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. Edward Kiley — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

A balloon carrying a homemade explosive drifted through a Colorado Springs parking lot at night, snagged on a fence and blew out windows at a nearby florist. Investigators linked Edward Kiley to the device. At his federal sentencing, the judge treated the blast as felony fourth-degree arson and increased his firearms offense level by four. That federal guideline increase requires another felony; Colorado's arson law asks whether a person faced death or serious injury, or at least two thousand dollars' worth of property was endangered. Kiley says the judge lacked evidence that people or that much property were actually endangered. Leah Yaffe of the Federal Public Defender's Office represents Kiley and will ask the Tenth Circuit to reconsider his sentence. United States v. Edward Kiley (No. 25-1364) — 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/25-1364.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 Fourth-degree arson — Colorado Revised Statutes (2024), § 18-4-105: https://content.leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2024-title-18.pdf Firearms sentencing guideline — U.S. Sentencing Commission (2024), § 2K2.1: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/GLMFull.pdf Case issue — Federal Defender pending-issues digest: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf Underlying incident — police affidavit reported by The Gazette: https://www.denvergazette.com/outtherecolorado/2024/02/08/new-details-emerge-from-case-of-man-accused-of-setting-off-explosive-devices-near-downtown-colorado-springs-affidavit/ Explosion video and location — KRDO: https://krdo.com/news/2024/01/24/watch-security-camera-footage-captures-alien-like-explosion-near-downtown-suspect-arrested/ Leah Yaffe — Colorado Federal Public Defender: https://co.fd.org/our-staff/ Will Morrison — professional profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/will-morrison-63887a128

United States v. Ilija Ristik — 7th Cir. (Sep 29, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

Federal prosecutors accused trucking-company owner Ilija Ristik of paying a transportation executive to steer business to his companies. They charged honest-services wire fraud, alleging the payments deprived the executive's employer of his loyal service. Ristik says he was an FBI cooperator whose handling agent authorized the conduct—a public-authority defense. That agent, Michael Mangan, invoked the Fifth Amendment and did not testify; prosecutors declined to grant him immunity. After his conviction, Ristik says the absence of that witness unfairly tilted his trial, especially because other FBI agents testified about the supposed authorization. Alex Little of Litson represents Ristik and will ask the Seventh Circuit for a new trial. United States v. Ilija Ristik (No. 25-1987) — 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.25-1987.25-1987_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 Indictment allegations — signed district court order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_21-cr-00323/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_21-cr-00323-2.pdf FBI authorization and witness privilege — district court order: https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-ristik-1000402940088 Appeal and defense counsel — Seventh Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-1987 Alex Little — Litson PLLC: https://www.litson.co/team/alex-little Michelle Parthum — U.S. Attorney's Office filing: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/media/1419701/dl?inline=

Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney v. Damean Stewart — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

A Maryland jury convicted Jeremiah Sweeney of murder after a nighttime shooting where it was disputed whether he could have fired from roughly seventy-five yards away. During the trial, one juror visited the crime scene on his own and told fellow jurors about it; the judge dismissed him, and the remaining eleven convicted Sweeney. Sweeney later challenged his state conviction in federal court, arguing that his trial lawyer should have investigated what the juror told the others before agreeing to continue. The Fourth Circuit initially ordered a new trial on broader constitutional grounds, but the Supreme Court reversed because the parties had not argued those grounds. Now the court must revisit his lawyer's performance and whether that failure could have affected the verdict, under strict federal limits on challenging state convictions. Jackson Skeen of Hogan Lovells represents Sweeney and will argue that proceeding without a fuller juror inquiry denied him an impartial jury. Jeremiah Antoine Sweeney v. Damean Stewart (No. 22-6513) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/22-6513-20260916.mp3 Argument date and docket — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Supreme Court remand — Clark v. Sweeney: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-52_4gd5.pdf Earlier Fourth Circuit opinion: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/226513.u.pdf Jackson Skeen and Hogan Lovells — Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-52/378522/20251002143717413_25-52%20Sweeney%20BIO.pdf Andrew DiMiceli and Maryland Attorney General — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24A1099.html Federal habeas standard — 28 U.S.C. § 2254: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2254

Uyte, LLC and SEG Hockey, LLC v. Mammoth Hockey, LLC — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

A small Oregon company called Mammoth Hockey, which has sold hockey bags under that name since 2014, is in a trademark fight with Utah's National Hockey League team. After a fan-voting process, the club unveiled the name Utah Mammoth in May 2025 and began selling branded merchandise, including hockey bags. The bag maker says the much bigger team's reach could bury its older brand and confuse buyers; the team says the two marks can coexist. Mammoth Hockey asked a Utah district court to temporarily stop the team from using the name while the trademark case continues. The judge refused, and this appeal asks whether the court used the right test for so-called reverse confusion. Uyte, LLC and SEG Hockey, LLC v. Mammoth Hockey, LLC (No. 25-4166) — 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/25-4166.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 Signed preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court (in USPTO record): https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91306393-OPP-4.pdf Case and counsel — Tenth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-4166 Gerald W. Griffin — Carter Ledyard & Milburn: https://www.clm.com/practice/litigation-and-disputes/internal-investigations-and-white-collar-defense/ Bruce R. Ewing — Dorsey & Whitney: https://www.dorsey.com/people/e/ewing-bruce-r

American Food & Vending Corporation v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 30, 2026

Show notes

American Food and Vending provided vending services at Goodyear tire plants in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and Topeka, Kansas. Goodyear ended the Fayetteville agreement in 2021 and the Topeka agreement in 2024, each on forty-five days' notice. American Food says the contracts required notice and time to fix a problem before any termination; Goodyear says either side could instead end the deal without cause on forty-five days' notice. A Kansas district judge sided with Goodyear on summary judgment, and American Food appeals that reading of the contracts. American Food & Vending Corporation v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (No. 25-3187) — 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/25-3187.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 Contracts, termination and district ruling — U.S. District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02108/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02108-2.pdf Case and counsel — Tenth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-3187 John Marsh — Bailey Cavalieri: https://baileycav.com/professional/john-f-marsh/ Taylor Concannon Hausmann — Husch Blackwell: https://www.huschblackwell.com/professionals/taylor-concannon-hausmann Sua sponte — U.S. District Court glossary: https://www.mtd.uscourts.gov/node/541 Sua sponte — Federal Circuit guide: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/RulesProceduresAndForms/UnrepresentedPartiesGuide/UnrepresentedPartiesGuide-2.pdf

W.E.B. Production & Fabricating, Inc. v. Insurance Company of the West — 7th Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

W.E.B. Production and Fabricating bought workers' compensation insurance from Insurance Company of the West. One part of the premium was a schedule-rating adjustment: a surcharge or discount based on listed workplace-risk factors. W.E.B. alleges the insurer instead used an undisclosed, profit-driven computer method to set that adjustment, then made its records look as though underwriters had followed the filed plan. A federal district judge dismissed the proposed class action before trial, finding that the complaint had not adequately alleged a breach of contract or an actual financial loss. The Seventh Circuit now considers whether the complaint can proceed, not whether the alleged secret method was actually used. W.E.B. Production & Fabricating, Inc. v. Insurance Company of the West (No. 25-2823) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-2823.25-2823_09_25_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 and counsel — Seventh Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2823 Complaint and dismissal — U.S. District Court: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2023cv15379/447352/121 Filed-rate doctrine — Seventh Circuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21-2861/21-2861-2022-08-22.html Michael Liskow — Hecht Partners: https://www.hechtpartners.com/our-team/michael-liskow

Van-Packer Co. v. Airgas USA, LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

Van-Packer, an Illinois maker of grease ducts, sought help from its welding supplier Airgas after welds began cracking. Van-Packer says Airgas recommended switching to 309L welding wire, but the ducts' welds later cracked again. Van-Packer sued, but the district court dismissed its negligent-misrepresentation claim and later rejected its warranty claims, finding no proof that the wire recommendation caused the cracked welds. The Seventh Circuit now hears Van-Packer's appeal on both theories. Van-Packer Co. v. Airgas USA, LLC (No. 25-2619) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ch.25-2619.25-2619_09_15_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 and counsel — Seventh Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2619 Warranty ruling and factual background — U.S. District Court: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/4%3A2022cv04090/86535/56/0.pdf Moorman rule — Illinois Supreme Court: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/ac012178-0216-4962-a07e-558533b8ff0f/100162.pdf

Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority v. Gwich'in Steering Committee, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

A dispute that began with seven oil and gas leases in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge reaches the Ninth Circuit. Alaska's development authority acquired the leases in 2021; the Interior Department canceled them in 2023, citing flaws in the environmental review that preceded the sale. The authority sued, and a district court set aside the cancellation in 2025 because it concluded Interior needed a court order. Interior later lifted the leases' suspension and reaffirmed them. The tribal and conservation appellants want the cancellation restored; Interior and the authority say the later decision has made this appeal moot. Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority v. Gwich'in Steering Committee, et al. (No. 25-3231 / 25-3344) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/15/25-3231.mp3 Argument date and lead docket — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3231&hearingDate=2026-09-15 Consolidation and counsel — Ninth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-3231 Lease-cancellation ruling — U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska: https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/anwr_decision_32525.pdf 2023 cancellation announcement — U.S. Department of the Interior: https://www.doi.gov/node/53491 2025 lease status — AIDEA board resolution: https://www.aidea.org/Portals/0/Meeting%20Docs/2026BoardMeetings/051326/6._D_Resolution_No._G26-05%20_Section_1002_Area_Development_Budget_05132026.pdf 2025 lease decision challenged — Gwich'in Steering Committee court filing: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/GwichIn-Steering-Committee-v.-DOI-Amended-Complaint-Jan.-27-2026.pdf Munsingwear vacatur — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/01/22/20-15948.pdf

United States v. Jordan and Howard — 7th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

A string of armed robberies in the Quad Cities in 2020 included a carjacking in Rock Island, Illinois. A federal jury convicted Emmanuel Howard and Evander Jordan of robbery and firearm offenses. The Seventh Circuit is hearing their consolidated appeals. United States v. Jordan and Howard (No. 24-3343 / 25-1002) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/sk.24-3343.24-3343_09_22_2026.mp3 Argument date and lead docket — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Consolidation order and counsel — Seventh Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-1002 Original charges — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/two-men-federally-indicted-spree-armed-robberies-throughout-quad-cities Jury verdict — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/two-quad-cities-men-found-guilty-conspiracy-commit-armed-robbery-and-multiple-armed Sentencing and trial counsel — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/two-quad-cities-men-sentenced-multiple-armed-robbery-and-firearm-charges Criminal jury instructions — Seventh Circuit: https://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/pattern-jury-instructions/7th_criminal_jury_instr.pdf

Sintia Nivar Santana v. Todd Blanche — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

Sintia Nivar Santana entered the United States from the Dominican Republic on a visitor visa, overstayed it, and later sought a green card through her U.S.-citizen son. Her application ran into a U.S.-citizen box checked on a 2013 employment form; she says she did not check it, and the evidence did not establish who did. An immigration judge held that this uncertainty meant she had not proved admissibility 'clearly and beyond doubt,' denied the application, and ordered her removed. The immigration appeals board agreed. After the Fourth Circuit denied her petition, the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and sent it back in light of Loper Bright, which ended the rule that courts defer to agencies on ambiguous statutes. On this rehearing, the question is whether that demanding proof standard applies to a person already admitted who seeks a green card during removal proceedings, or whether she needs only to show it is more likely than not that she is admissible. Sintia Nivar Santana v. Todd Blanche (No. 22-2114) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/22-2114-20260915.mp3 Docket, argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Earlier opinion, later vacated — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/222114.p.pdf Immigration judge and appeals board decisions — case appendix: https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Nivar-Santana-Cert-Petition-and-Appendix-Combined.pdf Order vacating earlier judgment — Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-46/342780/20250214100432036_EFILING%2024-46%20GVR%20COSTS%204th%20Cir.%202.14.pdf Loper Bright opinion — Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf Removal-proceeding proof rules — 8 U.S.C. § 1229a: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/8/1229a Adjustment of status — 8 U.S.C. § 1255: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/8/1255

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected