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:

Zeiner v. United States — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Cassandra Zeiner's suit over her father Harold's death after a visit to a Veterans Affairs emergency room in Wichita. In February 2019, he arrived with chest pain; a VA cardiologist urged immediate transfer to a hospital equipped for an urgent cardiac procedure, but the transfer was delayed and he died soon after arriving there. The VA inspector general later faulted the delayed transfer and reported that the hospital had not explained it to the family. Zeiner says she learned of the report in 2022; she filed an administrative claim in 2023, then sued the United States. A federal district judge dismissed the case under Kansas's four-year statute of repose, measured from the alleged medical act. Unlike a limitations period that can start when an injury is discovered, a statute of repose runs from the act itself. The appeal asks whether federal tort-claim rules override that state cutoff, or whether the government's alleged failure to tell the family about the transfer delay prevents it from invoking the deadline. Blake Shuart of Hutton and Hutton represents Zeiner; he will ask the court to let her negligence claim proceed. Zeiner v. United States (No. 25-3057) — 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/25-3057.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 dismissal — U.S. District Court for Kansas: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/kansas/ksdce/6%3A2024cv01131/153661/19/0.pdf?ts=1742463076 Emergency-care investigation — VA Inspector General: https://www.vaoig.gov/reports/hotline-healthcare-inspection/mismanagement-emergency-department-care-patient-acute Appellate docket and counsel appearances — Tenth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-3057 Kansas medical-malpractice time limit — Kansas Statutes § 60-513(c): https://ksrevisor.gov/statutes/chapters/ch60/060_005_0013.html Statute-of-repose explanation — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/573BV.pdf Blake Shuart — Hutton and Hutton: https://www.huttonlaw.com/attorneys/blake-a-shuart/ Sarah Burch Macke — federal court filing: https://habeasdockets.org/media/documents/71279761/005_07907251156-9b9d29c0cdab.pdf

United States v. Barber — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Brett Barber's appeal after he pleaded guilty in a real-estate investment fraud case and received a 181-month prison sentence. Barber and a business partner promised returns from house-flipping investments; federal prosecutors and securities regulators say the operation raised millions while much of the money never funded those deals. This appeal focuses on his unsuccessful attempt to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure eleven D two B allows withdrawal at that stage if the defendant shows a fair and just reason. Barber's lawyer will argue that advice about a possible life sentence made the plea involuntary, and that the judge should have heard testimony before rejecting his account. The panel will ask whether that is really ineffective assistance of counsel—a Sixth Amendment claim better developed in a later Section 2255 motion than on direct appeal. Barber also challenges the difference between his 181-month sentence and his co-schemer's probation. United States v. Barber (No. 24-7474) — 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/2026/09/14/24-7474.mp3 Argument listing and date — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-7474&hearingDate=2026-09-14 Appeal docket — Ninth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/24-7474 Barber's guilty plea — U.S. Attorney, Central District of California: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/orange-county-man-pleads-guilty-running-investment-scams-raised-more-17-million-false Sentence and case history — U.S. Attorney, Central District of California: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/orange-county-man-sentenced-over-15-years-prison-house-flipping-investment-scam-raised Investment-scheme investigation — Securities and Exchange Commission: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-25250 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/criminal_federal_rules_pamphlet_dec_1_2023.pdf Plea-withdrawal standard — Ninth Circuit practice guide: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/II.%20Criminal%20Proceedings%202022.htm Ineffective-assistance issue on direct appeal — Ninth Circuit, United States v. Rahman: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/07/05/10-10293.pdf Plea-advice precedent — Ninth Circuit, United States v. McTiernan: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/10/20/0750430.pdf Federal post-conviction motion — 28 U.S.C. § 2255: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255 Melissa Rabbani — California State Bar: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/283993 Melissa Rabbani — Central District of California court calendar: https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9bd6f478-6f5c-469f-8acc-08de9f246c30

Negy v. Cartwright et al. — 11th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears an early appeal in professor Charles Negy's First Amendment retaliation case against four University of Central Florida officials. In 2020, Negy's personal tweets about race provoked public demands that UCF fire him. The university then investigated complaints about his classroom conduct and fired him in January 2021. Arbitration reinstated him; he sued, saying the classroom inquiry was a pretext for punishing his protected speech. The officials say the classroom complaints, not his tweets, supplied a lawful reason to discipline him. The district court ruled that a jury could find pretext and denied qualified immunity to four officials, so they appealed before trial. Qualified immunity normally shields officials from personal liability unless they violate a clearly established right; the question here is whether this record lets them end the case now. Kristie Hatcher-Bolin of GrayRobinson represents the officials and will argue that no clear precedent required them to ignore substantiated classroom complaints. Negy v. Cartwright et al. (No. 25-11929) — 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/25-11929_095292026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 May 2025 summary-judgment order — Middle District of Florida: https://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Negy-v.-Butler-Order-on-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment.pdf December 2025 jurisdiction order — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202511929.pdf Appeal docket and counsel — Eleventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-11929 UCF faculty-senate record of the investigation: https://facultysenate.ucf.edu/document/january-28-2021-approved-minutes-and-meeting-materials/ UCF's January 2021 termination notice: https://knightnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NoticeofTermination_Jan29.pdf Arbitration reinstatement — FOX 35 Orlando: https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/controversial-ucf-professor-has-job-reinstated.amp Kristie Hatcher-Bolin — GrayRobinson: https://www.gray-robinson.com/attorneys-professionals/kristie-hatcher-bolin Samantha Harris — Allen Harris Law: https://www.allenharrislaw.com/samantha-harris-esq/

United States v. Donald et al. — 2d Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

Four men appeal together from a federal gang trial in Bridgeport, Connecticut. In December 2023, a jury convicted Keishawn Donald, Trevon Wright, Eric Hayes and Travon Jones of conspiring in the East End gang's racketeering activity. The trial traced drug dealing and a series of shootings in conflicts with rival groups; the district judge later denied the four men's requests for acquittal or a new trial. Racketeering conspiracy here means an agreement to take part in an enterprise's pattern of crimes. One central question is what proof of continued participation after age eighteen allows adult prosecution when a gang conspiracy began while a defendant was a juvenile. Justin Pugh of Justin C. Pugh and Associates represents Donald and will argue that the prosecution did not meet that requirement. United States v. Donald et al. (No. 25-455) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Consolidated argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-455,%2025-608,%2025-761,%2025-933.mp3 Argument listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Post-trial ruling — District of Connecticut: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cr0008-674= Trial and verdict — U.S. Attorney for Connecticut: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/four-members-violent-bridgeport-gang-guilty Juvenile Delinquency Act — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title18-section5032 Federal Rule of Evidence 403: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403 Appeal docket — Donald: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-455 Appeal docket — Wright: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-608 Appeal docket — Jones: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-761 Appeal docket — Hayes: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-933 Counsel profile — Pugh: https://justincpugh.com/about Counsel profile — Koch Jr: https://ccdla.org/members/william-t-koch-jr/ Counsel profile — Schoenhorn: https://schoenhorn.com/ Counsel profile — Koch Iii: https://nlcba.org/nlcba-directory/name/w-theodore-koch-iii/

Payton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company — 7th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

Commercial truck drivers say Union Pacific collected their fingerprints when they entered Illinois rail freight terminals between 2013 and 2021. They sued under Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA, which regulates private collection of biometric data. Union Pacific also ran commuter trains and did rail projects for Illinois governments, so it claims an exemption for contractors when working for a state or local government. The district judge denied a blanket exemption: those government contracts did not themselves show that fingerprinting truck drivers was within the government work. This appeal comes before the underlying case is finished. The panel must decide whether a government contract at the same time is enough, or whether the fingerprinting itself must connect to that work. Gary Feinerman of Latham and Watkins, a former federal judge, represents Union Pacific and will argue for the time-only reading. When the lawyers say surplusage, they mean a reading that leaves some words in the law with no job to do. Payton v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (No. 26-1946) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.26-1946.26-1946_09_23_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District-court exemption ruling — Northern District of Illinois: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv00153/449863/90/0.pdf Order allowing this appeal — Northern District of Illinois: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv00153/449863/98/0.pdf BIPA Section 25(e) — Illinois General Assembly: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext?DocName=074000140K25 Appeal docket and counsel — Seventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1946 Related Fleury and Turner case — Seventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-8019 Gary Feinerman — Latham & Watkins: https://www.lw.com/en/people/gary-feinerman Andres Pereira — counsel's practice: https://www.andrespereirapc.com/ David Gerbie — McGuire Law: https://www.mcgpc.com/david-gerbie

United States v. Hester — 2d Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

Rochester police said they recovered a car reported stolen at gunpoint after a chase and arrested Victor Hester, who faced robbery and gun allegations. The lawyers describe a federal guilty plea negotiated alongside Monroe County charges, which state prosecutors agreed to dismiss. They say the deal was negotiated on the mistaken belief that New York's repeat-violent-felony law might expose Hester to life in state prison. Hester argues that misunderstanding made his plea unknowing; the government says he still got a favorable deal and waived this appeal. Because that specific challenge was not raised below, the panel also considers plain-error review: whether a clear mistake affecting his rights can be corrected without a timely objection. Sarah Kunstler, a court-appointed lawyer from the Law Office of Sarah Kunstler, represents Hester and will argue that the supposed life-sentence exposure drove his choice to plead guilty. United States v. Hester (No. 25-552) — 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/25-552.mp3 Argument date and docket — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appeal docket and defense counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-552 Arrest allegations — Rochester police, reported by WHEC: https://www.whec.com/top-news/rpd-chase-leads-to-recovery-of-car-stolen-at-gunpoint/ Related state-court record — New York State Law Reporting Bureau: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2025/2025_74483.htm Persistent violent felony offender statute — New York Senate: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/70.08 Federal Criminal Rule 11 — pleas: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11 Federal Criminal Rule 52 — plain error: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_52 United States v. Dominguez Benitez — Supreme Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/542/74 Sarah Kunstler — counsel's practice: https://kunstlerlaw.net/index.php/sarah-kunstler/ Sean Eldridge — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/traffic-stop-vehicle-traveling-95-mph-nys-thruway-results-felony-firearms-charge Section 2255 proceedings — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/rules-governing-section-2254-and-section-2255-proceedings

Scholl v. Illinois State Police — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

After postal worker Tamara Clayton was fatally shot on a highway, Illinois funded a network of license-plate cameras for crime investigations. Hundreds lined Cook County expressways when this suit began, recording passing plates with a time and location; state police say they keep the records for up to 90 days. Two Cook County drivers, Stephanie Scholl and Frank Bednarz, sued, arguing that gathering those snapshots across many roads tracks their movements without a warrant. They did not allege police had looked up their own histories; the district judge dismissed their challenge to camera collection and said a future database lookup was too speculative to challenge. The appeal asks whether systematic collection itself is a Fourth Amendment search, even before an officer pulls up a stored record. Reilly Stephens of the Liberty Justice Center represents the drivers and will argue that the network's scale makes this more than an ordinary glimpse of a passing car. Scholl v. Illinois State Police (No. 25-1847) — 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.25-1847.25-1847_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 District-court dismissal — Northern District of Illinois: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv04435/459495/41/ Appellants' brief — Liberty Justice Center: https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Scholl-v.-ISP-Appellants-Br-and-Short-Appendix-FINAL.pdf United States amicus brief: https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/0052.-07-06-2026-Amicus-brief-filed-by-Amicus-Curiae-USA-per-order.-Paper-copies-due-on-07132026-52-7537580-2.pdf Camera operation and retention — Illinois State Police: https://isp.illinois.gov/CriminalInvestigations/TransparencyPage Early camera-program history — Illinois State Police annual report: https://isp.illinois.gov/StaticFiles/docs/DII/FY%202022%20ALPR%20Annual%20Report.pdf Expressway Camera Act — Illinois General Assembly: https://ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=4000&Chapter=ROADS+AND+BRIDGES&ChapterID=45&MajorTopic=TRANSPORTATION City of Los Angeles v. Patel — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-1175 Appeal docket and counsel — Seventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-1847 Reilly Stephens — Liberty Justice Center: https://libertyjusticecenter.org/bios/reilly-stephens/

Mahn v. Allegis Group, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

A legal recruiter's firing in 2009 has led to years of litigation between Sharon Mahn and Major, Lindsey & Africa. The firm accused her of sharing confidential candidate information with competitors; an arbitrator ruled for the firm, and New York courts confirmed the award. Mahn later entered bankruptcy, and a separate lawsuit alleged a sexual assault while she worked at the firm. After that lawsuit, the firm told The American Lawyer that Mahn might have to repay millions she had stolen from the firm and her colleagues. Mahn sued the firm and its parent, Allegis Group, for defamation and other torts, but the district court dismissed her claims. The appeal asks whether that statement was substantially true and whether the district judge could consider arbitration records without treating disputed findings as established fact. Rebecca Brazzano of Brazzano Law represents Mahn and will ask the appeals court to revive her claims. Mahn v. Allegis Group, Inc. (No. 26-86) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-86.mp3 Argument listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html May 2025 dismissal order — Southern District of New York: https://app.midpage.ai/document/mahn-v-allegis-group-inc-1000440703582 December 2025 final dismissal — Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv08326/630999/55/0.pdf Arbitration judgment history — New York Supreme Court: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2019/2019_31769.pdf Arbitration award affirmed — New York Appellate Division: https://cf.nycourts.gov/courts/AD1/calendar/appsmots/2018/March/2018_03_20_dec.pdf Related case and Brazzano Law — New York Appellate Division: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/AD1/calendar/AppsMots/2025/apps/20250206/2024-03039.pdf Civil Rights Law § 74 — New York State Senate: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVR/74 Appellate docket and counsel — Second Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-86 David Doyle — Smith, Gambrell & Russell: https://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/doyle-david-j

Bird v. Alanson M. Randol, D.D.S., P.C. — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

Three employees at an Oregon dental office received religious exceptions to a COVID-19 vaccination rule. In January 2022, Dr. Alanson Randol withdrew those exceptions, required vaccination, and fired the three when they declined. They sued under Title Seven; one woman's claim was dismissed early, and a later ruling ended the other two. Title Seven generally requires an employer to accommodate sincere religious practice unless doing so would cause undue hardship: a substantial burden on its business. Here the appeal asks whether two women's objections showed a protected religious conflict, and whether allowing Lacey Bird to work remotely would have imposed that burden on the clinic. Ray Hacke of Pacific Justice Institute represents the former employees and will challenge those rulings, especially the decision that Bird's proposed remote work was too burdensome without a jury hearing her case. Bird v. Alanson M. Randol, D.D.S., P.C. (No. 25-1714) — 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/2026/09/14/25-1714.mp3 Argument date and docket — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1714&hearingDate=2026-09-14 2024 dismissal order — District of Oregon: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/6:2023cv01678/176622/12/ 2025 summary-judgment order — District of Oregon: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/6:2023cv01678/176622/30/0.pdf Religious-accommodation standard — EEOC: https://www.eeoc.gov/fact-sheet-religious-accommodations-workplace Lewis-Williams v. BART — Ninth Circuit, September 2026: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/11/25-618.pdf Ray Hacke — Pacific Justice Institute: https://pacificjustice.org/attorney-bios/ray-hacke/ Chris Morgan — Barran Liebman: https://www.barran.com/our-team/chris-m-morgan Dr. Randol's dental practice — official site: https://www.drrandol.com/get-in-touch/

Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association v. Clark County — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

Nevada required Clark County to allow short-term home rentals, and the county set up a license system. But the county closed its application window in 2023 while many applications were still pending, then began enforcing penalties against people renting without a license. A rental owners' association and Airbnb sued, and a federal judge temporarily barred the county from requiring those licenses and enforcing several related penalties. The county now asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse or narrow that order. The judges will consider whether owners have a protected property interest that requires a workable licensing process, and whether the temporary order reaches too far. Thomas Dillard of Olson Cannon and Gormley represents Clark County and will argue that the judge recognized a property right that does not exist and imposed an overly broad remedy. Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association v. Clark County (No. 26-278) — 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/2026/09/14/26-278.mp3 Argument date and docket — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-278&hearingDate=2026-09-14 December 2025 preliminary-injunction order — District of Nevada: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2025cv01173/175530/51/0.pdf?ts=1766140456 Appeal docket — Ninth Circuit via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/26-278 Short-term-rental statute — Nevada Legislature, NRS 244.353545: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Legal/LawLibrary/NRS/NRS-244.html Licensing application and closure — Clark County: https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/business/doing_business_with_clark_county/divisions/regulated_business/short_term_rentals/ Argument and counsel — Courthouse News Service: https://courthousenews.com/las-vegas-strip-wants-keys-to-regulating-short-term-rentals/ Thomas Dillard — Olson Cannon & Gormley: https://ocgattorneys.com/thomas-d-dillard David Zionts — Covington & Burling: https://www.cov.com/en/professionals/z/david-zionts

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected