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:

Hajjar, et al. v. St. Luke's Health System, Ltd., et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

Independent neurosurgeons in southwestern Idaho challenge St. Luke's rules for covering patient emergencies. They belong to Neuroscience Associates and compete with hospital-employed and contracted surgeons. In 2018, St. Luke's stopped paying independent doctors for on-call coverage. A 2022 policy required their group to provide continuous coverage for any patient they had treated within the last two years. The doctors say this leaves Dr. Hajjar with an untenable burden and discourages independent competition. Medical staff privileges mean permission to treat patients at the hospital; keeping those privileges is linked to meeting the call requirements. The district court dismissed the antitrust claims, reasoning that a competitor need not subsidize a rival and that the complaint did not show the required harm to competition. Under Rule twelve b six, judges test whether the alleged facts state a plausible legal claim, rather than resolve a trial's factual disputes. Counsel for the doctors will ask the Ninth Circuit to revive their suit, arguing the policy unlawfully restricts competition rather than merely withholding payment. You will hear locum tenens: a temporary substitute doctor. Hajjar, et al. v. St. Luke's Health System, Ltd., et al. (No. 25-6120) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-6120.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-6120&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Case posture — official Ninth Circuit calendar, search docket 25-6120: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-search Alleged policies, case history and dismissal reasons — D. Idaho Doc. 24, August 27, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-1_23-cv-00367/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-1_23-cv-00367-1.pdf Locum tenens definition — American Medical Association: https://www.ama-assn.org/medical-residents/transition-resident-attending/what-early-career-physicians-should-know-about Independent locum tenens definition — American Academy of Pediatrics: https://www.aap.org/en/career-resources/planning-your-career/locum-tenes/

In re Metschan — 9th Cir. BAP (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

A dispute over a divorced couple's finances has become a fight over bankruptcy lawyers' fees. Philip Metschan filed Chapter Seven bankruptcy, putting a trustee in charge of assets available to pay creditors. His former wife, Christina Shay, sought payment under their divorce settlement. The trustee's professionals contested her claims, and Shay objected that their fees were consuming the estate. In an earlier appeal, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel sent the law firm's fee award back because the findings did not sufficiently support it. That remand, the instruction sending the matter back, required closer review of the services, not a specified percentage reduction. Section three-thirty of the Bankruptcy Code allows reasonable fees for actual, necessary professional services. Listen for two review standards: de novo, a fresh look at a legal question, and abuse of discretion, which gives the bankruptcy judge room for reasonable judgment. Andrew Christensen will argue for Shay, seeking to overturn the fee award. Jean Barnier will respond for the trustee, Timothy Hoffman, defending it. In re Metschan (No. 26-1090) — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/26-1090.mp3 Argument date and case — official recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1090&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Correct BAP docket and panel — October 15, 2026 San Francisco calendar: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2010%2015%20SF.pdf Background, professional fees and prior remand — BAP memorandum, May 9, 2025 (24-1181 and related appeals): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2025/05/09/24-1181.pdf Earlier divorce-claim and bankruptcy history — Judge Chhabria order, May 24, 2023; primary text mirror: https://app.midpage.ai/document/in-re-philip-james-metschan-10075279 Historical same-case counsel appearances, checked against current oral introductions — public order frontmatter: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20230525a57 Professional compensation standard — 11 U.S.C. 330(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/330

USA v. Zamora — 9th Cir. (Oct 15, 2026) Oct 16, 2026

Show notes

Moises Zamora challenges his federal methamphetamine conviction in the Ninth Circuit. In November 2022, a Montana deputy approached his parked car at a gas station and pulled the patrol car in behind it. Zamora drove off, police pursued him on icy roads, and the chase ended at a dead end. Officers later obtained a warrant to search the car and found methamphetamine. A jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute. The district court denied his motion to keep the drug evidence out. A key question is whether the parking-lot encounter became an unlawful seizure before he drove away. If it did, the court will consider whether his later flight broke the connection between that police action and the evidence. That legal idea, attenuation, can allow evidence in when the connection to unlawful conduct has become sufficiently weakened. You will also hear chain of custody: the documented history of how evidence is collected, handled and transferred. Daniel Ball will argue for Zamora, seeking to overturn the conviction. USA v. Zamora (No. 25-4625) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit; next-case call omitted after this case was submitted: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/15/25-4625.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4625&hearingDate=2026-10-15 Events, suppression motion and attenuation analysis — D. Montana Doc. 25, August 9, 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-1_23-cr-00020/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-1_23-cr-00020-1.pdf Jury conviction and case history — U.S. Attorney, District of Montana, July 23, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/colorado-man-sentenced-30-years-prison-drug-charges Appeal identity and counsel appearances — public clerk docket mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-4625 Chain of custody — NIST forensic lexicon, citing ASB Technical Report 208: https://www.nist.gov/glossary-term/45101

Palladino v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. — 2d Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

Four California cardholders challenge the way Visa, Mastercard and major banks set payment-card transaction fees. They allege those fees are inflated by price fixing and passed on through higher prices at the checkout. The interchange fee is paid between financial institutions; the claimed consumer injury is higher retail prices. The consumers argue that merchants join the alleged conspiracy by following the networks' rules and passing the cost to shoppers. Those are allegations, not findings that merchants conspired. The suit began in California state court and was transferred into related payment-card litigation in federal court in Brooklyn. That court dismissed the claims, finding that the consumers had not alleged the kind of injury California antitrust law protects: they shopped in a market different from the one where the alleged fee fixing occurred. This appeal asks whether that distinction defeats their claims under the Cartwright Act, California's law against restraints of trade. The discussion of antitrust standing concerns who may bring this kind of claim, not whether price fixing has been proved. Joseph Alioto will argue for the consumers, seeking to revive their suit. Palladino v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (No. 25-1490) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1490.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit archive: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Allegations, payment flow and dismissal reasons — E.D.N.Y. Doc. 97, December 30, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_23-cv-01215/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_23-cv-01215-4.pdf Merchants' alleged role and reconsideration — E.D.N.Y. Doc. 104, May 12, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_23-cv-01215/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_23-cv-01215-5.pdf Appeal identity and listed counsel — public Second Circuit docket mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1490

Environmental Defense Fund v. Lee Zeldin — D.C. Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears a challenge to EPA's delay of air-pollution requirements for oil and gas facilities. In 2024, EPA adopted rules to reduce methane and other emissions from new, modified, and existing facilities. The requirements cover pollution-control equipment, leaking valves and storage tanks, and a program to identify and respond to unusually large methane releases. Existing facilities are addressed through plans developed by states under EPA's guidelines. In July 2025, EPA extended many compliance dates and the state-plan deadline to January twenty-second, twenty twenty-seven. After public comments, a December 2025 final rule affirmed those extensions and also pushed back initial annual reporting. Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental organizations petitioned this court to set aside that final rule. They say EPA ignored the health and climate consequences of delay and relied on unsupported industry assertions. EPA maintains that it considered emissions and reasonably extended deadlines that were not workable because of equipment shortages and technical problems. The judges will examine the justification for individual extensions and whether EPA adequately considered the pollution consequences. They will also ask whether the groups have shown injuries to their members that let them challenge each extension. Grace Smith, an Environmental Defense Fund attorney, will argue for the groups. Environmental Defense Fund v. Lee Zeldin (No. 25-1275) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-1275.mp3 Case, date, panel and counsel — official D.C. Circuit archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Original oil and gas methane and VOC standards — EPA, 89 FR 16820 (March 8, 2024): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-03-08/pdf/2024-00366.pdf Interim extension of compliance deadlines — EPA, 90 FR 35966 (July 31, 2025): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-07-31/pdf/2025-14531.pdf Final extension rule after comments — EPA, 90 FR 55671 (December 3, 2025): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-12-03/pdf/2025-21788.pdf Petitioners' opening brief — D.C. Circuit No. 25-1275, filed June 3, 2026: https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/v16uc3d3427y882gy02lswv1y03rqsq1.pdf Grace Smith's current role — Environmental Defense Fund profile: https://www.edf.org/people/grace-smith John Kerkhoff's current role — Ohio Attorney General profile: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About-AG/Service-Divisions/Office-of-the-Solicitor-General New-source performance standards — 42 U.S.C. 7411: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7411.htm Clean Air Act judicial review — 42 U.S.C. 7607: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap85-subchapIII-sec7607.htm

Application for Judicial Assistance — D.C. Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit considers whether a remote-work company can be required to provide evidence for litigation in Guatemala. BAPA Holdings wants documents and testimony from NeWay Capital for a contract lawsuit there. NeWay is not a party to that foreign lawsuit. BAPA is using Title twenty-eight, section seventeen eighty-two, which lets a federal court order evidence from someone who resides or is found in its district for use before a foreign or international tribunal. This American proceeding is about obtaining evidence, not deciding who wins the Guatemalan contract case. A district judge authorized a subpoena in May 2025 and later refused NeWay's request to set aside that authorization. The first subpoena had a service defect, and the judge anticipated further disputes about the scope of discovery. Before reaching NeWay's challenge, the panel asks whether the district court has finished enough of its work to make an appeal available. You will hear this called finality. A separate question is personal jurisdiction: the court's power to bind a particular person or company. BAPA points to NeWay's own official filings and website identifying Washington as its headquarters. NeWay says its staff work remotely and its D.C. address is only a mail-forwarding office. Nicholas Dranias will argue for NeWay that the company is not at home in D.C. and that the discovery authorization should be set aside. Application for Judicial Assistance (No. 25-7206) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording, complete argument preserved: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-7206.mp3 Case, argument date, panel and counsel — official D.C. Circuit archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Initial discovery authorization — D.D.C. Doc. 3, May 21, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2025mc00026/277917/3/0.pdf?ts=1747907660 Background, personal jurisdiction and subpoena service — D.D.C. Doc. 12, November 24, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-mc-00026/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-mc-00026-1.pdf Jurisdictional record and request to pause discovery — D.D.C. Doc. 19, January 15, 2026: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-mc-00026/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-mc-00026-2.pdf Evidence for foreign proceedings — 28 U.S.C. 1782: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title28/html/USCODE-2023-title28-partV-chap117-sec1782.htm Appeals from final district-court decisions — 28 U.S.C. 1291: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap83-sec1291.htm Related earlier Guatemalan-case discovery, not the NeWay subpoena — S.D. Fla. Doc. 54: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2022cv20504/620342/54/0.pdf?ts=1744105944

Salazar v. Paramount Global — SCOTUS (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court asks whether a newsletter subscriber can sue over the sharing of video-viewing information. Michael Salazar signed up for a free email newsletter from 247Sports, a Paramount website covering college sports. He also watched the site's free videos while logged into Facebook. His lawsuit alleges that tracking code called the Meta Pixel sent Facebook his account identifier and video-viewing details without his consent. He says the information supported targeted advertising. In twenty twenty-two, he sued for himself and other users under the Video Privacy Protection Act. Congress enacted that law in nineteen eighty-eight after the disclosure of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video-rental history. It restricts a covered provider's knowing disclosure of information linking a consumer to specific videos, with exceptions including informed written consent. A consumer includes a renter, purchaser or subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider. The district court dismissed Salazar's suit because his newsletter subscription was not enough; a divided Sixth Circuit affirmed. The question is whether the subscription must concern videos, or whether a non-video service from the same provider is enough. These are allegations at the pleading stage, not findings after a trial. Resolving the consumer definition would not by itself settle whether the tracking data qualifies as protected information. You will also hear about standing: a concrete personal injury caused by the defendant that a court can remedy. Amicus briefs are submissions from nonparties offering information or arguments to assist the Court. Joshua Hammack of Bailey and Glasser will argue for Salazar, asking the Court to set aside the dismissal. Salazar v. Paramount Global (No. 25-459) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Supreme Court recording, complete original preserved: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-459.mp3 Official transcript and speaking counsel — October 14, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-459_1a7d.pdf Case, argument date and counsel — Supreme Court docket 25-459: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-459.html Facts and appealed judgment — Sixth Circuit opinion, April 3, 2025: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0081p-06.pdf Salazar's factual account and position — petitioner merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-459/404775/20260417185334778_25-459_Petitioner%20Brief.pdf Paramount's factual account and position — respondent merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-459/413862/20260623121413751_25-459%20Paramount%20Merits%20Response%20Brief.pdf Video Privacy Protection Act — 18 U.S.C. 2710, definitions, disclosure, consent and remedies: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap121-sec2710.htm Standing requirements — TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, opinion pages 7–9: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-297_4g25.pdf Amicus curiae definition — U.S. Courts glossary: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary Amicus briefs — Supreme Court Rule 37.1: https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2026rulesofthecourt_web.pdf

Sterling v. Blanche — 2d Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

Nathaniel Sterling challenges his return to immigration detention after years out on bond. An immigration judge released him in twenty eighteen after finding him neither dangerous nor likely to flee. ICE later declared the bond breached for missed check-ins, but Sterling says he never received the notices. He was arrested again in December twenty twenty-five. At a new bond hearing, the government relied on police reports from several arrests, including firearm and driving incidents. Sterling says those arrests produced no criminal convictions and the reports were not adequately corroborated. The immigration judge nevertheless found him dangerous and refused release. Sterling filed a habeas petition, asking a federal court to review the legality of his custody. The district court denied it, and he appealed to the Second Circuit. Immigration bond concerns release during removal proceedings, not guilt on criminal charges. The hearing used a clear and convincing evidence standard: a higher burden than simply more likely than not, but below proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Section twelve twenty-six allows detention or release on bond, but subsection E restricts court review of discretionary bond decisions. Listen for the line between correcting legal or constitutional errors and simply reweighing the evidence of danger, as well as the notice required before renewed detention. Sterling's counsel will argue that the procedures and evidentiary standards were legally inadequate. Sterling v. Blanche (No. 26-1724) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit; complete recording preserved: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-1724.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit archive: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Facts, bond hearing and appealed habeas denial — D. Connecticut Doc. 49, June 17, 2026: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_25-cv-02122/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_25-cv-02122-0.pdf Appeal identity and received district decision — public clerk docket transcription: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-1724 Detention, bond and limits on review — 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), (b), (e): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title8/html/USCODE-2024-title8-chap12-subchapII-partIV-sec1226.htm Habeas review of custody — 28 U.S.C. 2241: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partVI-chap153-sec2241.htm Counsel identity and office — DOJ Connecticut Civil Division: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/civil-division Intermediate standard of proof — Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423–425: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep441/usrep441418/usrep441418.pdf Clear-and-convincing proof — Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 315–316: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep467/usrep467310/usrep467310.pdf

DC v. Donald Trump — D.C. Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit considers President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Washington. In August 2025, he ordered the D.C. Guard mobilized to deter crime and directed coordination with governors to bring in additional troops. Guard members began patrolling Metro stations, downtown and residential neighborhoods. The District sued, saying the deployments exceeded the powers Congress had granted. A federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction, a temporary order blocking the deployments. A different appeals panel put that order on hold in December 2025 while the government's appeal proceeded; it did not finally settle the case. D.C. is unusual: the President, not a governor, commands its Guard. The dispute is what deployments that command relationship permits, and whether D.C. has shown irreparable harm, meaning harm that later relief would not adequately remedy. The government also invokes Title thirty-two, section five-oh-two, subsection F, which permits training and other Guard duty, including support for missions requested by the President or Defense Secretary. Title thirty-two duty generally provides federal funding without putting Guard members into federal active-duty status. You will also hear the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts using the federal armed forces for civilian law enforcement unless the Constitution or Congress authorizes it. The district court did not decide whether these deployments violated that act. Eric McArthur of the Justice Department will argue that D.C.'s militia laws and federal law authorize the mission. DC v. Donald Trump (No. 25-5418) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit; complete argument and closing preserved: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-5418.mp3 Case, argument date, panel and arguing counsel — official D.C. Circuit archive: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Deployment order — Presidential memorandum, August 11, 2025: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/restoring-law-and-order-in-the-district-of-columbia/ Background and preliminary injunction — D.D.C. Doc. 88, November 20, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2025cv03005/284495/88/0.pdf?ts=1763733335 Injunction suspended pending appeal, not a final merits decision — D.C. Circuit, December 17, 2025: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/12/25-5418LDSN3.pdf District's account, arguments and counsel — filed appellee brief, May 18, 2026: https://www.acludc.org/app/uploads/2026/05/DC-v-Trump-Response-Brief-filed.pdf Guard training and other duty — 32 U.S.C. 502(f): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title32/html/USCODE-2024-title32-chap5-sec502.htm Guard status and federal pay — 32 U.S.C. 101(12), (19): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title32/html/USCODE-2024-title32-chap1-sec101.htm Restrictions on military law enforcement — Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. 1385: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t18/s1385/ President's D.C. militia command — D.C. Code 49-409: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/49-409 Drills and other duties — D.C. Code 49-102: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/49-102 Civilian requests for militia assistance with riots — D.C. Code 49-103: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/49-103 Government advocate's current office — official Justice Department profile: https://www.justice.gov/civil/staff-profile/deputy-assistant-attorney-general-appellate-staff

Nader, et al. v. LendingTree, LLC, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute arising from the Snowflake data breach. Customers of LendingTree and QuoteWizard say personal information they supplied while seeking loan and insurance quotes was stolen from storage on Snowflake's cloud. The case is part of multidistrict litigation, or M D L, which brings related federal lawsuits together for pretrial proceedings. They sued, but the companies say the customers accepted website terms requiring arbitration, meaning a private arbitrator rather than a court would hear the claims. The district court refused to compel arbitration, finding that the web pages did not clearly notify customers of the terms or show their agreement. That ruling, not responsibility for the breach, is the issue in this appeal. Under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts enforce valid arbitration agreements, but must first determine whether one was formed. You will hear sign-in wrap: a website says clicking a sign-up button also accepts terms available through a link. The judges will focus on small print, contrast and scrolling on phones, and on what clicking the button communicated. They will also discuss de novo review, a fresh look at a legal question, and the more deferential review of factual findings. Paul Werner will argue for LendingTree and QuoteWizard, seeking arbitration. Nader, et al. v. LendingTree, LLC, et al. (No. 25-7045) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit; full argument and closing preserved: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/14/25-7045.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7045&hearingDate=2026-10-14 Appeal and hearing — official Ninth Circuit calendar: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-10-14&loc=MTMRH Underlying allegations and denied arbitration — D. Montana Doc. 595, October 30, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-2_24-md-03126/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-2_24-md-03126-37.pdf Company's incident account — QuoteWizard July 30, 2024 notice, hosted by Vermont Attorney General: https://ago.vermont.gov/sites/ago/files/documents/2024-08-09%20QuoteWizard%20Data%20Breach%20Notice%20to%20Consumers.pdf Case-linked counsel and appeal filings — public clerk docket transcription: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-7045 Valid arbitration agreements — Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 2: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title9/html/USCODE-2024-title9-chap1-sec2.htm Court determination of agreement formation — Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 4: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title9/html/USCODE-2024-title9-chap1-sec4.htm Online notice, assent and appellate review — Ninth Circuit Berman opinion, 2022: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/05/20-16900.pdf Multidistrict pretrial proceedings — 28 U.S.C. 1407: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap87-sec1407.htm

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected