Government

Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context. Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners. We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to. Recordings come from the courts’ own public releases; Supreme Court timing is derived locally from the Court’s official transcript and audio.

Latest Episodes:

United States v. Gonzalez — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

A Kansas jury convicted Javier Gonzalez of a methamphetamine conspiracy and three related drug counts. Undercover buys involved Steven Crawford; Gabriel Venegas testified that he supplied Gonzalez with methamphetamine on credit. A proffer is an interview in which a potential cooperator gives prosecutors information under agreed terms. Gonzalez disputes how much other evidence tied him to the sales, and the district judge denied his request for acquittal. He will argue prosecutors improperly vouched for Venegas's honesty; because he did not object at trial, that claim faces plain-error review. He also challenges a Pinkerton instruction that lets jurors hold one conspirator responsible for another's foreseeable crimes committed to advance their shared plan, arguing it does not fit Section 846, which requires no overt act—a concrete step to advance a conspiracy. United States v. Gonzalez (No. 25-3163) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 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/25-3163.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%2F27%2F2026 Trial evidence and post-trial order — District of Kansas: https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2023cr20022-177= Issues on appeal — Kansas Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf Drug-conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 846 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&preview=true&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title21-section846 Overt-act rule — Supreme Court, United States v. Shabani: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/513bv.pdf Proffer practice — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2012/10/31/usab6006.pdf Proffer and cooperation — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101100322.pdf Counsel profile — Kansas Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/node/8563 Counsel profile — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/archives/usao-ks/staff-profile/meet-us-attorney-slinkard Appellate docket and counsel entries — Tenth Circuit docket mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-3163 Co-conspirator liability — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01019027334.pdf Prosecutorial vouching — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111095811.pdf

Strine v. U.S. Center for SafeSport — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

Derek Strine, who runs a Florida equestrian training facility, challenges the U.S. Center for SafeSport. After two women accused him of sexual misconduct, the Center restricted his participation in Olympic-connected equestrian events; Strine disputes the allegations and says the restrictions hurt his business. This appeal does not decide what happened between them. A Colorado federal judge dismissed Strine's lawsuit, finding that SafeSport is not a government actor and that Congress did not turn its rules into federal law. Strine will argue that Section 220541 gives this private organization lawmaking power, and that constitutional protections therefore apply. SafeSport will answer that its code remains private rules for sport, while the judges probe whether the relief Strine seeks would actually remove the restrictions. Strine v. U.S. Center for SafeSport (No. 25-1407) — 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/25-1407.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%2F27%2F2026 District court dismissal order and case background — District of Colorado: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_24-cv-02329/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_24-cv-02329-1.pdf Earlier venue-transfer order — Southern District of Florida: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_24-cv-02329/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_24-cv-02329-0.pdf SafeSport statute, 36 U.S.C. § 220541 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title36-section220541 National governing bodies' duties, 36 U.S.C. § 220524 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&f=treesort&jumpTo=true&num=0&req=%28title%3A36+section%3A220524+edition%3Aprelim%29+OR+%28granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title36-section220524%29 Argument and case reporting — Courthouse News Service: https://www.courthousenews.com/equestrian-businessman-challenges-safesport-ban-at-10th-circuit/ Appellate docket and counsel entries — Tenth Circuit docket mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-1407 Avery Chapman's firm — Equine Law Group: https://equinelawyer.com/attorneys/ Joseph Zonies's firm — Zonies Law: https://www.zonieslaw.com/our-people/joe-zonies

Dewberry Engineers Inc. v. Dewberry Group, Inc. — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit revisits a trademark fight between two unrelated Dewberry businesses. Dewberry Engineers owns registered Dewberry marks; a 2007 settlement limited how developer Dewberry Group could use the name. After Dewberry Group rebranded in 2017 with new Dewberry names and logos, Engineers sued for infringement and breach of the settlement. The district court awarded nearly forty-three million dollars by counting profits of separately incorporated affiliates. The Supreme Court rejected that method in 2025: the Lanham Act's reference to the defendant's profits does not simply include those of nonparty affiliates. It sent the case back without deciding whether a different award could be justified under the statute's just-sum provision, which permits a court to adjust an inadequate or excessive profits recovery. Now the lawyers dispute whether Engineers raised its alternative calculations in time, who should decide, and whether attorney fees must be reconsidered. Dewberry Engineers Inc. v. Dewberry Group, Inc. (No. 22-1622) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 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/mp3/22-1622-20260916.mp3 Argument listing and date — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Earlier appellate opinion and case history — Fourth Circuit (2023; later vacated): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221622.p.pdf Remand decision — U.S. Supreme Court (2025): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-900_19m1.pdf Earlier response brief — Fourth Circuit filing in Supreme Court appendix: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-900/309278/20240508090613649_23-900%20Parker.Dewberry%20SA%20ALL%20PDFA.pdf Lanham Act remedies, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title15-section1117 Counsel identities — Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-900/292202/20231204153259585_Dewberry%20Certificate%20of%20Service.pdf Jonathan Bond's firm — Gibson Dunn: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/bond-jonathan-c/ Elbert Lin's firm — Hunton Andrews Kurth: https://www.hunton.com/news/hunton-earns-six-honors-at-benchmark-litigations-2026-us-awards

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears a fight over Salt-N-Pepa's early master recordings. In 1986, Cheryl James and Sandra Denton signed a recording agreement with producer Herb Azor's company, and Azor made a deal with a predecessor of UMG. Decades later, the artists sent UMG notices seeking to terminate what they say were copyright grants. UMG disputed the notices and removed recordings from U.S. streaming services. The artists sued, but a district judge dismissed the case before trial, finding no copyright grant executed by them. Section 203 can let authors end old grants, but excludes works made for hire. The appeal asks whether these contracts transferred rights from the artists, and whether the work-for-hire question needs a fuller record. James v. UMG Recordings, Inc. (No. 26-253) — 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/26-253.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court opinion and case background — S.D.N.Y.: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv04182/642788/46/0.pdf Appeal docket — Second Circuit, via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-253 Artists' appellate brief — Second Circuit filing: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/files/2026/04/Salt-N-Pepa-Brief.pdf UMG's appellate brief — Second Circuit filing: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/files/2026/05/Salt-N-Pepa-v-UMG-May-5-2026.pdf 17 U.S.C. § 203 — U.S. Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html Copyright termination guide — U.S. Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/recordation/termination.html Richard Busch's current firm — Adams & Reese: https://www.adamsandreese.com/people/richard-busch Richard Mandel's firm — Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman: https://www.cll.com/attorneys-Richard_S_Mandel Report on Busch's 2026 firm move — Music Business Worldwide: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/blurred-lines-copyright-lawyer-richard-busch-joins-law-firm-adams-reese-as-special-counsel/ Independent report on removed recordings — Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/7ff67b7064c2d8f9c8b61b9e94973610

McArtor v. Valsoft Corporation — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears two consolidated appeals over Valsoft and Aspire's purchase of Nexera, a software company founded by Weston McArtor. The sale agreement gave McArtor's company, BEI Services, a chance at additional payments if Nexera met revenue targets after the acquisition. The sellers sued, alleging that post-sale price increases and personnel changes hurt Nexera and cost them those payments. The lawsuit reached a Wyoming federal court, and the buyers have appealed in these two dockets. This argument asks how the contract's material-adverse-effect clause applies to Nexera's annual recurring revenue, and whether the evidence linked the buyers' actions to the missed target. McArtor v. Valsoft Corporation (No. 25-8068) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 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/25-8068.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%2F27%2F2026 Consolidated appeal dockets — Tenth Circuit, via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-8068 Companion appeal docket — Tenth Circuit, via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/26-8000 District court order on the purchase agreement and expert evidence: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wyd-1_23-cv-00136/pdf/USCOURTS-wyd-1_23-cv-00136-0.pdf District court order on the remaining contract claims: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wyd-1_23-cv-00136/pdf/USCOURTS-wyd-1_23-cv-00136-1.pdf Nexera acquisition announcement — Valsoft: https://www.accessnewswire.com/newsroom/en/banking-and-financial-services/valsoft-corporation-strengthens-printing-vertical-with-acquisition-of-753520

McMillian v. Dolgen Midwest, LLC — 9th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Donna McMillian's appeal after a fall in a Las Vegas Dollar General store. She says she slipped on oil spilled from a can another customer opened. No one witnessed the incident, and surveillance cameras did not cover that aisle, leaving the timing of the spill uncertain. A federal judge ended her case before trial, ruling that she had not shown the store had constructive notice of the hazard. That means the store should have discovered the danger even if no employee actually saw it. McMillian will ask the court to let a jury consider whether reasonable inspections would have found the spill. Dollar General will argue that without evidence of how long this spill was there, the store cannot be charged with notice. McMillian v. Dolgen Midwest, LLC (No. 25-4947) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 15, 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/2026/09/15/25-4947.mp3 Argument listing and date — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4947&hearingDate=2026-09-15 Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2023cv00571/161871/25/ Watson v. Dolgen Midwest — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2024/12/19/23-4081.pdf

United States v. Garg — 9th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Sumit Garg's appeal from federal cyberstalking convictions. Prosecutors said he sent threatening emails and online posts targeting a Seattle woman, then people around her, including her boyfriend, police and prosecutors. A jury convicted him on seven counts, and he received a nine-year prison sentence. Davina Chen will argue for Garg that police entered his home without a warrant while claiming to investigate a break-in, then seized his phone. She will also argue that the trial court wrongly bound him, after he chose to represent himself, to the earlier suppression litigation handled by his former lawyer. Finally, she challenges whether the jury instructions adequately protected speech under the First Amendment. Tania Culbertson will defend the convictions for the United States. United States v. Garg (No. 24-5019) — 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/2026/09/16/24-5019.mp3 Argument listing and date — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-5019&hearingDate=2026-09-16 New-trial order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/66b449f92087cd1915575159 Conviction and case background — U.S. Attorney's Office, W.D. Wash.: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/former-privacy-consultant-convicted-cyberstalking-campaign-against-former-roommate-her Sentencing — U.S. Attorney's Office, W.D. Wash.: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/pernicious-cyberstalker-sentenced-9-years-prison-unrelenting-harassment-former Appellate docket and counsel — Ninth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/24-5019 Counterman v. Colorado — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf United States v. Osinger — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/06/04/11-50338.pdf

United States v. Malakhov — 2d Cir. (Sep 21, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

A federal research grant leads to a dispute over two hundred thousand dollars in restitution. In 2017, the National Science Foundation awarded Malakhov's company, Solid Cell, a grant for a research project. He drew two hundred thousand dollars and later admitted using some grant money for unrelated expenses. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor conversion of government money. The district court ordered full repayment, reasoning that he falsely certified the project's lead researcher was available when he drew the funds. Assistant Federal Public Defender Kathryn Austin will argue for Malakhov that his plea covered the later spending, not the certification, and that the government failed to establish a two hundred thousand dollar loss. The government will defend the award; the judges also ask whether the misdemeanor limits restitution to one thousand dollars. United States v. Malakhov (No. 25-1319) — 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/25-1319.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Restitution decision — U.S. District Court, W.D.N.Y.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nywd-6_22-cr-06093/pdf/USCOURTS-nywd-6_22-cr-06093-4.pdf Plea and grant background — U.S. Attorney's Office, W.D.N.Y.: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/rochester-business-leader-pleads-guilty-misusing-federal-grant-funding Appeal docket and defense counsel — Second Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1319 Kathryn Austin's office — Federal Public Defender, W.D.N.Y.: https://nyw.fd.org/contact Melissa Marangola's office — U.S. Attorney, W.D.N.Y.: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/criminal-division

Dickey v. Husted — 8th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

The Eighth Circuit hears Adrian Dickey's appeal in a lawsuit against his former wife, Shawna Husted, and her husband, Allen. Dickey bought a car for his daughter and kept a lien on its title; after the car was totaled, the family fought over the insurance money. Shawna, Allen, and Dickey's daughter sued him in Iowa state court, then dismissed their claims; the court later entered judgments for Dickey on his counterclaims. Dickey next sued Shawna and Allen in federal court, alleging they had knowingly misused the first suit to harm him. The federal judge dismissed his abuse-of-process and malicious-prosecution claims. Under Iowa law, the first claim requires improper use of legal process, while the second requires a special injury beyond the ordinary burdens of defending a lawsuit. The appeal asks whether his allegations meet those requirements. Dickey v. Husted (No. 25-3390) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2026/9/253390.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202609&getOA=Select Ruling and order — Iowa District Court for Jefferson County: https://www.bleedingheartland.com/static/media/2024/09/HustedDickey_ruling_order.pdf Motion-to-dismiss order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa: https://app.midpage.ai/document/dickey-v-husted-1000457111776 Foley v. Argosy Gaming Co. — Iowa Supreme Court: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ia-supreme-court/1433246.html Appellate docket and counsel — Eighth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-3390 Contemporaneous report on the family and state suit — Ottumwa Radio: https://ottumwaradio.com/2023/08/senator-dickey-files-countersuit-against-daughter/

Jones v. Fortino — 2d Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 27, 2026

Show notes

Daniel Jones is in New York's Article 10 civil-confinement system, which provides for yearly psychiatric examinations and possible court review of continued confinement. He says the Mental Hygiene Legal Service cited a conflict, and that he faced parts of the annual review process without a lawyer. An earlier federal case records a similar dispute over his representation, including a request for substitute counsel. In this newer suit, Jones named legal-service officials, psychiatric evaluators, and court personnel, claiming they hindered his access to court. A federal judge dismissed his amended complaint without prejudice in March 2025, finding that it failed to state a constitutional claim under Section 1915. The appeal asks whether that screening could rely on Younger abstention, and whether Jones alleged a federal rights violation rather than only a denial of counsel under state law. Jones v. Fortino (No. 25-913) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-913.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html 2025 dismissal judgment — N.D.N.Y. (GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd-9_24-cv-01152/pdf/USCOURTS-nynd-9_24-cv-01152-0.pdf Earlier Jones litigation and background — N.D.N.Y. (GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd-9_19-cv-00025/pdf/USCOURTS-nynd-9_19-cv-00025-1.pdf Appellate docket — Second Circuit (Justia mirror): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-913 Annual examination and review — N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 10.09: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/MHY/10.09 Mental Hygiene Legal Service duties — N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law § 47.03: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/MHY/47.03 Younger v. Harris — U.S. Supreme Court (GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-401/USREPORTS-401-37 Claim preclusion — Taylor v. Sturgell (GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-553/USREPORTS-553-880 Claim-preclusion explanation — U.S. Bankruptcy Court (GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nysb-1_19-bk-10412/pdf/USCOURTS-nysb-1_19-bk-10412-73.pdf Screening statute — 28 U.S.C. § 1915: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1915&num=0&edition=prelim Civil-rights remedy — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section1983&num=0&edition=prelim Evan Bianchi — Spiro Harrison & Nelson: https://shnlegal.com/Attorneys/evan-bianchi/ Evan Bianchi firm affiliation — New York appellate opinion: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/AD1/calendar/AppsMots/2026/apps/20260113/2025-02963.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected