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:

Second Green Mountain Townhouse Corp. v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears an insurance dispute that began with hail-damage repairs at a Colorado townhouse community. Second Green Mountain sued its contractor, alleging defective roof and siding work and water leaks. They later agreed to a roughly thirteen-point-four-million-dollar judgment. The association promised not to collect from the contractor, which assigned it rights to sue its liability insurer, Mesa Underwriters. Colorado law calls this a Nunn agreement. The association then sued Mesa for alleged bad faith. The district court found the settlement collusive and ruled for Mesa without a trial. The appeal asks what counts as collusion and whether disputed facts belong before a jury. Chris Mosley will argue first for the association and seek reversal. Second Green Mountain Townhouse Corp. v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Insurance Company (No. 25-1448) — 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/25-1448.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 Underlying construction-defect complaint — Jefferson County District Court, filed November 11, 2019; copy hosted by counsel: https://kerranestorz.com/uploads/content/00685795.PDF Summary-judgment order — District of Colorado, Filing 99; court document mirrored by Justia: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2023cv00727/223094/99 Appeal and counsel appearances — court docket mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-1448 Filed amicus brief — United Policyholders and supporting organizations, March 9, 2026: https://uphelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Second-Green-Mountain-Amicus-Brief.pdf Nunn v. Mid-Century — Colorado Supreme Court opinion, mirrored by Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2011/09sc195.html Colorado insurance statutes — General Assembly, Title 10, Sections 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116: https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-10.pdf Gary Kull — Kennedys official lawyer profile: https://www.kennedyslaw.com/en/our-people/people/new-jersey/gary-kull/

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

Show notes

David Allen Lee challenges a murder conviction arising from a fatal stabbing inside a home. A federal jury found him guilty of second-degree murder. Lee testified at his trial. A special drug-abuser instruction named him and told jurors to use greater caution when weighing drug-abuser testimony. Lee will argue that this unfairly undermined his account of the killing. His lawyer will rely on Rule 605, which prohibits the presiding judge from testifying at trial. No trial objection is needed to preserve an issue under that rule, but here it is disputed whether the jury instruction counts as judicial testimony. Stuart Southerland, of the Federal Public Defender's office in eastern Oklahoma, will argue first for Lee. United States v. Lee (No. 25-7084) — 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/25-7084.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 Killing, jury conviction and sentencing — U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Oklahoma: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edok/pr/fort-gibson-resident-sentenced-second-degree-murder-indian-country September 2026 argument issues and counsel — Kansas Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/september-2026-oral-argument-summaries.pdf Lee appeal and defense counsel appearance — court docket mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-7084 Federal Rule of Evidence 605 — rule text, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_605 Federal Rule of Evidence 608 and committee notes — Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_608

Tindall Corporation v. Berkley Assurance Company — 2d Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

Tindall Corporation seeks insurance money for correcting defective concrete beams supplied to a construction project in Philadelphia. Parts of the beams fell short of the specified insulation requirements. Tindall acknowledged problems and proposed corrective work before notifying Berkley Assurance. Berkley denied coverage, pointing to a policy condition that required its written consent before Tindall admitted liability. A federal judge ruled for the insurer on summary judgment, without a trial. Such a ruling is proper only when no genuinely disputed material fact requires a trial. Tindall will argue that acknowledging a defect is not necessarily a legally binding admission of liability, and that a jury should decide what its communications meant. Berkley will contend that the undisputed statements and repair commitments breached the condition. Richard Milone, of Milone Law Firm, will argue first for Tindall. Tindall Corporation v. Berkley Assurance Company (No. 25-1448) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1448.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html September 30, 2026 summary order, case background and counsel — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-1448_so.pdf May 14, 2025 district decision, Doc. 58 — W.D.N.Y., scanned court filing mirrored by Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nywdce/1%3A2022cv00745/142775/58/ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — rule text, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 Richard Milone — Milone Law Firm: https://www.milonelawfirm.com/richard-milone-litigator/ David McTaggart — Duane Morris: https://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/davidtmctaggart.html Insurance-policy ambiguity, City of New York v. Evanston — New York Appellate Division: https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2007/2007_01239.htm Equitable estoppel, Fundamental Portfolio Advisors v. Tocqueville — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_04341.htm

Gerald Hopper v. Garry McFadden — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

Gerald Hopper says Mecklenburg County jail staff denied adequate care for his colostomy in twenty-twenty-two. A colostomy diverts bowel waste through an abdominal opening into a bag; Hopper needed one after a gunshot injury. He entered jail with reversal surgery already scheduled, but it never happened during his detention. He says repeated reports of pain and bleeding went inadequately treated for forty-eight days; the medical defendants say they provided appropriate care and surgery was not urgent. He sued the medical providers and Sheriff Garry McFadden. A federal judge ruled for the defendants on summary judgment, deciding that the evidence did not warrant a trial. Hopper asks the Fourth Circuit to restore his claims. The court's later Short versus Hartman decision changed the medical-care test for pretrial detainees: officials can be liable for risks of serious harm they should have known, not only risks they actually knew, but negligence alone is still insufficient. Hongye Zhang will argue first for Hopper. Gerald Hopper v. Garry McFadden (No. 24-6050) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/24-6050-20260917.mp3 Argument date, panel, and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files District court summary-judgment order, Doc. 85 — W.D.N.C., court text mirrored by Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncwdce/3%3A2022cv00454/109457/85/ Earlier limited remand on appeal timing, April 16, 2024 — Fourth Circuit (not a merits decision): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/246050.U.pdf Short v. Hartman, medical-care standard — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211396.P.pdf Swink v. Southern Health Partners, amended December 2, 2025 — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/212183.P.pdf Monell v. Department of Social Services — Supreme Court opinion mirrored by Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/658/ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — rule text, Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 Colostomy — MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: https://www.medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002942.htm Types of ostomy surgery — National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/ostomy-surgery-bowel/types Kari Loomer Swindle — Hedrick Gardner: https://hedrickgardner.com/attorneys/kari-loomer-swindle/

United States v. Oniel Wilks — 2d Cir. (Sep 4, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Oniel Wilks's appeal from jury convictions for drug-trafficking and money-laundering conspiracies. Trial evidence described Wilks sending drugs from California to Louie McDowell for distribution in Connecticut. McDowell was arrested in November twenty-eighteen, but investigators later found cocaine in Wilks's car and in a package he shipped to Connecticut. Wilks will argue that McDowell's arrest ended the charged conspiracy, making the later California conduct a separate operation. The government will argue that the trafficking continued, involving Wilks and other participants. The dispute concerns both the evidence supporting the convictions and whether the California evidence belonged in this trial. Rule four-oh-four bee bars using other acts just to suggest criminal character, but can permit them for purposes such as proving intent or identity. Danielle Muscatello, of Barket Epstein, will argue for Wilks. United States v. Oniel Wilks (No. 24-2287) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/24-2287.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Summary order, September 21, 2026 — Second Circuit, No. 24-2287: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/24-2287_so.pdf Trial and sentencing background, August 15, 2024 — U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Connecticut: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/jamaican-national-sentenced-32-years-prison-drug-trafficking-identity-fraud-and-money Danielle Muscatello — Barket Epstein: https://www.barketepstein.com/our-team/danielle-muscatello/ Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) — rule text, Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404 United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, other-acts discussion — Second Circuit opinion mirrored by OpenJurist: https://openjurist.org/983/f2d/369/united-states-v-concepcion

United States v. Siyang Chen — 2d Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears the government's appeal in United States v. Siyang Chen. Trial evidence described a prostitution business run by Chen and his wife, and attacks on women working independently or for rival operations. A jury convicted Chen of conspiring to commit sex trafficking. The district judge later set aside that conviction, finding that the violence targeted competition rather than forcing women to perform commercial sex. Only that count is at issue here. Rule twenty-nine permits this kind of acquittal only if no rational jury could find the charged crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The question is what the violence was intended to accomplish. The government will contend that the jury could infer coercion of the organization's own workers, even if the attacks also discouraged competition. Prosecutor Sophia Suarez will ask the court to restore the jury's verdict. United States v. Siyang Chen (No. 25-1916) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1916.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court Memorandum and Order, July 7, 2025 — E.D.N.Y., No. 1:22-cr-00158 (court text mirrored by Midpage): https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-chen-1000445601853 Appellate docket and advocate identities — Second Circuit (court docket mirrored by Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1916 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 — rule text, Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_29 18 U.S.C. § 1591 — statute text, Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591

Bernier v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company — 2d Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears a civil-rights appeal rooted in a California home-remodeling dispute. In 2007, Rejeanne Bernier's son removed her home's roof; rain damage led to a Travelers insurance claim and a lawsuit against him. Bernier and Hans Croteau say an improper court-filing restriction became a recurring obstacle in later litigation. In 2024, they sued Travelers in Connecticut, alleging it conspired with state officials to deny them access to court. Their Section nineteen eighty-three claim requires a violation of federal rights under state authority, including joint action with a private party. The district judge dismissed the claims as too late and insufficiently supported. Hans Croteau, representing himself, will argue that later restrictions caused new injuries and that he should be allowed to amend his complaint. The court must distinguish a new violation from an old violation's continuing effects. Accrual starts the filing clock; tolling pauses or extends it. Bernier v. Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company (No. 25-2888) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2888.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court dismissal order, August 15, 2025 — D. Connecticut, No. 3:24-cv-01061, Document 42: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01061/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01061-0.pdf Earlier insurance appeal, September 14, 2015 — Ninth Circuit, No. 12-56126 (court opinion mirrored by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-56126/12-56126-2015-09-14.pdf?ts=1442260925 Appellate docket and advocate identities — Second Circuit (court docket mirrored by Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2888 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — statute text, Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001) — Supreme Court opinion, GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-534/pdf/USREPORTS-534-61.pdf

Apostolovski v. United States Department of Labor — 2d Cir. (Sep 21, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Marjan Apostolovski's workers' compensation appeal against DynCorp. While fueling helicopters and vehicles at a military base in Afghanistan, he says grenade attacks left him with sleep problems and other psychological symptoms. His doctors diagnosed trauma-related conditions, but DynCorp's psychologist disputed any work-related psychological injury. An administrative law judge denied benefits, and the Labor Department's Benefits Review Board affirmed. His lawyer, Jon Robinson of Strongpoint Law Firm, will challenge that denial. The Defense Base Act extends federal workers' compensation law to certain overseas jobs supporting the United States. Section twenty A presumes a claim is work-related once the worker shows a harm and working conditions that could cause it. The employer must then produce substantial evidence—evidence a reasonable person could accept—to rebut that presumption. Producing evidence is not yet persuading the judge: only afterward is the whole record weighed, with the worker bearing the ultimate burden of proof. The legal sufficiency question gets de novo review—a fresh look, without deferring to the agency's legal answer. Apostolovski v. United States Department of Labor (No. 25-2168) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 21, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2168.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Benefits Review Board decision, July 9, 2025 — U.S. Department of Labor, BRB 23-0487: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/BRB/decisions/lngshore/unpublished/Jul25/23-0487.pdf Summary order, September 30, 2026 — Second Circuit, No. 25-2168: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-2168_so.pdf Appellate docket — Second Circuit (docket mirrored by Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2168 Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1651 — statute text, Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1651 Longshore Act Section 20(a), 33 U.S.C. § 920 — statute text, Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/920 Jon Robinson — Strongpoint Law Firm: https://strongpointlaw.com/about-strongpoint-law-firm/jon-b-robinson/ Joshua Obszanski — Postol Law Firm: https://www.postollawfirm.com/joshua

Josiah Clark v. Officer Perry — 7th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Josiah Clark's challenge to Cook County Jail's wheelchair policy. Another detainee beat Clark with a removable wheelchair arm, injuring him. Clark sued jail officials, and the district court granted summary judgment, ending his case without a trial. The appeal focuses on whether the sheriff's wheelchair policy made the local government responsible for that attack. This is a Monell claim: the government's own policy or custom must cause a constitutional injury. Clark's lawyer will ask for a jury trial, pointing to sixteen documented incidents involving wheelchair parts used as weapons. The district judge found that officials had tested alternatives and balanced safety against disabled detainees' medical needs. The disputed standard is deliberate indifference—consciously disregarding a known or obvious risk to constitutional rights, not merely making a careless decision. The defense lawyer will contend that officials' response was a reasoned safety decision, not deliberate indifference. Josiah Clark v. Officer Perry (No. 25-2595) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 18, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2595.25-2595_09_18_2026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District court opinion, Aug. 13, 2025, docket 123 — N.D. Illinois (court document mirrored by Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2019cv07131/370173/123/0.pdf Appellate docket — Seventh Circuit (docket mirrored by Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2595 Glisson v. Indiana Department of Corrections — Seventh Circuit, en banc (court opinion mirrored by Justia): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/15-1419/15-1419-2017-02-21.html Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — rule text, Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Matthew L. Stewart v. Nissan North America, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 02, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Matthew Stewart's age-discrimination appeal against Nissan. During a reorganization, Nissan eliminated his job. He applied for other positions but was not hired, and his employment ended. The district court granted Nissan summary judgment, ending the lawsuit without a trial. This appeal concerns one rejected application: a senior fixed operations manager job, called P5 in the record. Lisa Clay will argue for Stewart that Nissan's broader treatment of older employees casts doubt on that hiring decision. Nissan's lawyer will contend that it chose another applicant for his more recent, relevant after-sales experience. The judges will ask whether that explanation is pretext—a cover for age discrimination—or an honestly held hiring judgment. Matthew L. Stewart v. Nissan North America, Inc. (No. 25-2790) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-2790.25-2790_09_29_2026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District court opinion, Sept. 19, 2025, docket 204 — N.D. Illinois (court text mirrored by Midpage): https://app.midpage.ai/document/stewart-v-nissan-north-america-11141328 Appellate docket and counsel — Seventh Circuit (docket mirrored by Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2790 Cunningham v. Austin — Seventh Circuit (court opinion mirrored by Justia): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/24-1133/24-1133-2025-01-03.html

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected