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:

Carl Rose v. Sheriff Wes Drury — 8th Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 25, 2026

Show notes

The Eighth Circuit hears Carl and Drew Rodgers-Rose's appeal from dismissal of a civil-rights suit over a sheriff's levy at their Missouri home. Carl Rose and John Caudle co-owned two funeral-home businesses before falling out over Rose's use of business funds. A state court awarded Caudle more than $400,000. To collect, former Sheriff Wes Drury and Chief Deputy Ron Meredith arrived with a writ authorizing entry and seizure of Rose's personal property. The Roses allege that officers then let Caudle, his lawyer Phillip Dormeyer, and other civilians enter and remove marital property and items belonging to others despite objections. The property was later auctioned. A federal district judge dismissed the resulting Section 1983 case, finding the officers immune, the seizure reasonable, and the private defendants not acting as government agents. The appeal asks whether officers had to assess what the writ covered, whether private participation made the seizure unreasonable, and whether the court used the right state-action test. Carl Rose v. Sheriff Wes Drury (No. 26-1286) — 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/2026/9/261286.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202609&getOA=Select Federal district-court dismissal order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/1%3A2025cv00035/218151/43/0.pdf Eighth Circuit appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/26-1286 Federal district-court docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/missouri/moedce/1%3A2025cv00035/218151 Independent report on the dispute and levy: https://newspub.live/midwest/missouri/messenger-are-there-still-debtors-prisons-in-missouri-this-case-suggests-yes/ Eric Roytman-Cash — Hogan Lovells Cadwalader: https://www.hlc.com/en/roytman-eric Watkins v. City of St. Louis — Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/24/05/223248P.pdf

Tinamarie Barrales v. Ghost Beverages LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 24, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Barrales versus Ghost Beverages. Tinamarie Barrales and Michael Williams say they bought Ghost's Sour Patch Kids energy drinks because the candy branding made the drinks seem suitable for children. The label states that each can contains 200 milligrams of caffeine and is not for anyone under eighteen. They sued Ghost and trademark licensor Mondelēz International under Illinois and California consumer-protection laws. The district court dismissed the complaint before trial and later denied permission to amend it. The appeal asks whether an adult shopper could plausibly be misled by the front label despite the disclosures elsewhere on the can, and whether Mondelēz may be liable for its role as licensor. Barrales and Williams say those questions should not have been resolved against them at this stage; Ghost and Mondelēz say the label is clear and that the complaint did not connect Mondelēz to any deceptive act. Tinamarie Barrales v. Ghost Beverages LLC (No. 25-2555) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.25-2555.25-2555_09_23_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Class-action complaint — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Barrales-v-Ghost-and-Mondelez-complaint.pdf Dismissal order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Barrales-v-Ghost-March-25-2025.pdf Notice of appeal — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: https://truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Barrales-v-Ghost-notice-of-appeal.pdf Ghost Beverages dismissal brief — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: https://blog.priceplow.com/wp-content/uploads/barrales-v-ghost-mondelez-2024-05-13-ghost-memorandum-motion-to-dismiss.pdf Mondelēz dismissal brief — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: https://blog.priceplow.com/wp-content/uploads/barrales-v-ghost-mondelez-2024-05-13-mondelez-supplemental-motion-to-dismiss.pdf Independent case report — Legal Newsline: https://www.legalnewsline.com/cook-county-record/class-action-accuses-mondelez-and-ghost-beverages-of-misleadingly-marketing-harmful-energy-drinks-to-kids/article_886d8f4b-d559-51b1-a68f-7c5f7feaf548.html

EEOC v. A & A Appliance — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 23, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears an ADA case arising from Karima Javanzad's 2020 medical leave. The Appliance Factory sales associate took leave after her son became ill and she developed suspected COVID-19. She was briefly cleared to return but remained out for childcare, then reported severe gastrointestinal symptoms, trouble breathing and speaking, and a pending endoscopy. As her twelve weeks under the Family and Medical Leave Act expired, Javanzad asked what additional leave was available. She says that, in a disputed June 2 call, she requested a few more weeks to complete testing and obtain treatment. The company required her to return and fired her when she did not. The EEOC sued for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, and retaliation. The district court ended the case without trial at summary judgment, holding that the company lacked adequate notice of a disability and that Javanzad had not clearly requested a time-limited accommodation. The appeal asks whether a jury could find otherwise, and whether ‘a few weeks’ was definite enough to trigger the ADA's accommodation process. EEOC v. A & A Appliance (No. 25-1451) — 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/25-1451.mp3 Argument listing — 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%2F23%2F2026 EEOC appellant brief and district-court order addendum — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/AA%20Appliance%20Inc%2C%20EEOC%20v%2C%2010C%20appt-brf%203-26%20gsc.pdf EEOC reply brief — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2026-07/A%20A%20Appliance%20Inc%2C%20v%20EEOC%2C%2010C%20rep-brf%207-26%20gsc.pdf Current appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-1451 District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1%3A2023cv02456/227777 Independent case report — HR Dive: https://www.hrdive.com/news/eeoc-appliance-factory-long-covid-lawsuit-dismissed-accommodation/759521/ Janet M. Himmel — Fisher Phillips: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/people/janet-m-himmel

Owens v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC — 2d Cir. (Sep 21, 2026) Sep 22, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers whether Nina Owens's discrimination suit against PwC stays in court or goes to arbitration. PwC recruited Owens in 2019 as a principal to build its credit-card consulting business. She alleges male colleagues diverted clients and revenue credit. She says one partner threatened, excluded, and publicly demeaned her but did not treat men that way. Owens complained internally, then PwC allegedly forced her out one day before benefits would vest. She sued for age, race, and gender discrimination, retaliation, and an ERISA violation. Her partnership agreement called for arbitration. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act lets a person reject a pre-dispute arbitration agreement when a case relates to alleged sexual harassment. The district judge denied PwC's motion to compel arbitration. The appeal asks whether nonsexual but gender-based hostility counts as sexual harassment under New York City law, and whether Owens was an employee despite her principal title. Owens v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLC (No. 25-1717) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 21, 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/25-1717.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District-court order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv05517/625177/85/ Appellate docket — PACER-derived record via Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Second_Circuit/25-1717/Owens_v._PricewaterhouseCoopers_LLC/ 9 U.S.C. § 401 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title9-section401 9 U.S.C. § 402 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title9-section402 Gender-discrimination guidance — New York City Commission on Human Rights: https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page Amicus brief — U.S. Chamber of Commerce: https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/U.S.-Chamber-Amicus-Brief-Owens-v.-PricewaterhouseCoopers-LLC-2nd-Cir.pdf E. Joshua Rosenkranz — Orrick: https://www.orrick.com/People/7/5/2/E-Joshua-Rosenkranz Anne L. Clark — Vladeck, Raskin & Clark: https://vladeck.com/attorneys/anne-l-clark/

United States v. Warner — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears the United States' appeal from an order suppressing evidence seized from Nathan Warner. A sporting-goods employee reported a man who allegedly waited for customers to leave before entering with what looked like a Taser. Police found frightened employees behind a locked door and Warner in the only truck outside, facing the store. They saw an AR-style rifle inside. Officers drew their guns and ordered him to show his hands. The district judge ruled Warner was seized when he complied and that officers then lacked reasonable suspicion, so the court suppressed his statements and the physical evidence. Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts giving an objective basis to suspect crime. The government will say the full scene gave officers reasonable suspicion. Warner will answer that police could ask questions, but odd yet lawful behavior and lawful weapons did not justify a seizure. United States v. Warner (No. 25-2149) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 17, 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/25-2149.mp3 Argument listing — 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=09%2F17%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F21%2F2026 Suppression order — U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_24-cr-00088/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_24-cr-00088-0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-2149 Terry v. Ohio — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep392/usrep392001/usrep392001.pdf Tiffany Walters counsel background — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110840357.pdf Theodosia Johnson office — Federal Public Defender, District of New Mexico: https://nm.fd.org/offices Theodosia Johnson counsel background — Tenth Circuit opinion via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-24-02122/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-24-02122-0.pdf

United States v. Bradley Shelton — 7th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Bradley Shelton's appeal from a methamphetamine-conspiracy conviction. Prosecutors charged Shelton and five others with a distribution conspiracy and separately accused him and two codefendants of distributing at least fifty grams of methamphetamine in June 2022. After a joint jury trial, Shelton says evidence from that one transaction may show assistance with a sale, but not that he knowingly joined the larger conspiracy. The United States will argue that his words and conduct allowed the jury to infer membership. Shelton also challenges co-conspirator statements and the refusal of his proposed buyer-seller and mere-presence instructions. Under the co-conspirator rule, a statement may be used against another defendant only if the judge finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a conspiracy existed, both people belonged to it, and the statement was made during the conspiracy and furthered it. United States v. Bradley Shelton (No. 25-2661) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.25-2661.25-2661_09_17_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2661 District-court docket — Docket Alarm (PACER-derived): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Illinois_Central_District_Court/3--23-cr-30018/USA_v._Jachimiak_et_al/ District-court severance order — CaseMine: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/66a9bdf0c1cce041313b8d74 Federal Rule of Evidence 801 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/federal-rules-of-evidence-dec-1-2024.pdf United States v. Quiroz — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Path=Y2017%2FD10-26%2FC%3A16-3510%3AJ%3AKanne%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A2052815%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

Nautilus Insurance Company v. Cory Fleming — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Nautilus Insurance Company's effort to recover a $3.8 million payment in the Gloria Satterfield settlement. Satterfield, Alex Murdaugh's housekeeper, died after falling at his property. Murdaugh said his dogs caused the fall and arranged for his friend Cory Fleming to represent her estate, with Palmetto State Bank officer Chad Westendorf appointed to manage it as personal representative. The money entered Fleming's firm trust account; most went to a bank account Murdaugh controlled as Forge, and Satterfield's sons received none. Murdaugh later admitted inventing the dog story to create insurance liability and steal the proceeds. Nautilus then sued Murdaugh, Fleming, Moss & Kuhn, Westendorf, and Palmetto State Bank. The district court ended the claims against Westendorf and the bank before trial. A jury later found Fleming liable for conspiracy and unfair trade practices, but not his firm. Nautilus now challenges the discovery limits and the rulings for Westendorf and the bank, and asks for judgment against the firm despite the jury's verdict. Nautilus Insurance Company v. Cory Fleming (No. 25-1220) — 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/mp3/25-1220-20260917.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Public briefs index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/DataBriefs.aspx?CASENUM=25-1220 Discovery order — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2022cv01307/271422/171/ Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2022cv01307/271422/218/0.pdf Default-judgment order against Alex Murdaugh — district-court filing copy hosted by Luna Shark: https://lunasharkmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/MurdaughAlex_2025Jan02_SCFederalCourt_NautilusJudgmentOrder.pdf Order denying judgment as a matter of law — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2022cv01307/271422/345/0.pdf?ts=1740264599 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-1220

Exline-Johnson v. Rosser Properties, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Cynthia Exline-Johnson's Fair Housing Act appeal. In July 2022, after complaints about her dealings with other tenants and contractors, her landlords gave sixty days' notice ending her month-to-month tenancy. Near the end of that period, she asked to remain as a disability accommodation. She cited sleep problems after finding her husband dead and promised medical verification. She says the landlords immediately denied the request; they say the response was not an unequivocal denial and that she could still have supplied evidence. In a separate encounter, Pamela Rosser allegedly mocked Exline-Johnson's spirituality during a dispute about how she spoke to a contractor. Exline-Johnson sued Rosser Properties, Rosser, and Lacy Lofton. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on her federal claims. This appeal asks whether the evidence could support actual or perceived disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, or a religiously discriminatory housing statement. Exline-Johnson v. Rosser Properties, et al. (No. 25-5124) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 17, 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/25-5124.mp3 Argument listing — 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=09%2F17%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F21%2F2026 District court summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okndce/4:2022cv00475/63724/58/0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-5124 42 U.S.C. § 3602 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section3602&num=0&edition=prelim 42 U.S.C. § 3604 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section3604&num=0&edition=prelim Michael R. Pacewicz — Crowe & Dunlevy: https://www.crowedunlevy.com/our-people/michael-r-pacewicz/ Michael R. Pacewicz — Best Lawyers: https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/michael-r-pacewicz/121902 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-appellate-procedure.pdf

Timothy Freehan v. Cynthia Berg — 7th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a challenge to Illinois's wine-shipping rules. Timothy Freehan and Joseph Grody are Illinois wine collectors who say rare bottles they want are unavailable from local retailers. Full Pull Wines is a licensed Seattle retailer that wants to sell directly to Illinois customers. Illinois allows licensed in-state retailers to ship wine statewide, but a retailer must have an Illinois store to obtain that license. The collectors and Full Pull sued the state's liquor-control commissioners. The district court ruled for the state at summary judgment. It found the three-tier system justified by inspections, tax and price controls, temperance, and enforcement against underage sales, and found no easy nondiscriminatory alternative. The appeal asks whether the rule discriminates against interstate commerce, whether Illinois proved a legitimate alcohol-regulation justification, and whether a separate distributor rule means the plaintiffs lack standing. Timothy Freehan v. Cynthia Berg (No. 25-2967) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.25-2967.25-2967_09_17_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District court opinion — copy hosted by Alcohol Law Review: https://www.alcohollawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Freehan-MSJ-Decision.pdf Illinois Liquor Control Commission meeting minutes: https://ilcc.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/ilcc/commission-meeting-items/meeting-minutes/2025/ILCC%20-%20Commission%20Minutes%20-%20Open%20Meeting%20Minutes%20-%20November%2019,%202025.pdf Filed complaint — copy hosted by the National Association of Wine Retailers: https://nawr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/IL-Freehan-v-Berg-Complaint.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2967 James A. Tanford — Indiana University Maurer School of Law: https://www.law.indiana.edu/about/people/details?name=tanford-j-alexander James A. Tanford curriculum vitae — Indiana University: https://law.indiana.edu/about/people/cv/tanford-j-alexander.pdf James A. Tanford counsel identification — Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-285/238673/20220923151019348_X-NC_Cert_03.pdf R. Sam Horan identification — Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-541/390959/20260106180712233_Schoenthal%20extension%20request.pdf Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-96_5i36.pdf Granholm v. Heald — U.S. Reports via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-544/pdf/USREPORTS-544-460.pdf

United States v. Taylor — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears a joint argument in the appeals of siblings Evelyn, Laron, and Latrice Taylor. Prosecutors said the Taylors and their co-conspirators registered sham cleaning businesses, filed unemployment claims for supposed employees—sometimes using stolen identities—and withdrew the benefits through California EDD debit cards. The scheme obtained about one point one million dollars between 2013 and 2016. After a six-day trial in 2024, a jury convicted four Taylor siblings of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. This recording covers the appeals of three of them. They challenge the judge's response to a juror who appeared to sleep during testimony, an EDD investigator's fraud-indicator testimony, proof that the scheme used interstate wires, and parts of the loss calculation at sentencing. The government defends the convictions and sentences. United States v. Taylor (No. 25-2902) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 17, 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/2026/09/17/25-2902.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2902&hearingDate=2026-09-17 Argument video — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx3twxnChm0 Sentencing release — U.S. Attorney's Office, Central District of California: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/4-southern-california-siblings-sentenced-federal-prison-terms-their-roles-11-million Semiannual report — U.S. Department of Labor Office of Inspector General: https://oig.dol.gov/public/semiannuals/DOL-OIG%20Semiannual%20Report%20to%20Congress%20April%201%202025-September%2030%202025.pdf Laron Taylor appellate docket — Justia mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2902 Bond-pending-appeal calendar — U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/27ff5233-ee2a-465f-442d-08de0c014462 David Annicchiarico — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/247544 Steven Brody — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/271616 Law Office of Steven Brody: https://www.stevebrodylaw.com/index.html William Larsen counsel identification — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/23/25-4461.pdf Puckett v. United States — U.S. Reports via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-129.pdf Ninth Circuit plain-error formulation: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/03/17/25-1052.pdf Sua sponte — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sua_sponte

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected