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. Taylor — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Workers return belongings they had removed from a Bixby rental home after an FBI search, believing the items were abandoned. Armed men confront the workers and take phones, cards, and a work-related iPad. A federal jury convicts Bobbe Gene Taylor of Hobbs Act robbery and a firearm offense. The Hobbs Act makes robbery a federal crime when it affects interstate commerce. Taylor challenges that connection, arguing that the workers, not their employer, were robbed. He also challenges the gun instruction: could language about a firearm's potential to facilitate the robbery allow a conviction even if his gun stayed in a garage? The United States disputes both challenges. United States v. Taylor (No. 25-5018) — 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/25-5018.mp3 Argument listing — 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%2F26%2F2026 Appellate docket and counsel — Tenth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-5018 2024 jury verdict and incident — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/tulsa-man-convicted-jury-after-robbing-dominican-nationals-gunpoint Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 — U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/18/1951 Firearm offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924 — U.S. Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/18/924 Criminal pattern jury instructions — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/documents/downloads/2025%20Criminal%20Pattern%20Jury%20Instructions.pdf

Dolan v. FEMA — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears two consolidated appeals about compensation after New Mexico's Hermit's Peak and Calf Canyon Fire. Federal prescribed burns started the fire, which destroyed homes. Tobin Dolan says the fire took his house, his mother's, and his grandmother's. The Dolan and Lands claimants seek compensation for distress and inconvenience as well as property loss. Congress created a FEMA-run claims program, but FEMA's rules exclude these non-economic harms. A district court held that the statute permits them, and FEMA appealed. The judges must decide how the Act's promise of actual compensatory damages fits with its list of property, business, and financial losses. Sovereign immunity normally protects the federal government from damages claims, so the judges also ask whether Congress clearly made an exception here. Dolan v. FEMA (No. 25-2102) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-2102.mp3 Argument listing — 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%2F26%2F2026 Dolan appellate docket and counsel — Tenth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-2102 Lands companion docket — Tenth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-2103 District court opinion — Dolan and Lands: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_23-cv-00908/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_23-cv-00908-0.pdf Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act — Congress: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-117publ180/html/PLAW-117publ180.htm FEMA final compensation rule — Federal Register: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-08-29/pdf/2023-18457.pdf Federal sovereign-immunity rule — Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/604us2r21_6kh7.pdf Tobin Dolan's account of the fire — KOB 4: https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/4-investigates-the-prescribed-burns-that-started-the-calf-canyon-hermits-peak-fire/

CDOC, Inc. v. American Senior Benefits, LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A sales brochure leads two insurance businesses into a federal trademark appeal. Bankers Life and CDOC say a brochure made for American Senior Benefits used the Bankers Life name or logo. The companies sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. After years in district court, Bankers Life and CDOC now ask the Seventh Circuit to revisit the dispute. At argument, the panel asks whether a mark shown at an internal meeting of insurance agents counts as commercial use under the statute, even without proof that a customer saw the material. The lawyers also dispute whether possible confusion among agents can matter when actual customer confusion has not been shown. CDOC, Inc. v. American Senior Benefits, LLC (No. 25-2843) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.25-2843.25-2843_09_23_2026.mp3 Argument listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Appellate docket and counsel — Seventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2843 Underlying trademark case — plaintiff-side law firm: https://www.nealmcdevitt.com/christina-frangiosa/ Brochure dispute — defense-firm matter account: https://www.worldipreview.com/foley-lardner 15 U.S.C. § 1114 — registered-mark infringement: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/1114 15 U.S.C. § 1125 — false designation and advertising: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/1125 15 U.S.C. § 1127 — definitions: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/15/1127 Steven Huffer profile — S. K. Huffer & Associates: https://hufferlaw.com/ Jami Gekas profile — Foley & Lardner: https://www.foley.com/people/gekas-jami-a/

Porcha Hill v. Target Corporation — 7th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Porcha Hill asks the Seventh Circuit to revive her lawsuit against Target. Hill says she faced racial harassment at a Target warehouse, including being ordered to sort through trash by hand. She also says she reported unsafe, freezing conditions to OSHA and was later fired in retaliation. Her suit invokes federal race-discrimination laws and Illinois whistleblower protections. The district judge let her revise the complaint several times, then dismissed the third amended version with prejudice. Rule 8 requires a short, plain statement of each claim; the judge concluded Hill's revisions still did not clearly state viable claims. The appeal asks whether that dismissal was justified, whether the alleged treatment can be tied to race or the OSHA report, and whether her earlier EEOC charge covers the claims she later brought to court. Porcha Hill v. Target Corporation (No. 25-3116) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.25-3116.25-3116_09_23_2026.mp3 Argument listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Initial dismissal opinion — Northern District of Illinois: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv00341/450088/39/ Final dismissal opinion — Northern District of Illinois: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2024cv00341/450088/58/ Appellate docket and counsel — Seventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3116 Civil Rule 8 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure 42 U.S.C. § 1981 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A42+section%3A1981+edition%3Aprelim%29 Section 1981 causation — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1171_4425.pdf Title VII charge requirement — EEOC: https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-lawsuit Angela Huisingh profile — Littler: https://www.littler.com/people/angela-huisingh Kelechi Asonye profile — Asonye & Associates: https://aa-law.com/index.php?Itemid=781&id=731&option=com_content&view=article

United States v. Abimbola Ajayi — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Project HOPE hired Abimbola Ajayi as a consultant while Abiodun Ogunwale led its business-development department. Prosecutors said Ogunwale wrote invoices for work Ajayi had not done, approved the payments, and received some of the money back. The defendants disputed whether the invoices proved the work was fictitious, and said the money transfers were not kickbacks. A jury convicted both of conspiracies to commit mail and wire fraud and to launder money. After the trial judge denied their request for a new trial, their consolidated appeals reached the Fourth Circuit. They challenge the refusal to subpoena more Project HOPE records and the admission of Ajayi's bank records and evidence from Google-account searches. United States v. Abimbola Ajayi (No. 25-4523) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-4523-20260915.mp3 Argument date, panel, and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Trial record and post-trial opinion — Eastern District of Virginia: https://valawyersweekly.com/files/2025/12/VAUSED025-3-351-Ogunwale.pdf Trial verdict and case background — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/federal-jury-convicts-virginia-man-and-maryland-woman-conspiracy-defraud-non-profit Consolidated appellate docket and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-4536 Criminal Rule 17 — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_17 Rule 17 standard — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/094072.P.pdf Search-warrant severance — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/194172.P.pdf Search-warrant severance — Michigan Supreme Court: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/Opinions/Final/SCt/20070725_S131223_59_keller131223-op.pdf

Moon v. Veritas Technologies LLC — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Brendan Moon sold data-management software for Veritas and managed its Social Security Administration account. After the agency had declined to renew a purchasing agreement, Moon worked to restore it; then a surprise order worth more than seven million dollars arrived in May 2021. Veritas later raised his annual sales quota, reducing the commission Moon says he had already earned on that deal. Moon received a commission, but sued for more under his compensation plan and Maryland's wage law. A federal district court ruled for Veritas without a trial, finding that the plan allowed the quota change. Now the Fourth Circuit will consider when the commission became earned and whether a promised thirty-day review limited Veritas's power to change the quota. Moon v. Veritas Technologies LLC (No. 25-1618) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1618-20260915.mp3 Argument date, panel, and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Summary-judgment opinion and case background — District of Maryland: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/maryland/mddce/8:2021cv02750/502092/131/0.pdf Earlier pleading-stage opinion — District of Maryland: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/maryland/mddce/8:2021cv02750/502092/26/ Appeal docket and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-1618 Commissions and Maryland wage law — Maryland Department of Labor: https://www.labor.maryland.gov/labor/wagepay/wpcommissions.shtml Illusory promises under Maryland law — Maryland Supreme Court: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2017/13a17.pdf Summary-judgment rule — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Natalie Koss — Potomac Legal Group: https://potomaclegalgroup.com/natalie-koss-managingpartner-potomac-legal-group-pllc/ James Boudreau — Reed Smith: https://www.reedsmith.com/our-people/james-n-boudreau/

Parrish v. United States — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

An incident report linked Donte Parrish to a 2009 killing at a federal prison in West Virginia. He says the accusation led to long-term restrictive segregation; years later, a hearing officer cleared him and expunged his disciplinary record. After the Bureau of Prisons denied two administrative tort claims, Parrish sued the United States for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court dismissed the suit, finding one claim's lawsuit too late and other claims not properly presented to the agency. A separate fight over a late notice of appeal reached the Supreme Court, which restored his appeal but did not decide the underlying tort claims. Now the Fourth Circuit will consider when his claims accrued—when the filing clock began—whether an early agency claim can count, and whether both of the Act's deadlines must be met. Parrish v. United States (No. 20-1766) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 17, 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/mp3/20-1766-20260917.mp3 Argument date, panel, and counsel — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files District court dismissal — Northern District of West Virginia: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-1_17-cv-00070/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-1_17-cv-00070-7.pdf Appeal-notice ruling and case background — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-275_k6gc.pdf Prior appeal decision, reversed by the Supreme Court — Fourth Circuit: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-20-01766/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-20-01766-1.pdf Federal Tort Claims Act time limits — 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title28-section2401 Administrative-claim requirement — 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title28-section2675 Heck v. Humphrey — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-512/pdf/USREPORTS-512-477.pdf Alexa Baltes — Jones Day: https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/b/alexa-baltes William Rhee — Fourth Circuit counsel listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/254154.U.pdf

Crump v. Johnson County Board of Commissioners — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Steven Crump says back pain and difficulty walking followed his 2023 arrest and continued while he was held at a Kansas county jail. He sought a wheelchair, a cane, an accessible shower, and other changes to get around the jail; some requests were denied or delayed, while others were eventually granted. He sued Johnson County officials and the jail's medical contractor, VitalCore, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, among other laws. The district court ruled for the defendants without a trial, finding too little evidence of disability discrimination and treating wheelchair and back-brace decisions as medical care outside this claim. Crump now asks the Tenth Circuit to send the claim back, arguing that a factfinder should decide whether the accommodations were reasonable. The judges will also examine which written statements count as evidence at summary judgment—a decision without trial when no material fact needs to be tried—because Crump represented himself below. Crump v. Johnson County Board of Commissioners (No. 25-3110) — 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/25-3110.mp3 Argument date and case listing — 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%2F26%2F2026 District court summary-judgment order — District of Kansas: https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024cv3036-190= Appellate docket and counsel — Tenth Circuit public record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-3110 Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 Disability access in criminal justice — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.ada.gov/topics/criminal-justice/

Laurenzano v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Peter Laurenzano took a proposed income-tax bill to the U.S. Tax Court. His petition came after the 90-day deadline, and that court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction without deciding the tax dispute. He now asks the Fourth Circuit to hold that the deadline does not take away the Tax Court's power to hear a late petition. He also seeks a chance to argue for equitable tolling, a narrow exception for late filings in extraordinary circumstances; whether he qualifies would be a separate question. The Commissioner says the deadline is strict and cannot be extended this way. The Supreme Court allowed equitable tolling under a different Tax Court deadline in Boechler; these judges will decide what that means for this one. Laurenzano v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 25-2020) — 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/mp3/25-2020-20260916.mp3 Argument listing and date — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Tax Court dismissal and appeal — U.S. Tax Court: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/Cases-Commenced-in-the-Courts-of-Appeals-August-2025.pdf Appellate docket and counsel — Fourth Circuit public record: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-2020 Section 6213(a) — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title26-section6213 Boechler opinion — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf Taxpayer rights and deficiency deadlines — National Taxpayer Advocate: https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ARC_Publication-2104_2025_Web.pdf Uriel Hinberg — Latham & Watkins: https://www.lw.com/en/people/uriel-hinberg Matthew Johnshoy — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-06/23-655_warfield-final.pdf Taxpayer position — Law360: https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/2477266/tax-bill-challenge-filing-deadline-is-flexible-4th-circ-told Commissioner position — Law360: https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/articles/2456509/tax-court-filing-deadline-is-not-flexible-4th-circ-told

O'Hara v. Lott — 8th Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Police found Omar O'Hara asleep in his car in University City, Missouri. Dispatch said his license was revoked; a state court had stayed it. Sergeant Terrence Lott moved to arrest him; O'Hara crossed his arms and asked why. Lott used a Taser, and a struggle followed; the parties dispute whether O'Hara grabbed it or resisted. O'Hara sued Lott and Officer Marlissa Butler-Cherry over the arrest, force, and her alleged failure to intervene. The district court found key facts disputed and refused to end the case before trial. The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity, which shields officers from damages unless they violate clearly established law. They also claim arguable probable cause: a reasonable officer could have believed there were grounds to arrest, even if mistaken. The judges will examine the video, the initial Taser use, and the grounds for arrest. O'Hara v. Lott (No. 25-2897) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, argued September 24, 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/2026/9/252897.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202609&getOA=Select District court order and case background — Eastern District of Missouri: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-moed-4_23-cv-00442/pdf/USCOURTS-moed-4_23-cv-00442-0.pdf Eighth Circuit docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-2897 Timothy Reichardt — Reichardt Noce & Young: https://www.rnylaw.com/tim-reichardt Arguable probable cause — Eighth Circuit opinion: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/22/07/211552P.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected