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:

Christopher Hampton v. Jonathan Nance — 4th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Christopher Hampton's challenge to his South Carolina murder conviction. The prosecution's case included his confession and the victim's blood in his apartment; Hampton pleaded guilty to murder. He says officers questioned him after he asked for a lawyer, and that his lawyer should have moved to suppress, or keep out, the confession. State postconviction litigation and belated appeals followed; the federal district court denied habeas relief and refused to reopen the judgment. On reconsideration, it relied on the guilty plea as a waiver of a challenge to the confession. This is not a new murder trial: the appeal concerns the constitutional adequacy of counsel and federal review of the state proceedings. PCR means postconviction relief, the state proceedings challenging the conviction after the criminal case. Under Edwards, police generally may not restart custodial questioning after a suspect asks for counsel merely because the suspect then answers their questions. Under Strickland, ineffective assistance requires professionally unreasonable performance and resulting prejudice. For a guilty-plea challenge, prejudice means a reasonable probability that, without counsel's errors, the defendant would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial. Section twenty-two fifty-four gives special deference to state decisions on the merits; federal disagreement alone is not enough to overturn them. Subsection F deals with producing the pertinent state-court record when a state factual finding is challenged. Kyle Singhal will present Hampton's appeal. Christopher Hampton v. Jonathan Nance (No. 25-6151) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-6151-20261014.mp3 Case, date and advocates — official recording archive: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Court and October 14, 2026 hearing — official calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct142026.pdf Factual and procedural background — actual district court order, February 18, 2025, pages 1–5; allegations distinguished from findings: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/1:2021cv01377/264178/94/0.pdf?ts=1739983875 Issues permitted on appeal — actual February 19, 2026 court order, public copy; not a merits result: https://dfcdd5a9-9b15-4935-912e-ae43c216297d.filesusr.com/ugd/dba2bb_08e38c687b26466797ee6cc9f7d5b318.pdf?index=true Counsel identity — current-case appearance entry 5, March 10, 2025; older docket snapshot: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-6151 Federal habeas review — 28 U.S.C. §2254, especially (d), (e) and (f): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/28/2254 Custodial request for counsel — Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482–485; general doctrine: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-451/pdf/USREPORTS-451-477.pdf Effective assistance — Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–688 and 694: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-466/pdf/USREPORTS-466-668.pdf Guilty-plea prejudice — Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 57–59; not a finding about Hampton: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-474/pdf/USREPORTS-474-52.pdf

In re Kim — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears a dispute between a married couple, the Kims, and their creditor, Vickers Holding and Finance. It began with a business loan to Mr. Kim, followed by litigation in the Netherlands and California judgment collection. The fight carried into bankruptcy, where Vickers asked the court to deny the Kims a discharge and to keep particular debts from being discharged. A discharge releases the debtor from covered debts; denying discharge is broader than excluding one particular debt. The dispute centers on financial disclosure: whether the Kims supplied adequate records showing what happened to the money. Section seven twenty-seven, ay three, permits denial for failing to keep records needed to understand the debtor's finances, unless the failure was justified in the circumstances. Section five twenty-three, ay six, instead excepts a particular debt for willful and malicious injury. The panel considers what could be decided on summary judgment: a ruling without trial when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the law entitles one side to win. You will also hear issue preclusion: whether a question actually resolved in earlier state-court proceedings binds the bankruptcy court. That does not automatically establish every requirement for denying discharge. In re Kim (No. 26-1071) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1071.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1071&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and full docket CC-26-1071-SGN — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Background — 2017 federal discovery order, pages 1–2; allegations distinguished from findings: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-mc-80028/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-mc-80028-0.pdf Earlier collection proceedings — actual California opinion B338412, factual background; not this appeal’s outcome: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/vickers-holding-fin-v-1102848599 Bankruptcy dispute — official November 20, 2025 calendar, pages 47–48, motion 76; motion entry, not a merits ruling: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/VZ_112025.pdf Discharge and financial records — 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(3), (b): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/727 Particular-debt exceptions — 11 U.S.C. §523(a), especially (a)(6): https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/523 Summary judgment — Civil Rule 56, December 1, 2025 edition: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Issue preclusion — Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284–285 and note 11; general doctrine, not a Kim ruling: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-498/pdf/USREPORTS-498-279.pdf

James Randall Rogers v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison — 11th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears a Georgia death-penalty appeal brought by James Randall Rogers. Rogers was convicted in nineteen eighty-five of murdering Grace Perry in Rome, Georgia, and sentenced to death. One part of the prosecution's evidence was testimony linking a bite mark on his arm to Perry's dentures. Rogers challenges that evidence in light of later scientific developments, while the state maintains that other evidence supports the conviction. A separate jury trial in two thousand five rejected his claim of intellectual disability. That issue concerns eligibility for execution: Atkins holds that a person with intellectual disability may not be executed. After additional state challenges, a federal district court denied another habeas petition; this is the appeal from that denial. Federal habeas review considers whether custody violates federal law; it is not a new jury trial. You will hear AEDPA, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which restricts repeated federal challenges. Under Section twenty-two forty-four, b, a petition that legally counts as second or successive requires prior permission from the court of appeals. That label does not mean every petition filed later in time; a new judgment can change the analysis. You will also hear Rhines, which allows limited stay-and-abeyance: pausing a federal petition while unexhausted claims are presented to the state courts. That requires good cause for failing to exhaust, potential merit, and no intentional delay. James Randall Rogers v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison (No. 24-13080) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Eleventh Circuit recording: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-13080_10142026.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 October 14, 2026 special hearing — revised official calendar: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/special_hearings/24-13080_CAL%28Revision%201%29_Rogers.pdf Prior factual and procedural background — actual state-court orders, especially PDF pages 13–17, 21–22 and 60–72; not this appeal’s outcome: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-7594/90108/20190228141035335_Rogers%20BIO%20Appendix.pdf Scientific-evidence challenge — Rogers’s reply in the separate state-new-trial proceeding, Supreme Court docket 25-5532: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5532/384393/20251113140108698_2025.11.13%20Rogers%20Cert%20Reply.pdf State’s position, evidence and link to this federal appeal — opposition in the separate state-new-trial proceeding, especially PDF pages 8–15: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5532/383128/20251030143625489_Rogers%20EMNT%20BIO%20Final.pdf Repeated federal habeas applications — 28 U.S.C. §2244: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/28/2244 Federal review of state custody and exhaustion — 28 U.S.C. §2254: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/28/2254 Second-or-successive terminology and a new judgment — Magwood, 561 U.S. 320, 330–333; general precedent: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-561/pdf/USREPORTS-561-320.pdf Stay-and-abeyance — Rhines, 544 U.S. 269, 273–278; general precedent: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-544/pdf/USREPORTS-544-269.pdf Intellectual disability and IQ measurement uncertainty — Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 710–714; general doctrine, not a finding about Rogers: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-572/pdf/USREPORTS-572-701.pdf Flynn effect and measurement terminology — separate N.D. Georgia order, February 26, 2014, PDF pages 5–7; no present-day score cutoff or Rogers finding imported: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-gand-1_02-cv-01515/pdf/USCOURTS-gand-1_02-cv-01515-3.pdf

In re Rivera — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears a dispute over a law firm's claim in Renee Rivera's bankruptcy. The claim was disallowed by default, and the firm asked the bankruptcy court to set that order aside. The practical stake is whether the firm's claim can be restored, rather than left out of the bankruptcy. To follow the argument, distinguish an appeal from reconsideration: an appeal asks a higher court to review an order, while reconsideration asks the issuing court to revisit it. Bankruptcy Rule ninety twenty-four applies Civil Rule sixty, which permits relief from a final order for reasons including mistake or excusable neglect. A separate timing point matters: bankruptcy appeals normally have a fourteen-day deadline. A Rule sixty motion filed later can still be considered, but asking to reopen an order does not itself restart the original appeal clock. In re Rivera (No. 25-1203) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-1203.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1203&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and full docket NC-25-1203-BaBrC — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20SF.pdf Background — official September 17, 2025 calendar, page 2, motion 77 concerning claim 3-1; not a ruling or this appeal’s outcome: https://www.canb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge/calendar/09.17%20Pre%20Conf_0.pdf Bankruptcy procedure — Rules 8002, 8009(c) and 9024, December 1, 2025 edition: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-bankruptcy-procedure.pdf Relief from an order — Civil Rule 60, December 1, 2025 edition: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf

In re Banks — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

A homeowner asks the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to review an order allowing a foreclosure purchaser to proceed despite her bankruptcy. Beulah Banks filed for bankruptcy on the same day as the disputed foreclosure sale of her home. Neighbor to Neighbor Homes relied on that purchase to seek possession through an eviction case, also called unlawful detainer. The timing matters because bankruptcy normally triggers an automatic stay, a legal pause on collection and eviction proceedings. The bankruptcy court accepted evidence that the auction came before the filing, but later eviction steps occurred while the stay was in effect. The company said it did not yet know about the bankruptcy. The court granted annulment of the stay. Under Section three sixty-two, d, annulment can work backward to validate actions that otherwise violated the stay; it is different from merely ending protection going forward. It requires weighing the circumstances, not simply treating an uninformed buyer as automatically exempt. Banks will represent herself and challenge the evidence that the sale preceded her filing. Sam Chandra will defend the relief for Neighbor to Neighbor Homes. The panel will also consider mootness: whether reversing this particular order could still provide any effective relief. This is an appeal about the stay order, not a trial of every allegation concerning the original loan or ownership of the home. In re Banks (No. 25-1009) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-1009.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1009&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and full docket CC-25-1009-NSG — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Factual background and counsel — official January 7, 2025 tentative ruling, pages 13–16; not this appeal’s decision: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/NB_010725.pdf Automatic stay and annulment — 11 U.S.C. §362: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/362 Annulment and balancing the circumstances — In re Fjeldsted, actual opinion’s public opening; general precedent, not this case’s result: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/in-re-fjeldsted-bap-886704683 Mootness and effective relief — Chafin v.Chafin, 568 U.S.165, 172; general doctrine: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-568/pdf/USREPORTS-568-165.pdf Unlawful detainer terminology — California Courts residential eviction guide: https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/eviction?rdeLocaleAttr=en

United States of America v. Sow — 2d Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

A counterfeit-goods prosecution becomes a dispute over who pays the brands' investigation bills. In twenty twenty-three, officers searched a Manhattan storage facility used to distribute knockoff luxury goods. Sow pleaded guilty to trafficking counterfeits and received two years in prison. The district court also ordered her to reimburse luxury brands about one hundred eleven thousand dollars. Those were bills from a private firm that helped authenticate and value seized goods and took part in the prosecution, including a sentencing hearing. They were not the retail price of the genuine products. The key law is the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. For this kind of case, it requires an identifiable victim with financial loss directly and proximately caused by the crime. Pecuniary means financial; proximate cause limits how far responsibility for a loss extends. A separate provision, Section thirty-six sixty-three A, b, four, covers certain necessary expenses of participating in a government investigation or criminal prosecution, not every private investigation bill. Sow says the brands have not proved financial harm apart from those bills, or a sufficiently direct and foreseeable link between her conduct and the charges. The government says the counterfeits damaged valuable trademarks and that these investigation costs were a foreseeable consequence. You will also hear about a Fatico hearing: a hearing to resolve disputed facts used in sentencing. Justine Harris will seek to overturn the restitution order for Sow. Assistant United States Attorney Henry Ross will defend it for the government. Other sentencing challenges remain in the appeal, but counsel will focus this argument on restitution. United States of America v. Sow (No. 25-2621) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2621.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit audio index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and restitution — district court October 2, 2025 opinion; public excerpt, not this appeal’s decision: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-sow-1092481184 Guilty plea, sentence and restitution — district court November 18, 2025 bail/stay opinion; not this appeal’s decision: https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-sow-1000459221726 Investigation background and prosecutor — DOJ November 15, 2023 charging announcement; distinguish allegations from later guilty plea: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/largest-ever-counterfeit-goods-seizures-result-trafficking-charges-against-two Appeal identity and counsel — public appellate docket entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2621 Mandatory Victims Restitution Act — 18 U.S.C. § 3663A: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/18/3663A Restitution framework — Second Circuit Avenatti opinion, appendix pages 69a–77a: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-6753/300400/20240212150056908_Avenatti%20Pet.%20App..pdf

In re Marfa Developer LLC — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

A foreclosure dispute reaches the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Marfa Developer filed for Chapter Eleven bankruptcy protection. The McHugh Family Trust asked the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay, and the court allowed a foreclosure sale to proceed. Adam Greenfield, who filed the company's case without an attorney, will speak first. Bankruptcy's automatic stay generally pauses foreclosure. The order at issue grants what lawyers call in rem relief under Section three sixty-two, d, four: relief directed at the property that can also reach later bankruptcy filings involving it. A stay-relief proceeding is limited: permission to proceed despite the bankruptcy does not finally determine the underlying debt or every challenge to the loan documents. That distinction matters when the argument turns to disputed paperwork. A full reconveyance records the release of a deed-of-trust loan lien, ordinarily after repayment. That is a general definition, not a finding that any document in this case is valid. You will also hear the word moot. An appeal is moot when a court can no longer grant any effective relief; a foreclosure must be considered in light of that question, not treated as an automatic answer. In re Marfa Developer LLC (No. 26-1058) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1058.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1058&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and full docket CC-26-1058-SGN — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Creditor’s stay-relief motion — official February 24, 2026 calendar, page 35: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/WB_022426.pdf Filing and prior stay-relief background — official March 5, 2026 calendar, page 12; tentative status analysis, not this appeal’s decision: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/WB_030526.pdf Automatic stay and property-directed relief — 11 U.S.C. §362: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/11/362 Limited scope of stay-relief proceedings — In re Veal, 450 B.R.897, 914–915; general law, not this case’s outcome: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/bap-9th-cir/2011/450-br-897.html Mootness and effective relief — Chafin v.Chafin, 568 U.S.165, 172; general doctrine, not a decision about this foreclosure: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-568/pdf/USREPORTS-568-165.pdf Reconveyance terminology — San Joaquin County Recorder FAQs: https://www.sjgov.org/department/assessor/recorder-county-clerk-information/recorder/faqs Reconveyance terminology — Placer County Recorder definitions: https://www.placer.ca.gov/8282/Definitions-of-Commonly-Recorded-Documen

Berenson v. Trump — 2d Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

Journalist Alex Berenson challenges the dismissal of claims arising from his Twitter ban. In twenty twenty-one, Twitter permanently suspended his account under its COVID-nineteen misinformation rules, after he had criticized vaccination policies. He alleges that Biden administration officials and people at Pfizer coordinated pressure on Twitter to silence him. The private defendants here are Scott Gottlieb, a Pfizer director and former FDA commissioner, and Albert Bourla, its chief executive. The official-capacity federal defendants settled before this hearing; the argument you will hear concerns Gottlieb and Bourla. There are two main issues. Tortious interference means wrongfully disrupting someone else's contractual relationship. Here, under New York law, Berenson must show an actual breach of his agreement with Twitter. He says Twitter's five-strike policy and private assurances from an executive restricted its power to ban him. The district court disagreed, pointing to terms allowing suspension for any or no reason. The other claim is under Section nineteen eighty-five, three, a civil-rights law covering certain discriminatory conspiracies. It requires a qualifying class and discriminatory purpose directed at that class, not simply opposition to one person's statements. The dispute is whether unvaccinated people qualify and whether the alleged targeting was because of their status, rather than concern about misinformation. James Lawrence, of Envisage Law, will seek to revive Berenson's claims, defending both the contractual promises and the class-based theory. James Rouhandeh, of Davis Polk, will defend the dismissal, arguing that Twitter retained its contractual discretion and that the allegations do not establish discrimination against a protected class. Berenson v. Trump (No. 25-2709) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2709.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit audio index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and dismissal of private defendants — district court July 14, 2025 opinion, Doc.127; not this appeal’s decision: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2023cv03048/597054/127/0.pdf Federal-party background and automatic substitution of President — district court September 29, 2025 opinion, Doc.132: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2023cv03048/597054/132/0.pdf Official-capacity federal settlement — executed agreement and limited dismissal stipulation; not an adjudication of liability: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2026-05/Berenson%20-%20Settlement%20Agreement%20-%20fully%20executed.pdf James Lawrence firm — Envisage Law biography: https://www.envisage.law/legal-team/james-lawrence James Rouhandeh firm — Davis Polk biography: https://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/james-rouhandeh

In re Duplex at Sleepy Hollow, LLC — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

A foreclosure bidder asks to revive a sale undone by a last-minute bankruptcy filing. Three Arch Capital Management made the winning bid on a Laguna Beach property in October twenty twenty-five. Creditors had just filed involuntary bankruptcy petitions against the owners of ten related properties. Those are creditor-initiated cases, rather than voluntary filings by the owners. Bankruptcy's automatic stay generally halts foreclosures. Three Arch received its money back without getting a deed to the property. The court later retroactively validated nine other sales to the lender, Enterprise Bank and Trust, but not this one. Three Arch's own request for retroactive relief was denied. Lifting the stay prospectively allows future action; annulling it can validate a past transaction that was otherwise void. Under Section three sixty-two, d, one, the court balances fairness and circumstances rather than simply matching outcomes in related sales. Lawrence Mudgett, of Safer Law, will ask the panel for a new hearing, saying the judge failed to apply that balancing test. Alan Nahmias will defend Enterprise, arguing that the original sale was undone and that summary bankruptcy proceedings are not the place to resolve ownership disputes between non-debtors. In re Duplex at Sleepy Hollow, LLC (No. 26-1074) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1074.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1074&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court and full docket CC-26-1074-GNS — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Foreclosure background and annulment framework — related appeal 25-1256, not the decision in this appeal: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/10/07/25-1256.pdf Three Arch motion and tentative analysis — bankruptcy court calendar, February 18, 2026, pages 121–123; not a final order: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/SC_021826.pdf Enterprise counsel in the same underlying bankruptcy — official December 12, 2025 calendar: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/SC_121225.pdf Lawrence Mudgett firm — official Safer Law website: https://saferlaw.com/ Independent lawyer and firm listing — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/252898

In re People Who Care Youth Center, Inc. — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

A nonprofit's bankruptcy turns on a disputed forty-thousand-dollar lien against its property. Greta Curtis and Ammec claim payment for materials used at People Who Care Youth Center. A mechanic's lien is a recorded claim against real estate intended to secure payment for construction work or materials. The center disputed the debt and sued in bankruptcy court to remove the lien. Its court-approved reorganization plan moved the lien from the property to forty thousand dollars held while the dispute was decided. After trial, the bankruptcy court ruled that there was no enforceable obligation supporting the lien. Curtis will argue that the confirmed plan fixed the parties' rights and that the later ruling improperly rewrote it. The center also brought a separate slander-of-title claim, alleging harm from recording the lien. Defeating that claim does not itself establish a valid lien. Two bankruptcy protections also come up: the automatic stay pauses most debt collection when bankruptcy starts; a discharge injunction bars collecting discharged debts as personal liabilities. In re People Who Care Youth Center, Inc. (No. 25-1196) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit BAP recording; all advocacy is complete; the court original ends during the judge's administrative instruction to call the next case: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-1196.mp3 Case and argument date — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1196&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Court, panel and full docket CC-25-1196-NSG — official BAP calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20PAS.pdf Background, confirmed plan and lien ruling — bankruptcy court Doc. 459, September 29, 2025: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/opinions/LA-18-10290-RK_PeoplewhoCareYouthCenter.pdf Mechanics lien definition — California Contractors State License Board: https://www.cslb.ca.gov/Consumers/Legal_Issues_For_Consumers/Mechanics_Lien/What_Is_A_Mechanics_Lien.aspx Bankruptcy terms — official court glossary: https://www.mieb.uscourts.gov/glossary-bankruptcy-terms Advocate identity and firm — official John-Patrick M. Fritz profile: https://lnbyg.com/team/john-patrick-m-fritz/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected