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:

Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

Nestor Mendoza Gutierrez had lived in the Denver area for more than twenty-five years when immigration officers detained him in May 2025. After the government changed its reading of the immigration detention law, an immigration judge said he could not grant Gutierrez bond. Gutierrez sought federal court relief, and a Colorado judge ordered him released pending a bond hearing. The judge later conditionally certified a class of similarly situated detainees and barred their transfer out of Colorado while the case continues. The government appealed. A separate Tenth Circuit decision has since resolved the underlying detention-law question: people arrested after living inside the country are generally eligible for bond. What remains here is whether federal law bars the classwide transfer order, or whether the judge could use the All Writs Act to preserve meaningful court review. Mendoza Gutierrez v. Baltasar (No. 25-1460) — 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/25-1460.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%2F28%2F2026 Original emergency order and case facts — District of Colorado: https://www.aclu-co.org/app/uploads/2025/09/Order-Granting-Emergency-TRO.pdf Class and transfer order — District of Colorado: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2025cv02720/246978/47/0.pdf Procedural history — District of Colorado: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_25-cv-02720/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_25-cv-02720-1.pdf Santillan Quiroz detention ruling — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111461009.pdf Case and counsel information — ACLU of Colorado: https://www.aclu-co.org/cases/nestor-esai-mendoza-gutierrez-v-baltasar-et-al/ 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1252%20edition:prelim) All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:28%20section:1651%20edition:prelim)

USA v. Andrew Anania — 7th Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

Two women driving cars were kidnapped in separate incidents near Chicago in March 2021. In the first, Andrew Anania forced an Uber driver to drive at gunpoint and sexually assaulted her. Two days later, he and another man abducted a second driver and took her car. A federal jury convicted Anania of kidnapping, carjacking, and a firearm offense, and a judge sentenced him to fifty years in prison. On appeal, his lawyer argues that charges from the two incidents should not have been tried together. Federal Criminal Rule Eight allows charges of the same or similar character in one case; Rule Fourteen permits separate trials if joining charges would be prejudicial. The question here is whether the two kidnappings were similar enough for one trial, and whether evidence about the first unfairly affected the jury's verdict on the second. USA v. Andrew Anania (No. 25-1876) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/gw.25-1876.25-1876_09_28_2026.mp3 Argument date and docket — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Trial verdict and case background — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/chicago-man-convicted-kidnapping-carjacking-and-firearm-offenses Sentence and case background — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/chicago-man-sentenced-50-years-prison-kidnapping-carjacking-and-firearm-offenses Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 8 and 14 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf Independent reporting on trial and sentence — CWB Chicago: https://cwbchicago.com/2025/05/50-years-in-federal-prison-for-gangbanger-who-kidnapped-and-raped-uber-driver.html

Bruce Konya v. Lockheed Martin Corporation — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

Lockheed Martin transferred pension obligations for about thirty-one thousand retirees to insurer Athene through group annuities in 2021 and 2022. Athene then became responsible for their retirement checks, instead of Lockheed's pension plans. Four retirees sued under ERISA, the federal pension law, alleging Lockheed chose an unsafe insurer and put their future payments at risk. They do not claim that Athene has missed a payment. A Maryland federal judge denied Lockheed's motion to dismiss, holding that the alleged risk was enough to proceed at this early stage. Lockheed asks the Fourth Circuit to reverse. The immediate question is Article Three standing: whether the alleged future risk is imminent enough to give these retirees a concrete injury, despite continuing payments. Lockheed will call the risk speculative; the retirees will say the annuity made their benefits less secure. Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown will speak first for Lockheed. Bruce Konya v. Lockheed Martin Corporation (No. 25-2061) — 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/mp3/25-2061-20260916.mp3 Argument date, panel and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files District court opinion — District of Maryland: https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/District-Court-Opinion-Konya-v.-Lockheed-Martin-Corp.pdf Appeal docket and counsel appearances — Fourth Circuit, via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-2061 2021 pension transfer — Lockheed Martin: https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lockheed-martin-reduces-gross-pension-obligation-49-billion 2022 pension transfer — Lockheed Martin: https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lockheed-martin-reduces-gross-pension-obligation-43-billion Secretary of Labor's amicus brief — U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OPA/newsreleases/2026/01/EBSA20260066.pdf ERISA civil-enforcement provision — U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/29/1132 Nicole Saharsky — Mayer Brown: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/s/saharsky-nicole-a Aaron Zelinsky — Zuckerman Spaeder: https://www.zuckerman.com/person-pdf/10960/

Old Slip Benefits & Insurance Services, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company — 2d Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

An Allstate insurance agency fights to keep a temporary court order blocking its termination. Old Slip opened the agency in White Plains in 2024, while its principal, James Lukezic, ran a separate financial-services business. Allstate sent a termination notice citing an outside business interest and unauthorized brokering; Old Slip disputes the termination. Old Slip sued in New York state court and won a temporary restraining order, which blocked termination while the judge considered longer relief. The state judge kept that order in place for more evidence, but the case then moved to federal court. The federal judge held the order expired under a fourteen-day limit and declined an immediate injunction hearing. Two midcase appeals now ask whether either ruling can be reviewed before final judgment, and what happens to a state order after removal to federal court. Mark Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein will argue for Old Slip that the order survived removal and its pending request deserves a hearing. Old Slip Benefits & Insurance Services, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company (No. 25-1320, 25-1417) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1320,%2025-1417.mp3 Argument date and combined dockets — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html State court's January 2025 opinion — New York Courts: https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_50543.htm Federal district court's May 2025 order — Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2025cv01110/636521/48/0.pdf Federal district court's June 2025 order — Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2025cv01110/636521/58/0.pdf First appeal docket — Second Circuit, via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1320 Second appeal docket — Second Circuit, via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1417 Mark Rifkin's firm profile — Wolf Haldenstein: https://www.whafh.com/team/mark-c-rifkin/ Christopher Young's filing for Allstate — Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2025cv01110/636521/31/0.pdf Rule 65 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf

Beniquez v. New York State Unified Court System — 2d Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

A New York court officer's sexual-harassment lawsuit turns on what a federal judgment did not say. Elizabeth Beniquez sued the state court system and a fellow officer she accused of repeated unwanted advances. The trial judge dismissed her federal claim against the court system and wrote that both sides agreed state sovereign immunity barred her state-law claim in federal court. But the order did not expressly say whether that state-law claim was dismissed without prejudice. Beniquez wants that clarification so she can try the claim in state court, where other defenses could still apply. Michael Taubenfeld of Fisher Taubenfeld will ask the panel to clarify the judgment. Beniquez v. New York State Unified Court System (No. 25-1751) — 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/25-1751.mp3 Argument date and listing — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Trial court's summary-judgment opinion — Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2023cv07735/605494/57/0.pdf Independent report on the underlying lawsuit — Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/new-york-state-court-officer-drops-harassment-suit-before-trial Michael Taubenfeld's court filing identifying this appeal — Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv00767/635755/34/0.pdf Michael Taubenfeld's firm — Fisher Taubenfeld: https://www.fishertaubenfeld.com/our-firm/ Court system Counsel's Office — New York Courts: https://www.nycourts.gov/counsels-office Second Circuit precedent on jurisdictional dismissals without prejudice — Katz v. Donna Karan: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/15-464/215708474/0.pdf

NW Logistics, LLC v. Zwigart — 9th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

An unpaid freight bill becomes a fight over whether bankruptcy can erase the debt. Eric Zwigart owned RPP Products, an oil distributor that listed NW Logistics as owed nearly four point four million dollars. NW says the balance includes an initial financing deal and later shipping on credit. After Zwigart filed for personal bankruptcy, NW sued him and his wife, alleging he concealed RPP's defaults to obtain more credit. The bankruptcy judge dismissed NW's second amended complaint with prejudice. Section 523 can preserve debts obtained by fraud, but unwritten statements about financial condition usually do not qualify. NW calls the silence an actionable omission; Zwigart says the complaint lacks specific allegations of timely deception. Xai McDonald will seek to revive NW's case; Michael Spector will defend the dismissal for Zwigart. NW Logistics, LLC v. Zwigart (No. 25-3007) — 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/2026/09/15/25-3007.mp3 Argument listing and date — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3007&hearingDate=2026-09-15 Initial adversary complaint and dismissal issues — Central District of California Bankruptcy Court: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/SC_021423.pdf Second amended complaint dismissed with prejudice — Central District of California Bankruptcy Court: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/SC_020624.pdf RPP bankruptcy filing and debt to NW — FreightWaves contemporaneous report: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trucking-logistics-firms-owed-millions-after-oil-distributor-files-chapter-7 Bankruptcy Code Section 523 — U.S. Code text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523 In re Mcharo on omissions and financial statements — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2020/02/11/Mcharo%20Opinion%2019-1010.pdf Xai Casey McDonald — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/216988 Michael Glen Spector — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/145035

United States v. Osuegbu — 7th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Evette Osuegbu's appeal from fifteen convictions tied to insurance fraud and arson. Trial testimony described an East St. Louis house insured in another person's name and burned by Osuegbu's nephew to support an insurance claim. Prosecutors also connected her to fires at a Missouri home and a St. Louis apartment. After the jury convicted her, the district judge denied her request for a new trial. Her appeal focuses on the judge's intervention during jury deliberations and on investigators who gave both factual testimony and expert opinions. An Allen charge urges a deadlocked jury to keep working without abandoning honest views; Osuegbu's lawyer compares the judge's remarks to one, while the government rejects that comparison. The other issue is whether jurors could tell when an investigator was relating firsthand facts and when offering an expert opinion. Jane Ruemmele of Hayes Ruemmele will seek a new trial for Osuegbu; Assistant United States Attorney Kevin Burke will defend the conviction. United States v. Osuegbu (No. 25-2106) — 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.25-2106.25-2106_09_15_2026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Post-trial order and trial evidence — Southern District of Illinois: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilsd-3_23-cr-30138/pdf/USCOURTS-ilsd-3_23-cr-30138-2.pdf Verdict and case background — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdil/pr/leader-insurance-fraud-and-arson-scheme-sentenced-15-years Appeal docket and counsel — Seventh Circuit, mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2106 Jane Ruemmele biography — Hayes Ruemmele: https://chjrlaw.com/jane-ruemmele Allen v. United States — Supreme Court opinion, mirrored by Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/164/492/ United States v. Jett — Seventh Circuit opinion, mirrored by Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-2051/17-2051-2018-11-07.html

Putz v. Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Karen Putz's appeal over an encounter at a Taco Bell drive-through in Henrietta, New York. Putz is deaf and says she drove past the speaker box in November 2021 to place an order at the window. She says the manager refused to serve her unless she went inside; police arrived, and she left without food. Putz sued the restaurant operator, Hospitality Syracuse, and a district judge entered judgment for the operator in 2025. The appellate argument distinguishes a request to stop future discrimination from separate claims for money over an alleged past injury. Under Title Three of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a private plaintiff can seek an injunction, but not compensatory damages. The judges ask whether later signs and training remove the risk of another refusal, and whether that answer should also end the damages claims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act generally covers recipients of federal financial assistance; Putz says the restaurant's pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program loan supplies that link. Andrew Rozynski of Eisenberg and Baum represents Putz and will argue that the manager's refusal was discriminatory and that her claims should proceed. Claire Bopp of Bond, Schoeneck and King represents Hospitality Syracuse and will argue that this was an isolated mistake the company has corrected. Putz v. Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. (No. 25-1713) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 22, 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/25-1713.mp3 Argument listing and date — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appellate docket — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1713 District-court docket — U.S. District Court for Western New York, mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nywdce/6%3A2022cv06324/142033 Karen Putz's contemporaneous account — The Daily Moth: https://www.dailymoth.com/blog/karen-putz-denied-service-at-taco-bell-drive-thru Taco Bell restaurant location — Taco Bell: https://www.tacobell.com/food?store=037682 ADA Title III remedies and public accommodations — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.ada.gov/resources/title-iii-manual/ ADA Title III regulations — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/regulations/title-iii-regulations/ Rehabilitation Act Section 504 — U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/section-504-rehabilitation-act-of-1973/index.html Andrew Rozynski biography — Eisenberg & Baum: https://www.eandblaw.com/attorney/rozynski-andrew-esq/ Claire Bopp biography — Bond, Schoeneck & King: https://www.bsk.com/people/claire-g-bopp

McDonald v. District of Columbia — D.C. Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The District of Columbia Circuit hears a long-running disability-rights case about helping nursing-home residents return to community life. Larry McDonald, an Army veteran with a physical disability, spent years in a nursing facility and testified that he wanted to leave. District staff helped him pursue a housing voucher, but a trial judge found that transition assistance later stopped while his care team considered assisted living. Another class member, Ivy Brown, struggled with housing paperwork and said staff did not answer later requests for help after her case was closed. Residents sued the District in 2010 under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. After an initial trial and an earlier appeal, a second trial ended in a 2024 ruling for the class. The judge ordered improved outreach and transition assistance, adequate capacity for community care, and public reporting. The case was long known as Brown v. District of Columbia; this appeal bears McDonald's name. The District's lawyer, Jeremy Girton, will argue that its existing plan works and that the order duplicates nursing homes' duties and reaches too far. The Supreme Court's Olmstead rule treats unnecessary institutionalization as potential disability discrimination, while allowing governments to object to changes that would fundamentally alter their services. DACL is the District's aging agency that coordinates transitions; the MDS survey question discussed here asks residents whether they want to learn about returning to the community. The EPD waiver is a Medicaid route to home and community-based care for older people and adults with physical disabilities. McDonald v. District of Columbia (No. 25-7135) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-7135.mp3 Argument listing and date — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Brown trial findings and injunction — U.S. District Court for D.C.: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2010cv02250/145810/505/0.pdf Brown reconsideration order — U.S. District Court for D.C.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-02250/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-02250-15.pdf Olmstead integration mandate — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.ada.gov/resources/olmstead-mandate-statement/ Community Transition Program — D.C. Department of Aging and Community Living: https://dacl.dc.gov/service/dacls-community-transition-program D.C. long-term care and EPD waiver — Department of Health Care Finance: https://dhcf.dc.gov/service/types-long-term-care-services Brown case history — American Bar Association, by plaintiff counsel: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/affordable_housing/resources/journal/34-2/brown-v-district-of-columbia/ Kelly Bagby biography — AARP Foundation: https://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/legal-advocacy/afl-teams/

Voegeli v. Phelan — D.C. Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The District of Columbia Circuit hears retired Navy reservist Nicholas Voegeli's appeal over a heroism medal. In 1992, he swam through rough water to save a sailing student. He received a Coast Guard commendation, then sought the Navy and Marine Corps Medal. Navy rules require two detailed eyewitness statements for that medal. Voegeli says they accompanied his earlier nomination, but the statements are now missing. His former executive officer swore he had seen them; the surviving commendation describes the rescue only briefly. The Navy's records-correction board refused to fill the gap, and a federal judge upheld its decision. Voegeli will argue that the board cannot reject a request simply because the missing records are the ones he asked it to correct. He invokes Haselwander, an earlier case where this court faulted a military board for demanding a missing medical record despite extensive other evidence. The Navy will argue that the remaining materials lack the firsthand detail needed to assess a medal. The judges also probe how far the board's statutory duty to seek missing military records extends. Voegeli v. Phelan (No. 25-5257) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5257.mp3 Argument listing and date — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Appeal docket — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-5257 Voegeli district-court opinion — District of Columbia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2024cv01236/267831/19/ Haselwander v. McHugh — D.C. Circuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/12-5297/12-5297-2014-12-19.html 10 U.S.C. § 1552 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section1552&num=0&edition=prelim

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected