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:

Agosto v. New York City Department of Education — 2d Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Luis Agosto, a New York City school aide, says he was denied training for a supervisor job. According to his complaint, he asked to enroll but was told another aide had been chosen; she later got the job, which required the course. Agosto alleges discrimination and says he received less varied assignments and reprimands after he complained. He sued the education department and school officials under federal, state, and city civil-rights laws. The district court dismissed his complaint before discovery, finding too few facts suggesting discrimination or retaliation; it did not let him amend. The appeal asks whether his allegations were enough to proceed, or at least enough to warrant a chance to revise the complaint. Agosto v. New York City Department of Education (No. 25-2812) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2812.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court dismissal order and case background — U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_24-cv-01738/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_24-cv-01738-0.pdf Second Circuit docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2812 New York City Law Department: https://www.nyc.gov/site/law/ Karin J. Wolfe — attorney profile: https://www.martindale.com/attorney/karin-j-wolfe-18636077/

Chisolm-Lucas v. American Airlines, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Sep 25, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Flight attendant Chisolm-Lucas challenges how American Airlines pays its unionized flight attendants. He was based in New York during part of the period at issue. American issues two checks a month: a fixed end-of-month advance equal to 37 and a half hours of base pay, then a check around the 15th settling the previous month's actual hours and higher-rate pay. Chisolm-Lucas says wages earned through work can remain unpaid until that second check. He also says the advance's wage statement omits hours and rates he needs to check his pay. A federal judge ruled for American, rejecting the late-payment claim and finding no concrete injury from the wage statements. The appeal asks whether New York's twice-monthly-pay rule requires more than two paydays, and whether the wage-statement claim can proceed in federal court. Chisolm-Lucas v. American Airlines, Inc. (No. 25-1949) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1949.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court decision and case background — U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_23-cv-05177/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_23-cv-05177-0.pdf Second Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1949 District decision, including counsel appearances: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20250811740 New York Labor Law § 191 — pay frequency: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/191 New York Labor Law § 195 — wage statements: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/195 David Markham — The Markham Law Firm: https://www.markham-law.com/david-markham Jason Zarrow — O'Melveny & Myers: https://www.omm.com/professionals/jason-matthew-zarrow/

Phoenix Insurance Company v. Ackercamps.com, LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

An online summer-camp photo gallery used facial recognition to help parents find pictures of their children. A class action accused its operator, Ackercamps, of collecting children's face geometry without meeting Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA. The law covers face-geometry scans but excludes photographs themselves. After defending and settling that suit, Ackercamps asked Phoenix and other Travelers insurers to pay. They refused, and a district judge ruled they had no duty to defend or reimburse it. The policies cover some injuries from publishing a person's photograph or likeness, but exclude injuries arising from access to or disclosure of personal information. The appeal asks whether that exclusion bars coverage here and whether it turns the promised photo-or-likeness protection into illusory coverage, an empty promise. Phoenix Insurance Company v. Ackercamps.com, LLC (No. 25-2972) — 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.25-2972.25-2972_09_14_2026.mp3 Argument listing and date — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District court coverage order — U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilsd-3_23-cv-03303/pdf/USCOURTS-ilsd-3_23-cv-03303-3.pdf Seventh Circuit docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2972 Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, definitions: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext?DocName=074000140K10 John S. Vishneski III — Reed Smith: https://www.reedsmith.com/our-people/john-s-vishneski/ Rebecca Dunn — Skarzynski Marick & Black: https://www.skarzynski.com/rebecca-dunn

Tanaria Heard v. Jefferson County, Arkansas — 8th Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Eighteen-year-old Dezmen McBride died after several days in a county jail in Arkansas. He was involved in an altercation with other detainees, went to a hospital with a headache and vomiting, and returned to the jail. His estate says his condition worsened, and that officers delayed help even after he could no longer stand or walk. The autopsy did not establish a cause of death. A district judge allowed claims for denied medical care and excessive force to move toward trial, denying a lieutenant qualified immunity at this stage. Qualified immunity can protect officers from suit, but an early appeal generally cannot reweigh disputed facts. The appeals court will decide which rulings it can review now, including the county's state-law immunity defense. Tanaria Heard v. Jefferson County, Arkansas (No. 25-3130) — 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/2026/9/253130.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202609&getOA=Select Heard v. Jefferson County — district court opinion and order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/arkansas/aredce/4:2024cv00325/143046/75/0.pdf Eighth Circuit appellate docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-3130 Arkansas Code § 21-9-301: https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-21/chapter-9/subchapter-3/section-21-9-301/ Interlocutory qualified-immunity review — Eighth Circuit opinion: https://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/15/09/142250P.pdf Annie Depper — Fuqua Campbell: https://www.fc-lawyers.com/?page_id=852 Jason Owens — Owens & Parker: https://www.owensparker.com/jason-owens Bryan Lammon — Final Decisions: https://finaldecisions.org/

Goich v. Weber County, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A jail medical emergency reaches the Tenth Circuit. Eli Goich was held before trial at the Weber County jail in 2017 when a rapidly worsening infection led him to request hospitalization. He was transferred the next day with sepsis and a severe infection and underwent multiple surgeries. He sued nurses, the sheriff, and the county, alleging constitutionally inadequate medical care. Deliberate indifference means more than a mistake: an individual must know of a serious risk and unreasonably disregard it. The district judge found that most claims could proceed, and the defendants appealed before trial. Qualified immunity protects officials from damages unless they violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The judges must decide which legal questions they may hear without revisiting disputed facts, and whether the conduct violated clearly established law. Goich v. Weber County, et al. (No. 25-4035) — 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/25-4035.mp3 Argument listing and date — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026 District of Utah memorandum decision and order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_18-cv-00731/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_18-cv-00731-1.pdf Tenth Circuit appellate docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-4035 Qualified-immunity appeal rule — Tenth Circuit opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111449841.pdf Frank D. Mylar — Mylar Law: https://mylar-law.wixsite.com/mylarlaw/about Bron Rammell — May, Rammell & Wells: https://www.mayrammellwells.com/attorneys/bron-rammell/

Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC v. Cody Downing — 8th Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A seed-company dispute reaches the Eighth Circuit after a jury's trade-secret verdict. Cody Downing left Wilbur-Ellis for competitor J.R. Simplot in 2021. Wilbur-Ellis accused him of misusing confidential customer and pricing information. Downing disputes that the company proved a protectable secret or losses caused by him. A jury found for Wilbur-Ellis on its trade-secret claims, and the district judge awarded attorney's fees. Downing appealed. The judges will ask which objections survived the trial, whether the claimed losses can be traced to him, and whether the fee award can stand. Wilbur-Ellis Company LLC v. Cody Downing (No. 25-2865) — 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/2026/9/252865.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202609&getOA=Select Eighth Circuit appellate docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-2865 Background and jury verdict: https://exlitem.com/jury-verdicts-settlements/wilbur-ellis-wins-132k-in-trade-secrets-suit-against-ex-employee Wilbur-Ellis v. Gompert — Eighth Circuit opinion: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/251577P.pdf Dupree v. Younger — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-900_19m1.pdf Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure Defend Trade Secrets Act remedies, 18 U.S.C. § 1836: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1836&num=0&edition=prelim Zachary Busey — Baker Donelson: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/zachary-b-busey Jeremy Sosna — Littler: https://www.littler.com/people/jeremy-sosna

United States v. Antwon Tolefree — 8th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A Missouri probation sentence turns into a fight over the right to appeal. Antwon Tolefree received probation in 2023. A federal judge revoked it in November 2025 and imposed a new sentence. Tolefree appealed, and the government moved to dismiss his appeal under a waiver in his earlier plea agreement. His lawyer says the waiver covered the original sentence, not this later one; the government says it covered both. If the appeal goes ahead, Tolefree asks the court to review whether the new sentence was unreasonable. The judges also probe how a probation-revocation sentencing table fits the federal statute. United States v. Antwon Tolefree (No. 25-3333) — 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/2026/9/253333.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202609&getOA=Select Eighth Circuit appellate docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-3333 Probation revocation statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3565: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section3565&num=0&edition=prelim Probation revocation table, U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-7 Dan Goldberg — Federal Defender Office, Western District of Missouri: https://mow.fd.org/Offices/kansas-city Brian Casey — U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Missouri: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdmo/pr/columbia-man-pleads-guilty-attempting-purchase-chemical-weapon-dark-web

United States v. Menendez, Hana & Daibes — 2d Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A bribery case built partly on cash and gold found in a former senator's home reaches an appeals court. After a nine-week trial in New York, a jury convicted former senator Robert Menendez and businessmen Wael Hana and Fred Daibes. Prosecutors said the payments sought help for Hana's Egypt-granted halal certification monopoly and for Daibes, who faced a federal prosecution. All three appeal together. Their lawyers say the jury heard, or could access, protected Senate activity under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause; the government says the trial was lawful. They also dispute whether Menendez's calls to other officials qualify as official acts under bribery law, and whether New York was the proper district for certain charges. United States v. Menendez, Hana & Daibes (No. 25-296) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-296,%2025-333,%2025-302.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and convictions — U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-us-senator-robert-menendez-sentenced-11-years-prison-bribery-foreign-agent-and Order on jury-laptop exhibits — U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/23cr490%20menendez%20et%20al%20jan%2022%202025%20TS.pdf Appellate docket — Wael Hana: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-296 Appellate docket — Robert Menendez: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-333 Appellate docket — Fred Daibes: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-302 U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/ Federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A18+section%3A201+edition%3Aprelim%29 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 — trial venue: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/restyled_federal_rules_of_criminal_procedure.pdf Noel Francisco — Jones Day: https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/f/noel-francisco Paul Clement — Clement & Murphy: https://www.clementmurphy.com/who-we-are/paul-clement/ Christopher Michel — Kirkland & Ellis: https://www.kirkland.com/lawyers/m/michel-christopher

Desmond Banks v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc. — 8th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

An apartment search becomes a video-privacy lawsuit. Desmond Banks says he watched prerecorded apartment tours on Apartments.com while a tracking code called Meta Pixel sent Facebook details of his viewing. He sued the site's operator, CoStar, under the Video Privacy Protection Act, which restricts certain disclosures of a video customer's identifying information. A Missouri federal judge dismissed the suit: CoStar was not a covered video-service provider, Banks was not a covered consumer, and the alleged data did not identify him as the law requires. Banks appeals. The central fight is whether apartment-tour videos make CoStar a business that delivers prerecorded audiovisual material, and whether opening a free account makes Banks a statutory subscriber. The judges also compare a recent ruling about free movie trailers. Desmond Banks v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (No. 25-3320) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, argued September 23, 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/2026/9/253320.mp3 Argument listing and date — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202609&getOA=Select Eastern District of Missouri dismissal order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-moed-4_25-cv-00564/pdf/USCOURTS-moed-4_25-cv-00564-0.pdf Eighth Circuit appellate docket and counsel: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-3320 Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title18-chapter121 Christopherson v. Cinema Entertainment — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/12/243042P.pdf Jordan Frysinger — McGuire Law: https://www.mcgpc.com/jordan-frysinger Bonnie DelGobbo — BakerHostetler: https://www.bakerlaw.com/professionals/bonnie-keane-delgobbo/

United States of America v. Paduch — 2d Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A criminal appeal asks how many other patients a jury should hear from. Darius Paduch, a former urologist, was convicted of federal sex crimes involving seven patients, including minors, and sentenced to life in prison. At trial, four more patients described alleged abuse, beyond the seven tied to the charges. Now Paduch challenges their testimony. Evidence Rule 413 allows some evidence of other alleged sexual assaults to suggest a pattern. Rule 403 still permits exclusion if its value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or needless repetition. The fight is whether the trial judge had to weigh each of those four witnesses individually, and whether admitting them affected the verdict. United States of America v. Paduch (No. 24-3116) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 23, 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/24-3116,%2025-1208.mp3 Argument listing and date — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Trial conviction and sentence — U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-urologist-prominent-medical-institutions-sentenced-life-prison-sexual-abuse Appellate docket and counsel — Second Circuit docket copy: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1208 Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 403 and 413 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/federal_rules_of_evidence_dec_1_2021.pdf Second Circuit opinion explaining other-act evidence and Rule 403: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-793_opn.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected