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 v. Victor Grandy — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Victor Grandy's appeal over ending federal supervision early. In the early nineteen nineties, Grandy was convicted in a crack-cocaine distribution case, and the Ninth Circuit upheld his life sentence. He left prison in twenty nineteen after nearly three decades and now works as an artist known as L.W.D. He says he has spent more than seven years under supervised release without a violation. Supervised release is court-ordered monitoring after prison; federal law lets a judge end it after one year when the person's conduct and the interests of justice warrant it. Grandy asked for that relief, but the district judge refused. He says the judge relied on mistaken recidivism figures, meaning statistics about reoffending, from a study neither side had cited. The government now agrees the judge had authority to end supervision, but says the denial can stand. Alex Botoman, a Los Angeles federal public defender, will argue first for Grandy. United States v. Victor Grandy (No. 25-4491) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/14/25-4491.mp3 Argument date and docket — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4491&hearingDate=2026-09-14 Original convictions and life sentence — Ninth Circuit 1994 memorandum (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/37/1507/508972/ L.W.D. artist exhibition — Sade Gallery: https://www.sade-la.com/ Victor Grandy / L.W.D. artist biography — KADIST: https://kadist.org/people/l-w-d/ Early termination rule — 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section3583 Post-conviction supervision policy — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/post-conviction-supervision-policies Federal drug-trafficking recidivism study — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-federal-drug-trafficking-offenders-released-2010 Alex Botoman — Federal Public Defender, Central District of California: https://fpdcdca.org/our-office/our-staff/?letter=B Nicholas Purcell identified as AUSA — Drug Enforcement Administration: https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2025/09/17/oxnard-men-charged-being-prolific-sinaloa-linked-drug-traffickers-ventura

Chanel, Inc. v. What Comes Around Goes Around LLC — 2d Cir. (Sep 21, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit hears Chanel, Incorporated versus What Comes Around Goes Around. The defendant sells secondhand luxury goods under the name What Goes Around Comes Around. Chanel sued over its use of Chanel branding and the sale of Chanel-labeled bags, some carrying serial numbers stolen from an authorized factory. A jury found willful counterfeiting and awarded Chanel four million dollars in statutory damages, two million for each of two trademarks. Statutory damages need not match a proved loss from those particular sales. The reseller argues that the judge's counterfeit instruction left out a statutory exception tied to goods made by a manufacturer authorized to use the mark, and seeks a new trial. Chanel says the instruction and verdict should stand. The panel also probes the size of the award and a separate ruling on litigation costs. Chanel, Inc. v. What Comes Around Goes Around LLC (No. 25-722) — 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/25-722.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html 2022 summary-judgment opinion — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2018cv02253/490152/276/ 2025 post-trial opinion — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2018cv02253/490152/537/ Final judgment — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Justia mirror): https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2018cv02253/490152/505/ Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-722 15 U.S.C. § 1116 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A15+section%3A1116+edition%3Aprelim%29 15 U.S.C. § 1117 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section1117 Amy Mason Saharia — Williams & Connolly: https://www.wc.com/attorney/Amy-Mason-Saharia/ Ted C. Max — Sheppard Mullin: https://www.sheppardmullin.com/attorneys-547.html

Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company v. Tilma, Inc. — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hears Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company versus Tilma, Incorporated. In an earlier lawsuit, a woman alleged that sex traffickers exploited her from 2012 to 2014 at a Chesapeake, Virginia hotel operated by Tilma. She alleged the hotel ignored warning signs; that lawsuit later settled. Tilma's insurers then asked a federal court to declare that their policies required neither a legal defense nor payment of the settlement. The district court disagreed, finding that the policy's coverage for false detention or imprisonment could apply to the allegations. The appeal asks whether the allegations trigger a duty to defend and, separately, whether the insurers must pay the settlement. Under Virginia law, a potentially covered allegation can trigger a defense even if liability has not been proved. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company v. Tilma, Inc. (No. 25-1980) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 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/mp3/25-1980-20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Coverage opinion — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Justia mirror): https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2024cv00492/558354/49 Underlying lawsuit opinion — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/2:2024cv00204/551336/64/ District docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/virginia/vaedce/2%3A2024cv00492/558354 Nancy D. Adams — Mintz: https://www.mintz.com/our-people/nancy-d-adams Christopher M. Seelie — Kaufman & Canoles: https://www.kaufcan.com/professionals

Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega — 5th Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit revisits the detention of three men who entered the United States without inspection and later built families in Texas. Ignacio Sosnava Rodriguez arrived in 2004; Alejandro Villegas Angel and Miguel Angel Gomez Alvarado arrived in 2011 and 2012. All three have U.S.-citizen children and no criminal history; immigration agents detained each after a traffic stop in late 2025 or early 2026. While removal proceedings were pending, the government held them under Section 1225, which it reads to require detention without an ordinary bond hearing. They filed habeas petitions, asking federal judges to test their confinement, and judges in Texas ordered their release after finding that detention without individual review violated due process. The government appealed; a three-judge panel affirmed in July, but the full Fifth Circuit vacated that opinion and is rehearing the appeals together. The question is their detention while removal proceedings continue, not whether they may ultimately stay in the country. Drew Ensign of the Justice Department will argue that Congress can require this detention without a bond hearing. Rebecca Cassler of the American Immigration Council will argue that the Fifth Amendment requires individualized review for these longtime residents. Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega (No. 26-50183) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/26/26-50183_9-24-2026.mp3 Argument date and consolidated cases — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-09-24 Case background — vacated July panel opinion (historical facts only): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca5-26-50219/pdf/USCOURTS-ca5-26-50219-0.pdf Order vacating panel opinion for en banc review — Fifth Circuit: https://nipnlg.org/sites/default/files/2026-07/fifth-circuit-appeals-order-vacating-panel-decision.pdf Government's opening brief — Fifth Circuit filing: https://nipnlg.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/Sosnava-Govt-Opening-Brief.pdf Petitioners' supplemental en banc brief — Fifth Circuit filing: https://nipnlg.org/sites/default/files/2026-09/Sosnava-Appellees-Supp-En-Banc-Brief.pdf 8 U.S.C. § 1225 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1225 Entry doctrine — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-161_g314.pdf Facial and as-applied challenges — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-6-6/ALDE_00013008/

Andra v. MobileOne — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears a dispute over why Todd Andra lost his job at MobileOne. In 2022, MobileOne bought The Mobile Source, a phone retailer owned by Andra's brother, and hired Andra under a three-year contract to manage its Rockies region. The contract allowed termination for cause without severance, but required written notice and time to cure a material breach; a separate clause addressed poor performance after counseling and clear objectives. After Andra sent disparaging messages about company leaders to a subordinate, MobileOne warned him in July; later complaints about his management brought further notices and coaching. He sent more disparaging texts during that process, and MobileOne fired him for cause in January 2023. Andra sued, arguing that the company shortchanged his contractual chance to improve and exercised its discretion unfairly; a Utah federal judge entered summary judgment for MobileOne. Summary judgment means the judge found no genuine dispute of material fact requiring a trial; this appeal asks whether a jury should instead decide the contested issues. When counsel mentions Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5, those are clauses of the employment contract, not statutes. The panel also considers the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: whether MobileOne used its contractual discretion in a way that unfairly denied Andra the contract's benefit. Michael Stanger of Strong and Hanni will argue first for Andra that the notice and cure conditions were unmet and his criticism was not necessarily disloyal. Michelle Quist of Buchalter will argue for MobileOne that it gave ample warning and time to cure, and that Andra's later messages breached his duty of loyalty. Andra v. MobileOne (No. 25-4134) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-4134.mp3 Argument date and docket — 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 Summary-judgment order and case background — U.S. District Court for Utah: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_23-cv-00188/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_23-cv-00188-9.pdf Earlier case background and venue order — U.S. District Court for Utah: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2023cv00188/138526/31/ Appeal docket and counsel — Tenth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-4134 Summary-judgment rule — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure Michael Stanger — Strong & Hanni: https://strongandhanni.com/attorneys/attorney-michael-stanger/ Michelle Quist — Buchalter: https://www.buchalter.com/lawyer/michelle-quist/

Cary Williams v. William Gittere — 9th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit revisits a Nevada death sentence. In 1982, Cary Williams broke into Katherine Carlson's Reno home. Carlson was eight months pregnant; Williams stabbed her, and both she and her unborn child died. He pleaded guilty to burglary, murder, and manslaughter, and three judges sentenced him to death. Two of the four aggravating factors—statutory reasons weighed toward death—were later struck, but the sentence stood. In 2018, this court ordered a hearing on whether Williams's trial lawyer failed to investigate childhood abuse and trauma as mitigating evidence—facts that might have supported a life sentence. The district court held that hearing and denied relief. Williams says the omitted evidence could have changed the sentence; Nevada disagrees. First, the panel must decide which evidence a federal habeas court may consider when reviewing a state conviction. Under Section 2254(e)(2) and the Supreme Court's Shinn versus Martinez Ramirez ruling, a prisoner's failure to develop facts in state court can sharply limit new federal evidence. Williams also says his lawyer misunderstood the felony-murder consequences of his burglary plea; Nevada says the pleas were knowing and voluntary. Randolph Fiedler, a federal public defender, will argue first for Williams; Katrina Lopez, a Nevada deputy attorney general, will respond for the state. Cary Williams v. William Gittere (No. 23-99006) — 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/2026/09/29/23-99006.mp3 Argument date and docket — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=23-99006&hearingDate=2026-09-29 Conviction and sentence — Nevada Supreme Court: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1987/14614-1.html Prior appeal and remand — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/11/09/13-99002.pdf Post-hearing habeas order — U.S. District Court for Nevada: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A1998cv00056/21536/339/0.pdf Federal-evidence rule — Supreme Court, Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1009_19m2.pdf Federal habeas statute — 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2254 Appeal docket and counsel — Ninth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/23-99006

SEC v. Putnam, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears an SEC case involving Daniel Putnam, Jean Paul Ramirez Rico, and two companies tied to Putnam. The SEC accused them of misleading investors through cryptocurrency mining and trading offers and misusing the money raised. They entered consent judgments without admitting or denying the complaint, but agreed its allegations could be treated as true when the court decided monetary relief. A Utah federal judge ordered disgorgement—surrender of gains linked to wrongdoing—and civil penalties. The calculation included about seven million dollars in 'other deposits' that an SEC expert could not match to particular investors. Putnam and Ramirez Rico say the SEC did not first show that those deposits came from the alleged fraud; the SEC says the account evidence supported that inference. The panel also examines the need for an evidentiary hearing and the amount of the civil penalties. When counsel says de novo, they mean fresh appellate review of a legal method, rather than deference to the trial judge's calculation of the facts. Michelle Quist of Buchalter will argue first for Putnam and his companies. SEC v. Putnam, et al. (No. 24-4112) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/24-4112.mp3 Argument date and docket — 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 SEC allegations — SEC litigation release: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-24829 Putnam consent judgment — U.S. District Court for Utah: https://www.sec.gov/file/partialjudg20-cv-00301putnam Monetary relief ruling — U.S. District Court for Utah: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_20-cv-00301/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_20-cv-00301-1.pdf Final monetary judgment — U.S. District Court for Utah: https://www.sec.gov/files/judg20-cv-00301putnam.pdf Disgorgement and review standards — Tenth Circuit, SEC v. GenAudio: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110675766.pdf Appeal docket and counsel — Tenth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/24-4112 Michelle Quist — Buchalter: https://www.buchalter.com/lawyer/michelle-quist/

Christopher Rodgers v. Ron Neal — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Christopher Rodgers's challenge to a guilty plea stemming from an attempted robbery in which a man died when Rodgers was seventeen. He pleaded guilty to murder in 2014, and received a fixed forty-five-year sentence; two robbery-related charges were dismissed. After Indiana courts rejected his attempt to undo the plea, he brought a federal habeas challenge. Rodgers says his lawyer wrongly told him forty-five years was the least he could serve, without considering an Indiana law that gave some juveniles prosecuted as adults a chance at a suspended sentence. That option was discretionary, not a guarantee of a shorter sentence. The judges must decide whether counsel's advice was constitutionally deficient and whether knowing of the option would have changed Rodgers's plea decision. Christopher Rodgers v. Ron Neal (No. 24-1231) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.24-1231.24-1231_09_29_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case facts and state post-conviction appeal — Indiana Court of Appeals: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=Bz1MNjv-I0MaYAGBpLEe8YhLd1X9zm9rorxJS96lmPiuASYsO9t9O1Or0FFtNtA_0 2014 plea and sentence — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_20-cv-02859/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_20-cv-02859-0.pdf Juvenile alternative sentencing — Indiana Code § 31-30-4-2 (2013): https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2013/title-31/article-30/chapter-4/

Markham v. Auto Cycle Exchange Services — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears a bankruptcy fight rooted in Cory Markham's settlement with Auto Cycle Exchange and Kurt Dimick. A Colorado state court adopted terms barring disparagement and unwanted contact, with twenty thousand dollars due for a violation. Markham later filed for bankruptcy; Auto Cycle and Dimick then accused him of breaking the order again and sought contempt sanctions. The state judge found another violation, sentenced him to ninety days in jail, and awarded them another twenty thousand dollars. Markham says the request for money violated bankruptcy's automatic stay, which generally halts collection of earlier debts. The bankruptcy court rejected that claim, and a bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed. Here, the judges ask whether the stay covered the new conduct and whether its exception for governmental police powers extends to private parties' contempt request for money. Stephen Berken represents Markham and will ask the court to revive his claim. Markham v. Auto Cycle Exchange Services (No. 25-1317) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-1317.mp3 Argument date and docket — 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 Case facts and appellate ruling — Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap10.uscourts.gov/sites/bap10/files/opinions/0101388826.pdf Bankruptcy automatic stay — U.S. Code § 362: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title11-section362 Stephen Berken — Berken Cloyes: https://berkencloyes.com/contact-us/

State of New York v. United States Department of Transportation — 2d Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

New York asks the Second Circuit to undo a federal decision to withhold about seventy-three million dollars in highway funds. In a 2025 audit of 200 non-domiciled commercial driver's licenses issued by New York, federal inspectors found that 101 had expiration dates later than the drivers' documents showing lawful presence. The motor carrier agency says the old federal licensing rules barred that mismatch; New York says they only required an unexpired document when a driver applied. After New York disputed the agency's demanded corrections, the agency found the state in substantial noncompliance and ordered a four-percent funding penalty beginning in fiscal year 2027. The court must decide what the old rules meant and whether that funding decision can stand. A newer rule states an explicit expiration limit, but both sides agree it does not settle this dispute under the prior rules. Anthony Raduazo, a New York assistant solicitor general, will ask the court to set aside the decision. State of New York v. United States Department of Transportation (No. 26-1097) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-1097.mp3 Argument date and docket — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Petition for review — New York Attorney General: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/court-filings/state-of-new-york-new-york-state-department-of-motor-vehicles-v-united-states-department-of-transportation-et-al-petition-for-review-2026.pdf Final noncompliance determination — Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2026-04/FMCSA%20New%20York%20Final%20Determination%204.16.2026.pdf Appellate docket mirror and counsel appearances — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-1097 New non-domiciled CDL rule — Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/federal-register-documents/2026-02965

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected