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:

B.M.S. v. Circuit Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida — 11th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Eleventh Circuit consider a teenager's effort to resume contact with his mother. During his parents' divorce, a Florida court gave his father temporary sole custody and barred contact with his mother. B.M.S. sued the judge in federal court, claiming the ban violates his First Amendment right to receive information. He requested a declaration of his rights. The federal court dismissed his suit; this recording is his appeal. Younger abstention is a narrow doctrine requiring federal courts to stay out of certain ongoing state proceedings. The immediate question is whether his federal suit can proceed, rather than deciding which parent should have custody. B.M.S. v. Circuit Court Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida (No. 25-12945) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-12945_09292026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=2 Underlying temporary custody and no-contact order — Florida Third District Court of Appeal, November 15, 2023 opinion, No. 3D23-1018 (Justia PDF mirror): https://cases.justia.com/florida/third-district-court-of-appeal/2023-3d23-1018.pdf?ts=1700075349 Federal complaint entry — S.D. Fla. docket, No. 1:24-cv-24600, November 21, 2024 (Justia snapshot; not the complaint or dismissal text): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/1%3A2024cv24600/679336 Case background and federal dismissal/appeal — Shira Moolten, Sun Sentinel, June 4, 2026 (syndicated article): https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/917384926/these-florida-mothers-warned-family-courts-about-abuse-now-they-can-t-speak-to-their-children Younger abstention's limited scope — Sprint Communications v. Jacobs, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-571/pdf/USREPORTS-571-69.pdf Exceptional Younger categories — New Orleans Public Service v. Council of New Orleans, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-491/pdf/USREPORTS-491-350.pdf

Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. Republic of Poland — D.C. Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Mercuria Energy Group Limited's effort to enforce an arbitration award against Poland. Poland fined Mercuria's fuel-trading subsidiary for allegedly failing to maintain required fuel stocks. Polish courts overturned the fine. Poland refunded the penalty, but a dispute over interest remained. Mercuria took that dispute to arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty and won an award. Sweden was the legal seat; lex arbitri means the law governing the arbitration process. A Swedish court then invalidated the award under European Union rules restricting arbitration between EU states and investors from other EU states. An American district judge refused to enforce it. Mercuria will contend that honoring the annulment would deny basic justice. Poland will defend the Swedish ruling and the narrow limits on enforcing an annulled award. Mercuria Energy Group Limited v. Republic of Poland (No. 25-7152) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-7152.mp3 Argument date and case listing — D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Enforcement opinion — D.D.C., September 8, 2025, Doc. 47 (actual court PDF, public reproduction): https://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1827087.pdf Underlying events and arbitral award — SCC V 2019/126, December 29, 2022 (actual award PDF): https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw171104.pdf Law of the Swedish arbitration seat — Swedish Arbitration Act, §§ 43 and 46 (SCC English translation; Swedish text is authoritative): https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Swedish-Arbitration-Act.pdf

United States v. Radick — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Tracey Radick's challenge to a search of her home. Police found suspected methamphetamine in a man's car. He said he'd bought it from Radick, described her property, and identified her photograph. Officers used his account to obtain a search warrant. The search led to federal drug and firearm charges. A district judge refused to exclude the evidence, and Radick now appeals her conviction. She will contend that the affidavit—the officer's sworn statement supporting the warrant—didn't establish the informant's reliability or corroborate the alleged drug sale. The government will defend both the warrant and the good-faith exception, which can permit evidence from a flawed warrant when officers reasonably relied on the judge's authorization. United States v. Radick (No. 25-7050) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-7050.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F02%2F2026 Suppression opinion — E.D. Oklahoma, September 19, 2024 (actual court text, public reproduction): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/66ef9d7adb992e04c842f8c5 Earlier detention-review opinion — E.D. Oklahoma, June 28, 2024 (actual court text, public reproduction; not the appealed suppression ruling): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/6680df95e1515b2b53454d70 Drug and firearm case background — U.S. Attorney's Office, E.D. Oklahoma, October 8, 2024: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edok/pr/gore-resident-pleads-guilty-federal-drug-and-firearm-charges Sworn support for search warrants — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41

John Hassett v. United Airlines, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a United Airlines pilot's challenge to the handling of his religious exemption from its COVID vaccination requirement. John Hassett received the exemption, but United would not let unvaccinated pilots fly. He spent several months on unpaid leave before returning to work. He sued under Title Seven, alleging failure to accommodate his religion and retaliation. The district court dismissed the retaliation claim and later ruled for United without a trial on accommodation. It found that his proposed alternatives would impose an undue hardship on the airline. Hassett will argue that masking and testing could have let him keep flying, and that United's safety concerns lacked proof of substantial costs. United will defend its assessment of cockpit safety and operational risks. John Hassett v. United Airlines, Inc. (No. 25-3253) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-3253.25-3253_09_29_2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Summary-judgment order — N.D. Illinois, November 24, 2025, Doc. 108 (actual filed order, public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2023cv14592/446384/108/0.pdf Earlier dismissal order — N.D. Illinois, April 10, 2024, Doc. 59 (actual filed order, public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2023cv14592/446384/59/0.pdf

Peter Parnell, et al. v. School Board of Escambia County, Florida — 11th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears a challenge to the removal of And Tango Makes Three from Escambia County school libraries. The picture book tells the true story of two male penguins raising a chick. Its authors, Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, and an elementary-school student sued the school board. They say it removed the book because of its positive portrayal of same-sex parenting. The district court ruled for the board without a trial, concluding that selecting school-library books did not infringe the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs appeal. Corey Stoughton, of Selendy Gay, will argue for the authors and student that this viewpoint-based removal violated the First Amendment. The board will defend its authority to choose the library collection. Peter Parnell, et al. v. School Board of Escambia County, Florida (No. 25-13485) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-13485_09292026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=2 District court final order — September 30, 2025, Doc. 261 (actual filed order, public copy): https://www.wordsandmoney.com/content/files/2025/10/Summary-Judgement-in-Tango-Makes-Three-Case.pdf Authors' and student's allegations — plaintiffs' filed trial brief, Doc. 246 (public copy): https://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/006/6742-1.pdf Case-linked counsel and firms — ACLU filed amicus brief, Doc. 36, certificate of interested persons: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/12/file-stamped.pdf Corey Stoughton's firm and representation — official Selendy Gay profile: https://www.selendygay.com/people/corey-stoughton Holdings and dicta — United States v. Caraballo-Martinez, Eleventh Circuit opinion (2017): https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201611772.pdf Prior-panel precedent and dicta — United States v. Gillis, Eleventh Circuit opinion (2019): https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201616482.pdf

Mikayla Rose Devins v. Douglas A. Collins — CAVC (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims hears Mikayla Rose Devins's appeal over education benefits. Her father died from a service-connected disability, and her mother is permanently and totally disabled. Both parents' military service made her eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance, or DEA. While attending college, she received benefits based on both parents at the same time. VA paid twice the monthly amount, but treated those payments as using one combined thirty-six-month allowance. After VA said her benefits were exhausted, the Board of Veterans' Appeals rejected her request for more. She appeals that ruling. She will argue each parent provides a separate thirty-six-month entitlement. The Secretary will defend a cap for each student, however many parents qualify. Mikayla Rose Devins v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 25-2179) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Devins.MP3 Argument date and recording listing — CAVC: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Case docket and counsel appearances — CAVC, No. 25-2179: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=25-2179&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Board decision denying additional benefits — January 30, 2025: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011371777 Devins's opening brief — November 24, 2025: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012038744 Secretary's response brief — March 9, 2026: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012355357 Devins's reply brief — March 26, 2026: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012414343 Oral argument scheduling order — September 30, 2026 argument: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012656717 Dependents' Educational Assistance — 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35, official 2024 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title38/pdf/USCODE-2024-title38-partIII-chap35.pdf Earlier dual-parent benefits ruling — Osman v. Peake, CAVC opinion (2008): https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Osman.092508.pdf

BRIDGE v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears a challenge to rules for PACE home-improvement financing. Homeowners use it to pay for energy-saving or storm-protection improvements, then repay through their property-tax bills. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted a rule applying federal consumer-credit protections to those transactions. BRIDGE, an industry association, sued to stop the rule. A Florida district judge denied its request for preliminary relief, and BRIDGE appealed. We hear the consolidated appeals. BRIDGE contends the Bureau went beyond Congress's instructions and improperly regulated state tax programs. The Bureau says voluntary home-improvement financing is consumer credit within its authority. The lawyers also dispute the research used to justify the rule. BRIDGE v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (No. 25-14109) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-14109%2026-10508_09302026.mp3 Argument date and combined docket numbers 25-14109 / 26-10508 — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=1 BRIDGE's filed opening brief — No. 25-14109, Doc. 20, December 23, 2025 (public PDF mirror): https://infobytes.orrick.com/wp-content/uploads/US_APP_CA11_25_14109_d5234611e1611_Appellant_s_brief_filed_.pdf CFPB's filed response brief — No. 25-14109, Doc. 25, January 22, 2026 (public PDF mirror): https://infobytes.orrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2434000-2434227-c08830b3-c969-4abb-abf7-abc2cbcf9a83-1.pdf Preliminary relief denied — M.D. Fla., November 3, 2025 order, Doc. 56 (public PDF mirror): https://business.cch.com/BFLD/BRIDGECFPB%28MDFla%29Order-InjDenied_11032025.pdf Later district-court merits order — M.D. Fla., February 12, 2026, Doc. 75 (public PDF mirror): https://infobytes.orrick.com/wp-content/uploads/BRIDGE-v-CFPB-MDFla-Order-On-Cross-Motions-For-Summary-Judgment-02122026.pdf Consolidation and appearances — appellate docket mirrored by Justia (snapshot July 9, 2026; not current case status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/26-10508 PACE final rule — Federal Register, January 10, 2025, official GovInfo text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-10/html/2024-30628.htm Section 307 — Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (2018), official enacted law: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-115publ174/pdf/PLAW-115publ174.pdf Ability to repay — 15 U.S.C. § 1639c, official U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title15/pdf/USCODE-2023-title15-chap41-subchapI-partB-sec1639c.pdf Civil liability — 15 U.S.C. § 1640, official U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title15/pdf/USCODE-2023-title15-chap41-subchapI-partB-sec1640.pdf Anti-commandeering and generally applicable regulation — Reno v. Condon, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1464.ZO.html

O'Dell, et al. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

Travel nurses sued Aya Healthcare, alleging that it cut their pay rates in the middle of their contracts. They also claim Aya miscalculated their overtime pay. Aya wants individual arbitration, a private process instead of a court case. Earlier arbitrations produced conflicting decisions about whether the agreements were enforceable. The Ninth Circuit reversed a ruling that used two nurses' arbitration victories to block arbitration for other employees. On remand, the district judge held the arbitration motion while preparing notice to additional potential plaintiffs. Aya now asks the Ninth Circuit to require an arbitration ruling first. The argument concerns the order of those steps and the limits on appellate intervention. O'Dell, et al. v. Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. (No. 26-3776) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/01/26-3776.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-3776&hearingDate=2026-10-01 Nurses' allegations — originating plaintiffs' counsel Hartley LLP (not findings of liability): https://hartleyllp.com/portfolio-items/hartley-llp-files-travel-nursing-bait-and-switch-case-against-aya-healthcare/?portfolioCats=27 Complaint background and Miller arbitration — S.D. Cal., October 15, 2024 order (Doc. 136), mirrored by Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2022cv01151/739529/136/0.pdf Prior arbitration ruling — S.D. Cal., February 25, 2025 order (Doc. 175), mirrored by Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2022cv01151/739529/175/0.pdf Prior appeal — Ninth Circuit No. 25-1528, April 1, 2026 opinion: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/01/25-1528.pdf Post-remand motion and notice sequence — S.D. Cal., June 12, 2026 order (Doc. 223), mirrored by Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2022cv01151/739529/223/0.pdf Counsel appearances — companion mandamus No. 26-3867 docket mirrored by Justia (snapshot August 10, 2026; not current case status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/26-3867 Delegation provisions — Rent-A-Center v. Jackson, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-497.ZO.html California unconscionability — Armendariz, California Supreme Court opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/24/83.html Both unconscionability elements — Sanchez, California Supreme Court opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s199119.html Mandamus — Cheney, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/542/367 All Writs Act — 28 U.S.C. § 1651, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1651 Opt-in wage actions — 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/216 Notice and disputed arbitration obligations — Harrington, Ninth Circuit opinion: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/07/01/23-15650.pdf

Ada Real Estate Joint Venture v. Staples the Office SuperStore East, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

A hailstorm damaged the roof of a building leased to Staples. The landlord, Ada Real Estate Joint Venture, wanted Staples to pay for the repairs because the lease required Staples to carry property insurance. The roof replacement cost about a hundred and sixteen thousand dollars, below the policy's two hundred and fifty thousand dollar deductible. That meant no insurance payout would be available for this loss. The landlord sued, claiming Staples breached the lease by failing to file an insurance claim. The district court ruled for Staples, and the landlord appealed to the Tenth Circuit. The lawyers will debate whether the tenant's insurance duty shifts this bill from the landlord, and whether the court has a final judgment it can review. Ada Real Estate Joint Venture v. Staples the Office SuperStore East, et al. (No. 25-7074) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-7074.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026 Hailstorm, lease and summary judgment — E.D. Okla., July 9, 2025 order (Doc. 52), mirrored by Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okedce/6%3A2024cv00437/37408/52/0.pdf Reconsideration — E.D. Okla., August 20, 2025 order (Doc. 63), mirrored by Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okedce/6%3A2024cv00437/37408/63/0.pdf Counterclaim dismissals and Rule 54(b) certification — E.D. Okla., April 27, 2026 order (Doc. 81), mirrored by Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okedce/6%3A2024cv00437/37408/81/0.pdf Rob Robertson's case appearance — appellate docket mirrored by Justia (snapshot March 12, 2026; not current case status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-7074 Final-decision jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1291 Partial final judgments — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54 Dismissals without prejudice — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 Claim and issue preclusion — Taylor v. Sturgell, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-371.ZO.html Dismissal and claim preclusion — Semtek v. Lockheed Martin, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1551.ZO.html

Derrel Thomas v. Matthew Beebe, et al. — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

Derrel Thomas asks the Eleventh Circuit to revive his unlawful-entry claim. His lawsuit describes a dispute involving his wife and a locksmith at his home. Thomas says he asked sheriff's deputies to leave and shut himself in the garage, but they entered the house without a warrant and arrested him for battery. He then sued over the entry. The district court dismissed his constitutional claims, relying on his later battery conviction to establish probable cause for the arrest. The central question is whether grounds to arrest him also justified entering his home. Exigent circumstances are urgent conditions that can justify entering without a warrant. Before reaching the merits, the judges must decide whether he appealed too soon, while he could still amend his remaining trespass claims. Derrel Thomas v. Matthew Beebe, et al. (No. 24-12604) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-12604_09302026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0&title=24- Complaint allegations and initial dismissal — M.D. Fla., July 18, 2024 order (Doc. 36): https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-01699-36-8-cv= Constitutional-claim dismissal and leave to amend — M.D. Fla., August 8, 2024 order (Doc. 41): https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-01699-41-8-cv= Notice of appeal and remaining trespass claims — M.D. Fla., August 15, 2024 order (Doc. 50): https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-01699-50-8-cv= Counsel appearances — appellate docket mirrored by Justia (snapshot October 8, 2024; not current case status): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-12604 Damon Starrett's firm — Hilyard, Bogan & Palmer: https://www.hilyardlawfirm.com/team/damon-s-starrett/ Home entry and exigent circumstances — Payton v. New York, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/445/573 Emergency-aid exception — Brigham City v. Stuart, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/05-502.ZO.html Three-judge panels and en banc composition — 28 U.S.C. § 46, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/46 En banc determination — Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40, official court rule text: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/rules/title7/rule_40.html

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected