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:

PacifiCorp v. Wyoming Industrial Energy Consumers — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears a dispute over Wyoming electricity rates for PacifiCorp, known there as Rocky Mountain Power. The utility asked state regulators to raise rates and used a forecast of its future power costs to support the request. That forecast included generating capacity held in reserve for federally regulated transmission service; those reserves cannot simply be sold as surplus electricity. A group of large industrial customers challenged how much of that reserve cost Wyoming customers should bear. The state commission adopted their adjustment, reducing the Wyoming share of forecast power costs by about twenty-three and a half million dollars. PacifiCorp sued, arguing that the adjustment effectively treated federally required reserves as power available for sale and conflicted with federal regulation. A federal judge agreed and barred the commission from using that reasoning to set rates. The commission and industrial customers appeal, saying the adjustment corrected an overestimate without removing federally required reserves. They also contend that a newer rate order makes the dispute moot, meaning a decision would no longer change their rights. PacifiCorp says the newer order carries forward the same disputed cost figure. PacifiCorp v. Wyoming Industrial Energy Consumers (No. 25-8061) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-8061.mp3 Argument listing and date — U.S. Court of Appeals for the 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 Appeal docket — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-8061 District court order — District of Wyoming: https://wyofile.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/pacificorp-order-.pdf Case background — WyoFile: https://wyofile.com/state-regulators-appeal-utilitys-victory-in-wyoming-rate-hike-case/

Astorga, et al. v. Villanueva, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Astorga v. Villanueva, a civil rights case arising from a September 2020 protest in South Los Angeles. Protesters had gathered after sheriff's deputies fatally shot Dijon Kizzee. Christina Astorga says deputies fired less-lethal projectiles into the crowd, hitting her as she fled; she says they then arrested her and seized her phone. She and other protesters sued the county, its sheriff's department, and then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva. This appeal asks whether Villanueva himself can be held liable for the deputies' alleged use of force. Qualified immunity can shield officials from damages when no clearly established law forbade their conduct. The judges also distinguish a Monell claim against the county, based on its own policy or custom, from a claim against the sheriff personally. Astorga, et al. v. Villanueva, et al. (No. 24-4061) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/16/24-4061.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-4061&hearingDate=2026-09-16 Earlier Ninth Circuit memorandum in this litigation: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2021/07/15/21-55059.pdf District court docket — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2020cv09805/799610 Contemporaneous case background — Top Class Actions: https://topclassactions.com/civil-rights/protester-files-class-action-lawsuit-against-lasd-alleging-excessive-force-phone-seizure/ Section 1983 and Monell legal outline — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/section_1983/Section-1983-Revised-2024.pdf

Ricardo Hernandez-Mendez v. Todd Blanche — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Ricardo Hernandez-Mendez's immigration appeal. He faces removal to El Salvador and says his visible gang tattoos make detention and torture there more likely. An immigration judge found he would probably be tortured there and granted him protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed that ruling. A second, consolidated petition asks whether the Board should have reopened the case to consider new evidence. The judges now consider whether the Board improperly reweighed the immigration judge's factual prediction and whether it fairly handled the new evidence. Ricardo Hernandez-Mendez v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-1648) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1648-20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Appellate docket 25-1648 — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-1648 Consolidated appellate docket 25-2410 — PACER-derived Justia record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-2410 Amicus brief of former immigration judges and Board members: https://immigrationcourtside.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/CORRECTED-Hernandez-Mendez-Roundtable-Amicus-Brief-Fourth-Circuit-FINAL.pdf

USA v. Javan Thompson — 7th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Javan Thompson's appeal. He had earlier felony convictions and was later convicted of possessing a gun despite that record. Federal law generally bars firearm possession after certain prior convictions. The Seventh Circuit recently upheld that ban for a past drug-trafficking felony, but left open whether a non-dangerous prior felony would be different. The judges now face that unresolved question in Thompson's case, along with whether to assess only the earlier convictions or his broader record. USA v. Javan Thompson (No. 24-2904) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.24-2904.24-2904_09_17_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Sentencing account — U.S. Attorney for the Central District of Illinois: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdil/pr/kankakee-man-sentenced-ten-years-prison-attempting-use-mail-obtain-fentanyl Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/24-2904 18 U.S.C. § 922 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A18+section%3A922+edition%3Aprelim) United States v. Watson — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026%2FD04-02%2FC%3A24-2432%3AJ%3ABrennan%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3516557%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display United States v. Prince — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026%2FD04-02%2FC%3A23-3155%3AJ%3AEasterbrook%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3516563%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

USA v. Murali Venkata — D.C. Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Murali Venkata's appeal. Venkata worked in the Homeland Security inspector general's IT office. Prosecutors said he helped take government software and databases to build a private product they hoped to sell to another federal inspector general. A jury convicted him, and he appealed. The court must decide whether those convictions should stand. USA v. Murali Venkata (No. 24-3021) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/24-3021.mp3 Argument listing and counsel — D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Pretrial opinion and case background — U.S. District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_20-cr-00066/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_20-cr-00066-0.pdf Jury verdict — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/former-department-homeland-security-employee-convicted-scheme-defraud-united-states Original allegations and proposed purchaser — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/former-acting-inspector-general-us-department-homeland-security-indicted-theft-governmnet Appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/24-3021 Matthew Farley — Federal Public Defender: https://dc.fd.org/staffdirectory.htm Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_52 Plain-error standard — D.C. Circuit opinion: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/07/21-3081-2065499.pdf Plain-error discretion — United States v. Olano: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-507/USREPORTS-507-725

Figuereo v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters — 2d Cir. (Sep 21, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Frederick Figuereo's appeal. United Airlines fired the technician over alleged timecard fraud. His union filed a grievance, then declined to seek arbitration. Figuereo sued the airline and union to bring that grievance before an airline labor arbitration board himself. The district court dismissed his suit, finding the Railway Labor Act gave him no such right. The appeal also tests whether he gave that choice to his union. Figuereo v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (No. 26-47) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 21, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-47.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court order — E.D.N.Y. (public mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1:2025cv00391/526464/34/ Appeal docket — Second Circuit (public mirror): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-47 45 U.S.C. § 184 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A45+section%3A184+edition%3Aprelim%29 Samuel Seham — firm profile: https://ssmplaw.com/attorneys/seham-samuel/ Jason Zarrow — firm profile: https://omm.com/professionals/jason-matthew-zarrow/ Rachel Rekowski — firm profile: https://hsglawgroup.com/our-staff/rachel-r-rekowski/

USA v. Carlos Padilla, Jr. — 7th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears related appeals from four defendants in a federal Latin Kings racketeering prosecution in Chicago. Prosecutors accused the gang's Southeast Region of using violence to enforce its rules and retaliate against rivals. At trial, witnesses described Miguel Denava ramming a rival's car, after which other gang members pulled the man out and beat him. A jury convicted Denava of racketeering conspiracy and a violent crime in aid of racketeering, while Juan Jimenez was convicted of racketeering conspiracy. USA v. Carlos Padilla, Jr. (No. 22-2907) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.22-2907.22-2907_09_14_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Indictment background — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/thirty-four-alleged-gang-members-charged-participating-racketeering-conspiracy Denava post-trial ruling — U.S. District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_16-cr-00463/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_16-cr-00463-4.pdf Jimenez post-trial ruling — U.S. District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_16-cr-00463/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_16-cr-00463-3.pdf Violent crimes in aid of racketeering statute — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section1959

Mark Hamman v. City of Carbondale, Illinois — 7th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Mark Brandon Hamman's dispute with Carbondale, Illinois, over anti-abortion yard signs. In April 2025, Hamman planted small signs on a grassy public right-of-way outside a reproductive-health clinic. City officials told him he could carry the signs but could not leave them staked there; he removed them without receiving a citation. Hamman sued, alleging that the sign rules are unclear and discriminate against his message. A district judge refused to temporarily bar enforcement while the lawsuit continues, finding his First Amendment claim unlikely to succeed. Now the appeals court will examine whether the wording gives fair notice, whether the restriction is sufficiently narrow, and whether the exceptions favor certain kinds of speech. Mark Hamman v. City of Carbondale, Illinois (No. 26-1133) — 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.26-1133.26-1133_09_22_2026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilsdce/3:2025cv00736/104982/49/ Appellant's account of the appeal — ACLJ: https://aclj.org/pro-life/aclj-files-at-seventh-circuit-after-city-targeted-pro-life-speech-and-city-official-confirmed-it Carbondale temporary-sign ordinance — city code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/carbondaleil/latest/carbondale_il/0-0-0-10222 Carbondale encroachment-permit ordinance — city code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/carbondaleil/latest/carbondale_il/0-0-0-12765 Appellate docket mirror and counsel — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1133 Nathan Moelker — ACLJ: https://aclj.org/writers/nathan-moelker Stefanie Brody — Sandberg Phoenix: https://sandbergphoenix.com/people/stefanie-brody/

United States v. Vano — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Isaac Vano's appeal from two federal gun-law convictions. After leaving prison, Vano lived with his parents in Kansas while under state post-release supervision. Officers then searched his locked bedroom without a separate search warrant and found ammunition and three boxed silencers. A jury convicted him, and the district judge declined to suppress the evidence or set aside the silencer verdict. Vano now challenges the bedroom search and whether the evidence proved he knew the boxes held silencers. United States v. Vano (No. 25-3128) — 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/25-3128.mp3 Argument listing 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%2F28%2F2026 Suppression order — U.S. District Court, Kansas: https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr20061-42= Silencer-verdict order — U.S. District Court, Kansas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_23-cr-20061/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_23-cr-20061-1.pdf Pending appellate issues — Kansas Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf Appellate docket mirror and defense counsel — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-3128 Dan Hansmeier — Kansas Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/node/8564 Griffin v. Wisconsin — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/483/868 United States v. Knights — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/534/112 Illinois v. Krull — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/480/340

Eli Lilly and Company v. Robert Kennedy, Jr. — 7th Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 28, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Eli Lilly's challenge to the FDA's classification of retatrutide, an investigational medicine Lilly is studying for obesity and other conditions. Lilly sought a biological-product designation, but the FDA classified retatrutide as a drug. The agency counted at most 40 alpha amino acids, short of what it says the protein rule requires. A district judge accepted that reading of protein but rejected the agency's separate reason for excluding retatrutide as a product analogous to a protein, and sent that question back. Lilly appealed. Eli Lilly and Company v. Robert Kennedy, Jr. (No. 26-1301) — 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.26-1301.26-1301_09_24_2026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Amended district-court order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_24-cv-01503/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_24-cv-01503-1.pdf FDA protein-definition rule: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-02-21/pdf/2020-03505.pdf Product-classification statute: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title21-section360bbb-2 Retatrutide development — Eli Lilly: https://www.lilly.com/news/stories/what-to-know-about-retatrutide

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected