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:

United States, Appellant v. Rodney Taylor — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears a federal sentencing appeal. A jury convicted Rodney Taylor of illegally possessing a gun and ammunition. At sentencing, the judge found that he had used that gun in a killing. His prior convictions also triggered the Armed Career Criminal Act, and he received life in prison. More than twenty years later, a district judge ruled that a Florida marijuana conviction no longer counted under that Act and reduced his sentence to thirty years. The government appeals. Can compassionate release account for this legal development, or must Taylor use the separate process for challenging a sentence? United States, Appellant v. Rodney Taylor (No. 24-11902) — 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/24-11902_09302026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Sentence-reduction order and case history — U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-9_03-cr-80029/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-9_03-cr-80029-1.pdf Original conviction and sentence — Eleventh Circuit 2006 opinion: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/200516252.pdf Marijuana-predicate ruling — Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Latson: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201914934.pdf Unusually long sentence policy — U.S. Sentencing Commission § 1B1.13(b)(6): https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-1 Compassionate release statute — 18 U.S.C. § 3582: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section3582 Post-conviction sentence challenges — 28 U.S.C. § 2255: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2255 Current appeal docket — Eleventh Circuit public docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-11902

Libertarian Party of Georgia, Inc., et al., Appellants v. Attorney General, State of Georgia, et al. — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears a challenge to Georgia's campaign fundraising rules. State law lets the governor, lieutenant governor, and certain party nominees form leadership committees that can accept donations beyond ordinary candidate limits. The Libertarian and Green parties nominate by convention. They say this gives major-party campaigns a fundraising advantage, so they sued state officials. A federal judge dismissed the suit without deciding whether the law is constitutional, finding that the parties had not shown a concrete enough injury. This appeal asks whether they have standing to bring the case now. Libertarian Party of Georgia, Inc., et al., Appellants v. Attorney General, State of Georgia, et al. (No. 25-12553) — 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/25-12553_09302026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Appellate docket and attorney appearances — Eleventh Circuit public docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-12553 District dismissal and case background — Ballot Access News: https://ballot-access.org/2025/07/21/u-s-district-court-says-libertarian-party-lacks-standing-to-challenge-unequal-contribution-limits-in-georgia-gubernatorial-elections/ Original lawsuit and fundraising issue — Ballot Access News: https://ballot-access.org/2025/04/18/april-2025-ballot-access-news-print-edition/ Leadership committee statute — Georgia Code § 21-5-34.2: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-21/chapter-5/article-2/section-21-5-34-2/ Political-body nomination rule — Georgia Secretary of State, Rule 189-8-.01: https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/189-8 Associational standing — U.S. Supreme Court, Hunt v. Washington State Apple: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/432/333 Bryan Sells biography — Law Office of Bryan L. Sells: https://www.bryansellslaw.com/about David Dove biography — Troutman Pepper Locke: https://www.troutman.com/professionals/david-blanton-dove/

Stallone v. Kopp — 2d Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Jerome Stallone's challenge to a New York robbery and burglary conviction. In 2016, a jewelry store in Southampton was robbed. Witnesses identified Stallone, and a jury convicted him. At trial, a medical assistant said she had seen him ride a bicycle just over two weeks after hip-replacement surgery. Stallone disputed that account, but initially told the judge he did not want to testify. After both sides had finished presenting evidence, he asked to address it. He now says he wanted to take the stand; New York's appeals court found that he had asked only to put a statement into the record. A federal judge later denied his habeas petition. The judges here will examine that factual dispute, his claimed right to testify, and whether federal law permits them to overturn the state court's decision. Stallone v. Kopp (No. 25-94) — 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/25-94.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html State direct-appeal opinion — New York Appellate Division: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2022/2022_02439.htm Federal habeas opinion — U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y.: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/stallone-v-kopp-1061412295 State-court habeas review standard — 28 U.S.C. § 2254: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2254 Paul Skip Laisure biography — attorney website: https://paulskiplaisure.com/ Attorney admission — Second Circuit: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/Docs/AttAdm/AdmL.pdf

Wheely USA, Inc. v. The City of New York — 2d Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Wheely's challenge to a New York City rule for licensed car-service dispatchers. Wheely is a London-based chauffeur app expanding into the city. Each month, dispatchers must send the Taxi and Limousine Commission records for every trip: when it happened, which driver and vehicle took it, and where passengers were picked up and dropped off. The records do not include passenger names. Wheely says the location details can still reveal private movements and that the Fourth Amendment protects its company records. New York City says the reports help enforce driver-hour limits and investigate safety complaints. A federal judge rejected Wheely's claims and entered final judgment for the city. On appeal, the judges will consider whether this industry permits such reporting without a warrant, whether all of that location data is justified, and whether companies can challenge the demand before complying or facing penalties. Wheely USA, Inc. v. The City of New York (No. 26-956) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-956.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court final opinion and dismissal — U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2026cv01057/657570/50 Appeal docket and counsel — Second Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-956 Trip-reporting rule — NYC Rules § 59B-19: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCrules/0-0-0-69155 Trip-data purpose and enforcement — NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission: https://www.nyc.gov/assets/tlc/downloads/pdf/trip-record-submission-fhv-bases-2021-06-22.pdf Wheely's case position — Wheely: https://wheely.com/en/newsroom/wheely-v-nyc Independent hearing report — Courthouse News Service: https://www.courthousenews.com/nyc-chauffeurs-challenge-citys-ride-hail-data-tracking-at-second-circuit/ Alex Drylewski firm biography — Skadden: https://www.skadden.com/professionals/d/drylewski-alexander-c Alex Drylewski case-linked court filing — U.S. District Court: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2026cv01057/657570/49/0.pdf Closely regulated industry inspection standard — New York v. Burger, U.S. Supreme Court: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/691/ Article 78 procedure — New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/A78

Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

A Christian mission in Yakima, Washington, asks whether it may require all its employees to share its faith, including an IT technician and an operations assistant. The mission runs shelters, meal services, health clinics, and recovery programs. Washington law bars hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation. After a 2021 state Supreme Court ruling limited the law's exemption for religious nonprofits to ministerial jobs, the mission sued before the state brought an enforcement action. A federal judge temporarily barred enforcement against the mission's faith-based hiring for non-ministerial roles. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel upheld that order, but its opinion was vacated when the court agreed to rehear the case. Now eleven judges will consider whether the injunction should remain, whether a live dispute exists, and how far the First Amendment protects a religious organization's hiring choices. Union Gospel Mission of Yakima Washington v. Brown, et al. (No. 24-7246) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/29/24-7246.mp3 Argument listing and date — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-7246&hearingDate=2026-09-29 En banc order vacating the panel opinion — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/18/24-7246.pdf Preliminary injunction — U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/yakima-v-washington-preliminary-injunction.pdf Earlier panel opinion (vacated; cited only for case history) — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/06/24-7246.pdf Woods decision — Washington Supreme Court: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/961328.pdf State hiring law and bona fide occupational qualification — RCW 49.60.180: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.60.180 Religious-nonprofit employer exemption — RCW 49.60.040: https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.60.040 Bona fide occupational qualification rule — WAC 162-16-240: https://app.leg.wa.gov/Wac/default.aspx?cite=162-16-240 Mission programs and services — Yakima Union Gospel Mission: https://yugm.org/programs/ Mission hiring policy — Yakima Union Gospel Mission: https://yugm.org/employment/ Advocate and party position — Alliance Defending Freedom: https://adfmedia.org/press-release/9th-circuit-to-decide-whether-christian-homeless-ministry-must-hire-people-who-reject-its-faith/ Independent argument reporting and counsel identities — Courthouse News: https://courthousenews.com/washington-defends-religious-hiring-law-before-full-ninth-circuit/

Scott Johnstone, Appellant v. Discover Bank — 11th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears Scott Johnstone's appeal against Discover Bank. While he was incarcerated, Johnstone says money was taken from his bank accounts without permission. He and his sister reported suspected fraud, and Discover later froze the accounts. A federal judge ruled for Discover without a trial, finding that Johnstone's written notice came too late under the account agreement and that he had not shown a contractual promise the bank broke. That ruling is summary judgment, available only when no material fact is genuinely disputed. The judges will examine when the withdrawals began, when Discover received notice, and whether the bank could be responsible for later transactions. Scott Johnstone, Appellant v. Discover Bank (No. 25-11458) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11458_09292026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Appellate docket and counsel — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-11458 Case facts and district-court ruling — Southwestern Association of Bank Counsel: https://member.texasbankers.com/common/Uploaded%20files/TexasBankLawyer/TBL_Vol49No04-Sept2025.pdf Summary-judgment standard — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Deborah McKinzie v. Conduent HR Services, LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Deborah McKinzie's appeal against Conduent HR Services. From two thousand fifteen to two thousand twenty-three, she administered benefits for Conduent's client, Delta Air Lines. She says she worked unpaid overtime and that Conduent fired her after she requested medical leave. Conduent says her work qualified for an administrative overtime exemption and that it selected her for a layoff months before the leave request. McKinzie also alleged age discrimination. A district judge ruled for Conduent without a trial. That is summary judgment: a ruling that no material factual dispute needs a trial. The judges will examine McKinzie's actual duties, the layoff timeline, and how the lower court handled contested facts. The overtime exemption depends on what an employee actually does, not just a job title. The Family and Medical Leave Act protects eligible medical leave and bars interference or retaliation. Kelechi Asonye will press McKinzie's appeal; Stephen Scott will defend Conduent's judgment. Deborah McKinzie v. Conduent HR Services, LLC (No. 26-1470) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 28, 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/gw.26-1470.26-1470_09_28_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit recordings index: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Appellate docket and advocates — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1470 Case facts and summary-judgment ruling — Northern District of Illinois order, Counsel Stack mirror: https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deborah-mckinzie-v-conduent-hr-services-llc-ilnd-2026 Administrative overtime exemption — U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17c-overtime-administrative Medical-leave protections — U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla/how-to-talk-to-your-employer-about-leave Summary-judgment rule — U.S. Courts, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: https://www.uscourts.gov/file/19895/download

Alonzo Smith v. Richard Daley — 7th Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a fight over former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's videotaped testimony. Alonzo Smith says Chicago detectives tortured him into a false murder confession. He spent nearly twenty years in prison; his convictions were vacated and the charges dismissed in two thousand fifteen. Smith sued Daley and others over the alleged abuse. Daley gave a video deposition, meaning sworn testimony taken before trial, but a protective order barred release of the recording. The suit settled, and documentary filmmaker Bob Hercules asked a judge to lift the order. The judge refused, treating the video as unfiled discovery rather than a public court record, and crediting Daley's medical privacy. Federal Rule twenty-six allows a protective order for good cause. Hercules will argue no judge actually found good cause to keep this particular video confidential, and that public interest favors release. Daley will argue the order was justified, remains binding, and protects his medical privacy. Stephen Match of Loevy and Loevy will argue for Hercules; Terrence Burns of Burns Noland will argue for Daley. Alonzo Smith v. Richard Daley (No. 25-2933) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 28, 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/gw.25-2933.25-2933_09_28_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit recordings index: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Appellate docket and advocates — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2933 Original civil-rights allegations and procedural history — 2016 district-court order, Justia mirror: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2016cv03404/324207/70/ Video-deposition protective order and ruling — 2025 district-court order, Justia mirror: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2016cv03404/324207/320/ Smith case background and settlement — Chicago Sun-Times: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/3/5/18412957/5-25-million-settlement-adds-to-legal-tally-from-burge-era-police-torture-cases Smith conviction disposition — Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission: https://tirc.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/tirc/documents/minutes/2019.4.17%20MINUTES%20FINAL-APPROVED.1.0.pdf Protective-order rule — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Bob Hercules film biography — AREA 2 documentary team: https://www.area2film.com/the-film Stephen Stich Match — Loevy + Loevy: https://www.loevy.com/attorneys/stephen-stich-match/ Terrence M. Burns — Burns Noland: https://burnsnoland.com/attorneys/terrence-burns/

United States v. Douglas Gibson — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Douglas Gibson's challenge to a forty-year sentence. Federal prosecutors say he secretly recorded a child with hidden cameras in the child's home. He later pleaded guilty to child sexual exploitation and to committing a felony while required to register as a sex offender. A two thousand ten Indiana sexual-misconduct-with-a-minor conviction now matters to his sentence. If it qualifies under a federal repeat-offender provision, the minimum prison term for sexual exploitation rises from fifteen to twenty-five years, and the maximum from thirty to fifty. To decide whether the prior conviction qualifies, judges compare the legal elements of the state crime with the federal benchmark, not simply the facts of Gibson's earlier conduct. A key question is whether Indiana's statute defines separate offenses or different ways to commit one offense. Gibson will argue that the state law reaches conduct beyond the federal benchmark and that the trial judge supplied a new legal theory the prosecutors had not offered. The government will argue that the conviction qualifies and that a judge may resolve the legal question without waiting for a party to spell out every theory. Assistant Federal Defender Jacob Leon will argue for Gibson; Assistant United States Attorney Brian Reitz will argue for the government. United States v. Douglas Gibson (No. 25-2446) — 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.25-2446.25-2446_09_29_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit calendar: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/oralArgCal/getOralArgCalendar.pl Case background and sentence — U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Indiana: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdin/pr/convicted-sex-offender-sentenced-40-years-federal-prison-secretly-recording-minor-home Original charges — U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Indiana: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdin/pr/lebanon-sex-offender-charged-sexual-exploitation-child-using-hidden-cameras Case background — Current Publishing: https://youarecurrent.com/2025/08/25/boone-county-man-convicted-of-sexual-exploitation-of-a-minor/ Repeat-offender sentencing law — 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section2251 Indiana sexual-misconduct law in 2010 — Indiana Code, Justia mirror: https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2010/title35/ar42/ch4.html Categorical approach and divisibility — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/primers/2024_Primer_Categorical_Approach.pdf Related Seventh Circuit precedent — United States v. Schatz: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026%2FD06-09%2FC%3A24-2252%3AJ%3AKolar%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3555194%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display Jacob Leon — Indiana Federal Community Defenders: https://www.indianafederaldefender.org/team/jacob-leon/ Brian Reitz identified as assistant U.S. attorney — original filing in Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-6500/162314/20201202101538518_20-12-02_Appx_Vol_2.pdf

Baptist Healthcare of Oklahoma, LLC v. Kennedy — D.C. Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears two Oklahoma hospitals challenge a Medicare payment decision about psychiatric care for children. In two thousand seven, INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center ran Spencer, and INTEGRIS Bass Baptist Health Center ran Meadowlake, both child and adolescent psychiatric facilities away from the hospitals' main campuses. Both offered acute psychiatric care and longer residential treatment; Oklahoma Medicaid classified about ninety-five percent of Spencer's patient days and ninety-eight percent of Meadowlake's as residential care. Medicare's disproportionate-share adjustment gives hospitals extra payments linked to the share of patients with low incomes; one part of its formula counts inpatient days for Medicaid-eligible patients. The hospitals included those days, but a Medicare contractor removed them, reducing the hospitals' expected payments. An HHS review board upheld the exclusion, and a federal district judge later ruled for the agency. The hospitals will argue that these units were never certified as separate psychiatric parts of their hospitals, so their patient days should count. HHS will argue that the units mainly provided residential rather than acute hospital care, so those days fall outside this Medicare adjustment. Stephanie Webster will argue for the hospitals; Alexander White will defend the agency's decision. Baptist Healthcare of Oklahoma, LLC v. Kennedy (No. 25-5358) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5358.mp3 Argument date and advocates — D.C. Circuit recordings index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Administrative decision and facility record — CMS Provider Reimbursement Review Board: https://www.cms.gov/files/document/2023-d5.pdf District-court opinion — original judicial filing, Justia mirror: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2023cv00625/252869/32/0.pdf Appeal docket and Webster appearance — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-5358 Medicare DSH statute — 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww, U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:1395ww%20edition:prelim) Medicare DSH explanation — HHS: https://www.hhs.gov/guidance/document/disproportionate-share-hospital-dsh

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected