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:

South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice — 4th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

Three advocacy groups say children held in South Carolina's juvenile justice facilities face violence, isolation, and inadequate education and mental-health care. They sued the state juvenile justice department and its director in 2022, seeking changes across five facilities. The district court dismissed the case without deciding whether those conditions violated the law. A three-judge appeals panel upheld that dismissal, but the Fourth Circuit granted rehearing before the full court. Now the judges ask whether the groups can sue for injuries to the children or to their own work, and whether some claims became moot after children left custody. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (No. 25-1032) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1032-20260914.mp3 Docket, argument date and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files District court dismissal order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/0:2022cv01338/271493/182/ Three-judge panel opinion — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251032.p.pdf Order granting full-court rehearing — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/251032R1.U.pdf Organizations' filed appeal brief: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/south-carolina-naacp-v-south-carolina-department-of-juvenile-justice-appellant-brief.pdf Department's filed appeal brief: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/south-carolina-naacp-v-south-carolina-department-of-juvenile-justice-appellee-brief.pdf PAIMI authority — 42 U.S.C. § 10805: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/42/10805 Civil-rights action — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/42/1983

United States v. Haight — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

Federal prosecutors accused Ryan Haight of sexually abusing one teenager and, in a separate incident, touching another at a summer gathering. A jury convicted him on three counts, but the trial judge later set aside the count tied to the second teenager. Haight was sentenced on the remaining convictions. He says the two sets of allegations should have been tried separately because combining them unfairly swayed the jury. He also challenges the refusal to delay trial so the defense could examine phone messages investigators had reviewed. The Tenth Circuit is reviewing whether those rulings require further proceedings. United States v. Haight (No. 25-5132) — 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/25-5132.mp3 Argument docket and date — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F29%2F2026 Trial verdict, acquittal and sentence — U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Oklahoma: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/claremore-man-sentenced-sexual-abuse-minor-and-abusive-sexual-contact Severance and phone-discovery issues — Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf Brady disclosure rule — Supreme Court in Kyles v. Whitley: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/419/ Prosecution-team disclosure duty — U.S. Justice Manual: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings

State of Nevada v. Optum, Inc., et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

Nevada's opioid lawsuit accuses pharmacy benefit managers, including OptumRx and Express Scripts, of helping worsen the state's opioid crisis. Nevada says their decisions about covered drugs and prescription controls contributed to excessive opioid use. The companies moved the case from Nevada state court to federal court because they also administer drug benefits for federal health plans. Nevada excluded claims arising from that federal work, and the federal judge sent the suit back to state court. The companies now ask the Ninth Circuit to reverse that remand; Nevada wants the case to stay in state court. This appeal is about which court may hear the lawsuit, not whether the companies caused the alleged harm. State of Nevada v. Optum, Inc., et al. (No. 25-2234) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/28/25-2234.mp3 Argument listing and date — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2234&hearingDate=2026-09-28 March 2025 remand order — District of Nevada: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2024cv00493/167508/78/0.pdf Appeal docket and counsel appearances — Ninth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2234

United States v. Martin — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Ashlie Martin's appeal from a murder-conspiracy prosecution on the Choctaw Nation Reservation in Oklahoma. According to prosecutors, when Martin was 17, she recruited two young men, let them into her home, and they killed her parents. Martin pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder them and received 38 years in federal prison. The two men who carried out the killings received 35 and 25 years. Her lawyer says the federal court lacked authority to hear the conspiracy charge: the Major Crimes Act lists murder in Indian country, but not conspiracy. The government says a separate federal murder-conspiracy law supplies that authority. If the conviction stands, the judges must decide whether Martin's longer sentence was reasonable in light of her youth and the different sentences for the two others. United States v. Martin (No. 25-7057) — 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/25-7057.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%2F29%2F2026 Case events and sentences — U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Oklahoma: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edok/pr/choctaw-county-trio-sentenced-roles-2020-double-homicide Guilty pleas — U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Oklahoma: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edok/pr/choctaw-county-double-homicide-guilty-pleas-entered Pending sentence appeal — Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 — U.S. Code: https://uscodeweb1.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section1153 Murder conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1117 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section1117 Southerland and Leaman counsel identification — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111061975.pdf Martin counsel appearance — appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-7057

United States v. Mayberry — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

A Denver undercover fentanyl buy raises a question: what did police know before arresting Derris Mayberry? In March 2024, a woman offered to get pills for an undercover officer, went into a nearby alley to Mayberry, and returned with fentanyl. Officers arrested him at a nearby bus stop, then found a gun, more pills, and the marked cash used in the purchase. Mayberry asked the district court to exclude evidence from that search, arguing the arrest lacked probable cause; the judge rejected his challenge. Probable cause requires reliable facts known before arrest that would lead a reasonable officer to believe the person committed a crime; a later search cannot justify the arrest retroactively. Here, the lawyers dispute whether officers reliably saw a hand-to-hand exchange, and whether the undercover purchase otherwise linked Mayberry to the pills. On appeal, the judges review factual findings for clear error but decide the legal probable-cause question afresh. United States v. Mayberry (No. 25-1232) — 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/25-1232.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%2F29%2F2026 Mayberry case and undercover operation — U.S. Attorney's Office, Colorado: https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/denver-man-sentenced-110-months-federal-prison-fentanyl-gun-charges Pending appeal issue — Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf Probable cause and appellate review — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110457295.pdf United States v. Drakeford — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/194912.P.pdf Andrew Casey — Hendrick, Casey & Hutter: https://hchokc.com/andrew-m-casey Rajiv Mohan — U.S. Attorney's Office, Colorado: https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/us-attorney-announces-four-promotions-and-ten-new-hires Rajiv Mohan counsel listing — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111223509.pdf

Otte v. Wiczer Jacobs / Mitchell v. Costello Sury & Rooney — 7th Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

Two Illinois homeowners challenge collection fees added to their community-association debts. Shane and Mandi Otte faced an eviction and collection suit whose demand included a one-hundred-dollar administrative charge. Terrence Mitchell faced a similar suit; his ledger included a one-hundred-twenty-five-dollar fee for the property manager's work turning his file over to a law firm. Both underlying suits were settled, but the homeowners sued the collectors and managers, arguing that the extra charges were unauthorized. Two federal district judges dismissed their claims. Illinois statutes permit management-company collection fees only if, among other requirements, the association's governing documents specifically authorize them. The Seventh Circuit hears the appeals together. The dispute is whether broad phrases like costs of collection and other fees and expenses meet that specific-authorization requirement, and what the answer means for the homeowners' federal debt-collection and state consumer-fraud claims. Otte v. Wiczer Jacobs / Mitchell v. Costello Sury & Rooney (No. 25-3359) — 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.25-3359.25-3359_09_25_2026.mp3 Argument date and Otte docket — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Otte district-court opinion — Northern District of Illinois: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2025cv02797/474984/47/ Mitchell district-court opinion — Northern District of Illinois: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2025cv02801/474987/37/ Common Interest Community Association Act § 1-30(h) — Illinois General Assembly: https://www.ilga.gov/Documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076501600K1-30.htm Condominium Property Act § 9.2(c) — Illinois General Assembly: https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076506050K9.2.htm Condominium Property Act § 18.7(g) — Illinois General Assembly: https://ilga.gov/Documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/076506050K18.7.htm Fair Debt Collection Practices Act § 1692f — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title15-section1692f Daniel Edelman — Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin: https://www.edcombs.com/attorneys/daniel-a-edelman/ Laura Cannon — Hinshaw & Culbertson: https://www.hinshawlaw.com/en/professionals/laura-cannon Wendy Enerson — Cozen O'Connor: https://www.cozen.com/people/bios/enerson-wendy

Tower Crossing v. Affiliated FM Insurance — 7th Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

A condominium association says a 2019 storm damaged the roofs of its Glenview, Illinois complex. Its insurer, Affiliated FM, valued the damage far below what the association claimed. Just before its extended deadline to sue, Tower Crossing submitted a four-point-three-million-dollar proof of loss, the formal statement of its insurance claim. But its signed and notarized page came from an earlier, lower-dollar draft. Tower Crossing sued weeks later; a district judge ruled the revised proof was not sworn as the policy required, so it did not pause the deadline, and the suit was too late. Tower Crossing says its president consented to using the signed page and that it complied with the policy in substance. The insurer says a signature borrowed from another document does not meet the policy's requirements or start the statutory pause. The Seventh Circuit must decide whether the suit can proceed to a trial about the storm-damage claim. Tower Crossing v. Affiliated FM Insurance (No. 25-3167) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-3167.25-3167_09_24_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Summary-judgment opinion and case facts — Northern District of Illinois: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2021cv06228/409108/146/ Tower Crossing's filed statement of facts — Northern District of Illinois: https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Condo-Facts-RE-Proof-of-Loss.pdf Insurance Code § 143.1 — Illinois General Assembly: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ILCS/details?ActID=1249&ChapAct=215+ILCS+5%2F&ChapterID=22&SeqEnd=54700000&SeqStart=51900000 Counsel of record — Seventh Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3167 Ugo Colella — Colella Zefutie: https://www.czlaw.com/professionals/ugo-colella/ John DeLascio — Hinshaw & Culbertson: https://www.hinshawlaw.com/en/professionals/john-delascio

O'Meara and Choice Advisors v. SEC — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

Matthias O'Meara and Choice Advisors advised charter schools on municipal-bond financing. The SEC sued over unregistered advisory work and a fee-sharing deal with a bond underwriter. A federal judge found securities-law violations and imposed monetary remedies and a permanent injunction. After that judgment, the SEC opened a separate in-house case that could bar O'Meara from industry work and discipline Choice. They sued in Colorado to stop it, but a district judge dismissed their constitutional challenges. A different appeals court has since affirmed the earlier securities judgment. Here they say the SEC cannot decide a potentially career-ending sanction without an independent court and possibly a jury, and they should not have to wait for a final agency decision to challenge its authority. The SEC says it is deciding a licensing matter, with court review available afterward. The Tenth Circuit must decide whether these challenges can proceed now and whether the agency can decide the sanction. O'Meara and Choice Advisors v. SEC (No. 25-1470) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-1470.mp3 Argument date and docket — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F17%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F17%2F2026 Civil judgment and case facts — SEC: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26142 Follow-on administrative proceeding — SEC: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2024/34-101339.pdf Civil appeal ruling — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/21/24-6447.pdf Brief and Colorado procedural history — O'Meara and Choice Advisors: https://pacificlegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/OMeara-Opening-Brief.pdf Counsel of record — Tenth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-1470 Oliver Dunford — Pacific Legal Foundation: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/oliver-dunford/ SEC v. Jarkesy — Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf

United States v. Maximo Zacarias — 4th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Sep 29, 2026

Show notes

The Coast Guard stopped a boat in the eastern Pacific and found a large shipment of marijuana. A Virginia jury convicted two crew members, Maximo Zacarias and Bernacio Solares Ramon, and each received ten years in prison. The government says the boat had no nationality, a status that brings it within the U.S. maritime drug law. That law says a judge, not the jury, decides the vessel-jurisdiction question. The men argue that the Constitution required a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt, and that prosecuting them also required a connection, or nexus, to the United States. The government disputes both points. The appeal also asks whether any jury-instruction error could have changed the verdict. United States v. Maximo Zacarias (No. 25-4242) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 18, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-4242-20260918.mp3 Argument date, docket and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Public briefs index — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/DataBriefs.aspx?CASENUM=25-4242 Appellate docket — PACER-derived Justia mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-4242 Trial and Coast Guard encounter — U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/two-high-seas-mariners-convicted-violation-maritime-drug-law-enforcement-act-eastern Sentences — U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/high-seas-mariners-sentenced-decade-prison-violating-maritime-drug-law-enforcement-act 46 U.S.C. § 70502, vessel nationality — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title46-section70502 46 U.S.C. § 70504, vessel jurisdiction — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title46-section70504 Neder v. United States, harmless-error rule — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-527/pdf/USREPORTS-527-1.pdf

Kamel v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — 2d Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

U.S. citizen Engi Kamel married Ahmed Abosamak shortly after he entered the country on a fiancé visa, and he applied for a green card based on their marriage. At his immigration interview, Abosamak says the assigned Arabic interpreter spoke a different dialect and mistranslated his answers. USCIS refused his request for another interpreter; he ended the interview, and the agency denied his application two months later. The couple sued, alleging that the interview procedure denied him a fair opportunity to be heard. A New York federal judge dismissed the suit, holding that a federal statute kept the district court from reviewing the green-card denial. On appeal, the question is whether the interpreter claim can be heard as a challenge to agency procedure, or whether it is inseparable from the denial and therefore outside the district court's power. Kamel v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (No. 25-2335) — 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/25-2335.mp3 Argument date and docket — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Original dismissal opinion and case background — Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv10490/611254/35/0.pdf Case docket and counsel — Second Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2335 8 U.S.C. § 1252 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1252%20edition:prelim) Julie Goldberg attorney profile — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/235565 Prior Goldberg and Associates appearance — Central District of California: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SJO/MC/4f5798ef-d5be-417f-9e1d-901bb202ccb6.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected