query=25-10356 Standing and real, personal injury — Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338–341 (Supreme Court bound volume): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/578BV.pdf#page=402 Standing and concrete harm — TransUnion v. Ramirez, Supreme Court opinion, pages 7–9: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf#page=11

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected