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:

Ramnarine Boodoo v. Lifepoint Health Inc., et al. — 11th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Oct 01, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears Boodoo versus Lifepoint Health. Dr. Boodoo treated psychiatric patients at an Alabama hospital. He and another psychiatrist sued hospitals and medical providers, alleging Medicare was billed for improper inpatient care. Boodoo contends that hospitals admitted Medicare patients without meeting the program's admission requirements. The district court dismissed the fraud claims before trial, finding that the complaint did not reliably identify false bills actually submitted to the government. Separate retaliation claims and later dismissal paperwork complicated the route to appeal. Boodoo seeks to revive the fraud claims, but first the judges must decide whether there is a valid final judgment to appeal, and whether the appeal was timely. Ramnarine Boodoo v. Lifepoint Health Inc., et al. (No. 24-12809) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-12809_09292026.mp3 Argument listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=1 Argument calendar — Eleventh Circuit Calendar 23: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal23%28PanelRelease%29.pdf District court dismissal — memorandum opinion, Doc. 69: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/alabama/alndce/2%3A2021cv00569/176887/69/ Counsel appearances — separate retaliation appeal, 24-12266: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-12266 Employment background — separate retaliation appeal, 24-12266: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202412266.pdf Counsel — Benjamin Bucy, Barrasso Usdin: https://www.barrassousdin.com/attorneys-Ben-Bucy.html Counsel firm corroboration — Federal Bar Association: https://www.fedbar.org/event/fca-louisiana/ False Claims Act — 31 U.S.C. § 3729: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 Private whistleblower actions — 31 U.S.C. § 3730: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3730 Fraud pleading — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_9 Voluntary dismissal — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 Rule 41 precedent — City of Jacksonville v. Jacksonville Hospitality Holdings: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212419.pdf Entry of judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58 Appeal clock — Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_4 Final decisions — 28 U.S.C. § 1291: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1291

Catelyn H. v. Boyd Gaming Corporation, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 01, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Catelyn H.'s lawsuit against Las Vegas casino operators. She says a trafficker forced her to seek paying sex customers inside casinos. She alleges that the casinos facilitated and profited from that activity. She sued Boyd Gaming, the Venetian and the Mirage under federal anti-trafficking law. A federal district court in Nevada dismissed her claims before trial, finding her allegations insufficient to establish the casinos' responsibility. She seeks to revive the lawsuit. The appeal concerns what the complaint must allege about the casinos' conduct and knowledge of coercion, not whether a jury has found those allegations true. Catelyn H. v. Boyd Gaming Corporation, et al. (No. 25-4555) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/15/25-4555.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4555&hearingDate=2026-09-15 District court dismissal order — March 26, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2024cv00939/168689/90/0.pdf?ts=1743166320 Appellate docket and counsel appearances: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-4555 Filed counsel signatures — district court document 63: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2024cv00939/168689/63 Boyd counsel confirmation — district court document 102: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2024cv00939/168689/102/0.pdf Jonathan Hilton — Hilton Parker: https://hiltonparker.com/ Hilton firm confirmation — Ohio court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2024/2024-Ohio-5218.pdf Amanda Kramer — Covington and Burling: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/k/amanda-kramer David Sager — DLA Piper: https://www.dlapiper.com/en/people/s/sager-david-s 18 U.S.C. § 1595 — civil remedy: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1595 18 U.S.C. § 1591 — sex-trafficking offense: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591 Elonis v. United States — mental-state terminology: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/723/ 28 U.S.C. § 46 — appellate panels and en banc hearings: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/46 Ninth Circuit General Orders — en banc procedure: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/general_orders/General%20Orders.pdf Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_9 Ashcroft v. Iqbal — general allegations and plausibility: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/662/

SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. — 2d Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Oct 01, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears a royalty dispute between SoundExchange and Sirius XM. SoundExchange collects payments for recording owners and performers. Sirius sells subscriptions combining satellite radio and internet streaming. SoundExchange says Sirius assigned too much of those subscriptions' revenue to streaming, reducing the satellite royalties it owed. It sued in 2023, also claiming an underpayment revealed by an audit. The case moved from Virginia to New York. In 2025, the district court dismissed it without deciding whether Sirius had underpaid. The appeal asks a threshold question: does Section 114 of the Copyright Act allow SoundExchange itself to sue for those royalties? SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. (No. 25-2150) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2150.mp3 Official argument date and listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court's August 7, 2025 memorandum and order — court record mirrored by Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv05491/625140/86/0.pdf Original August 16, 2023 complaint — filed pleading supplied by SoundExchange: https://www.soundexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Complaint-SoundExchange-v.-Sirius51.pdf Appellate docket and counsel appearances — court records mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2150 District docket and transfer history — court records mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv05491/625140 Paul Clement — Clement and Murphy: https://www.clementmurphy.com/who-we-are/paul-clement/ Paul Clement's firm affiliation — September 2026 Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-316/422987/20260903191952638_26-XXX%20Apple%20Inc.%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari%20.pdf Drew Tulumello — Weil, Gotshal and Manges: https://www.weil.com/people/drew-tulumello Andrew Santo Tulumello — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/196484 Copyright Act, including Sections 101, 114 and 115 — U.S. Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html Sound recordings and underlying works — U.S. Copyright Office Circular 56: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf Contextual limits of expressio unius — Marx v. General Revenue, Supreme Court opinion mirrored by Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/568/371/ Unjust enrichment — Corsello v. Verizon, New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_02343.htm Unjust enrichment — Rynasko v. NYU, Second Circuit opinion mirrored by Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/21-1333/21-1333-2023-03-23.html Current implied-right-of-action precedent — FS Credit Opportunities v. Saba Capital, U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-345_i42k.pdf

Kendon Industries, LLC v. Towblazer, Inc., et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Oct 01, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute between manufacturers of folding motorcycle trailers. Kendon and Towblazer ended patent litigation with a settlement in 2007. That agreement restricted sales of foldable, stand-up trailers. Kendon later sued Towblazer and Troy Shockley over trailer sales, and a jury found that they had breached the settlement. Kendon won about one point eight million dollars in damages. Towblazer and Shockley are now asking the appeals court to overturn that judgment. Kendon Industries, LLC v. Towblazer, Inc., et al. (No. 25-1656) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/14/25-1656.mp3 Official argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1656&hearingDate=2026-09-14 District court judgment — U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/8%3A2023cv00732/882797/216/0.pdf Appellate docket and counsel appearances — court records mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-1656 Trial and settlement background — Kendon's counsel, Buether Joe and Counselors: https://www.bjciplaw.com/post/bjc-secures-federal-court-win-for-kendon-industries-in-breach-of-contract-case Dan Goldman — Bienert Katzman Littrell Williams: https://bklwlaw.com/team/daniel-goldman/ Daniel Z. Goldman — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/342368 Kenneth Paul Kula — Nebraska State Bar Association: https://www.nebar.com/members/?id=26353980 Antitrust standards — Texaco v. Dagher, U.S. Supreme Court: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep547/usrep547001/usrep547001.pdf Antitrust standards — United States v. Joyce, Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/11/17-10269.pdf Sua sponte — federal courts' legal glossary: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary Sua sponte — Shah v. Holder, Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2013%2FD12-04%2FC%3A12-3658%3AJ%3AEasterbrook%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A1252026%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

Isaiah Wilkins v. Pete Hegseth — 4th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The full Fourth Circuit hears again a challenge to the military's rule barring people with HIV from joining. Isaiah Wilkins lost his place at the U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School after an HIV diagnosis. Two other applicants were also denied entry. All three have HIV that is asymptomatic and suppressed by treatment. A federal judge initially blocked the rule for people in that position. A three-judge appeals panel later reversed, but its ruling was vacated when the full court agreed to rehear the case. The military says its entry standards protect worldwide deployability and deserve judicial deference. The applicants say the HIV rule ignores modern treatment. The judges also question whether the trial court applied the right standards to the constitutional and agency-law claims. Isaiah Wilkins v. Pete Hegseth (No. 24-2079) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/24-2079-20260914.mp3 En banc argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/en-banc-cases Order granting rehearing en banc — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/242079R1.U.pdf District court ruling — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2022cv01272/530787/159/0.pdf Plaintiffs' appellate brief — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/wilkins-v-hegseth-appellee-brief.pdf Vacated panel opinion, for procedural and case history only — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/242079.P.pdf Order partially staying the injunction pending appeal — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/242079R2.P.pdf

Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited v. Steven Ivankovich — 7th Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a fight over nearly one and a half million dollars in an escrow account. Zhu Zhai Holdings and Peter Lee lent money to companies controlled by Steven Ivankovich, who guaranteed repayment. After the borrowers failed to pay, the creditors won a judgment against him. Trying to collect, they found escrow money held by Walker and Dunlop, which was deposited with the court. Several Pilgrim companies intervened, saying the money was theirs, not Ivankovich's. A court-appointed special master found that Ivankovich controlled the funds, and the district judge adopted that finding, but has not ordered the money paid out. The companies appealed. The panel first asks whether that order is final enough to appeal; if so, it must decide whether ownership follows the companies' title or Ivankovich's actual control. Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited v. Steven Ivankovich (No. 25-2561) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 25, 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.25-2561.25-2561_09_25_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Prior judgment — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Path=Y2022%2FD05-06%2FC%3A21-3038%3AJ%3APerCuriam%3Aaut%3AT%3AnpDp%3AN%3A2873058%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display Loan and judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2020cv04985/385346/91/0.pdf Escrow and disbursement order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2020cv04985/385346/420/0.pdf Consolidated appeal docket — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3185 Counsel biography — Konicek & Dillon: https://www.konicekdillonlaw.com/attorney/tahmassebi-amir-r/

United States v. Andre Adams, Jr., Appellant — 11th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears an appeal by Andre Adams after a jury convicted him of drug and gun crimes. Detectives investigating suspected sales at a Bradenton home obtained warrants to search the home and a storage unit; they found drugs and firearms. The trial judge refused to exclude that evidence. Adams says the home-warrant affidavit left out a key detail: fentanyl residue in the trash was found inside a pill bottle bearing someone else's name. He wants a Franks hearing, where he could challenge the affidavit's truthfulness. The judges will ask whether he supplied the preliminary proof that such a hearing requires, and whether the omitted detail could have changed the warrant decision. United States v. Andre Adams, Jr., Appellant (No. 24-14034) — 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/24-14034_09292026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0&title=24- Suppression report and recommendation — U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida: https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-00012-49-8-cr= Order denying suppression — U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida: https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023-00012-61-8-cr= Verdict and investigative background — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/bradenton-felon-sentenced-nineteen-years-federal-prison Appeal docket and counsel — Eleventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-14034 Franks hearing standard — Franks v. Delaware, Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-438/pdf/USREPORTS-438-154.pdf

United States v. Trujillo — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Daniel Trujillo's appeal from a 70-month sentence for illegal reentry. The federal judge applied a ten-level guideline increase based on an earlier felony conviction. Here, the disputed requirement is whether the earlier sentence reached five years. Trujillo challenges that increase and also says 70 months is too severe given how long ago much of his past conduct occurred. The government defends both. Because he did not object to the increase at sentencing, the judges review that issue for plain error. United States v. Trujillo (No. 25-2124) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-2124.mp3 Argument listing and date — 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=09%2F30%2F2026 Appeal docket and counsel — Tenth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-2124 Case issues summary — Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf Illegal-reentry sentencing guideline — U.S. Sentencing Commission, 2024 Manual § 2L1.2: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/CHAPTER_2_L-X.pdf Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf Plain-error review — United States v. Olano, Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-507/USREPORTS-507-725

Sparks v. Holland — 2d Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Yusuf Sparks's appeal. After a 2016 fight at Clinton Correctional Facility, an officer said he found a weapon on Sparks; Sparks says it was planted and alleges that officers assaulted him. Sparks sued prison officials for civil-rights violations. A district judge dismissed his remaining claims, finding that he had not completed the prison grievance process. Sparks says the defendants' one-sentence exhaustion defense was too vague and came too late. The defendants say their answer and later discovery gave him notice. The court must decide whether that defense was properly preserved. Sparks v. Holland (No. 25-2753) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2753.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case history and summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd-9_19-cv-01269/pdf/USCOURTS-nynd-9_19-cv-01269-0.pdf Appeal docket and counsel — Second Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2753 Prison grievance requirement — 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title42-section1997e Failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense — Jones v. Bock: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-549/pdf/USREPORTS-549-199.pdf

A.R.M.R. v. USA — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a case arising from the first weeks of the pandemic. In March 2020, a pregnant woman entered the United States intending to seek asylum. She gave birth to a daughter here. Federal border officers then expelled the family to Mexico under a public-health order. The mother and her U.S.-citizen daughter sued the United States, alleging wrongful detention and expulsion. A district judge dismissed their claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act's quarantine exception. Does a policy of suspending entry and expelling people count as a quarantine, including for a child born in the United States? A.R.M.R. v. USA (No. 26-1218) — 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/gw.26-1218.26-1218_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 Case history and dismissal order — U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilsd-3_24-cv-02416/pdf/USCOURTS-ilsd-3_24-cv-02416-0.pdf Federal tort claims against the United States — 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28+section%3A1346%28b%29+edition%3Aprelim%29 Quarantine exception — 28 U.S.C. § 2680(f): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2680 Appeal docket and advocate appearances — Seventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1218

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected