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:

Christine Shaw-Callender v. Commissioner of Social Security — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hears Christine Shaw-Callender v. Commissioner of Social Security. Shaw-Callender is a veteran whose mortgage-loan-processing job ended in March 2022. She sought disability insurance benefits, saying post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, migraines, poor sleep, and difficulty handling stress kept her from working. The administrative law judge found those conditions severe and agreed that she could not return to her old job. But the judge's residual functional capacity finding—his estimate of what work she could still do—limited her to noncomplex tasks, no machine-set pace, little contact with other people, and routine changes, and concluded that other jobs remained available. A federal district judge upheld the denial. According to Shaw-Callender, the administrative law judge cherry-picked normal office visits and overlooked bad days and a Veterans Affairs evaluation. The Commissioner says the judge considered the whole record and reasonably relied on treatment improvement and two agency reviewers. Christine Shaw-Callender v. Commissioner of Social Security (No. 25-1639) — 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/mp3/25-1639-20260917.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=25-1639 District-court order — U.S. Government Publishing Office: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncwd-3_24-cv-00693/pdf/USCOURTS-ncwd-3_24-cv-00693-0.pdf 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 — U.S. Government Publishing Office: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2025-title20-vol2-sec404-1529.pdf 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 — U.S. Government Publishing Office: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2025-title20-vol2-sec404-1545.pdf Karl Osterhout — Osterhout Berger Daley: https://obd.law/team/karl-e-osterhout-esq/ Karl Osterhout attorney record — Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-the-public/find-attorney/attorney-detail/49658 Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-1639

Gray v. Gray — 1st Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears six consolidated appeals in a dispute among three brothers over family trusts and estate. One trust reserved a maintenance fund for property in Grafton, New Hampshire; most assets were for the sons. Evan Gray sued his brother Chester, known as Skip, over management of the trusts and estate. When a probate court replaced Skip with Evan as executor, the federal court dismissed two claims as moot. After a four-day bench trial, it ruled mostly for Skip, ordering only $170 in reimbursement. The appeals ask whether Evan's new role ended a live controversy, whether claims reaching trust assets belong in federal court, and whether the trial rulings should stand. The probate exception bars federal courts from administering estates or disposing of property held by a probate court. The panel first asks whether an unresolved counterclaim prevents a final judgment. Gray v. Gray (No. 22-1349) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/22-1349_20260914.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf?simple=True Order after bench trial — U.S. District Court for New Hampshire: https://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Opinions/2023/23NH001.pdf Later Gray litigation order — U.S. District Court for New Hampshire: https://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Opinions/2024/25NH053.pdf Probate-exception order — U.S. District Court for New Hampshire: https://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Opinions/19/19NH207.pdf Marshall v. Marshall — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-547/pdf/USREPORTS-547-293.pdf Appellate docket — Gray v. Gray: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/22-1349 Benjamin Siracusa Hillman — Shaheen & Gordon: https://www.shaheengordon.com/attorneys/benjamin-siracusa-hillman/ Benjamin T. Siracusa Hillman — New Hampshire Bar Association: https://member.nhbar.org/calendar/signup/MzA5Mg%3D%3D

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

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Thomas Brooks Alexander's sentencing appeal. His federal case involved fraud and identity theft, but at sentencing a separate armed robbery became central to the guideline calculation. The district court treated the robbery and firearm as relevant conduct, increasing the advisory range through adjustments for loss and use of a firearm. Relevant conduct lets a sentencing court count connected acts beyond the offense of conviction. When another person's acts are used, they must fall within the jointly undertaken activity, further it, and be reasonably foreseeable. The appeal asks whether the robbery could properly count against Alexander. United States v. Alexander (No. 25-5182) — 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/25-5182.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%2F18%2F2026 Argument summary — Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/september-2026-oral-argument-summaries.pdf Issues pending — Federal Public Defender, District of Kansas: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/2026-09-18-issues-pending.pdf Relevant-conduct guideline — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/CHAPTER_1.pdf Relevant-conduct analysis — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111452774.pdf Matthew J. Primm — Federal Public Defender CJA directory: https://okn.fd.org/matthew-j-primm Matthew J. Primm — Haven Law Group: https://havenlg.com/team/ Elliot Anderson — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111421194.pdf

Gurwinder Singh v. Nationwide Insurance Company — 7th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Gurwinder Singh and Harpreet Kaur's appeal against Nationwide Insurance. A fire damaged their home, leading to a seven-figure homeowners claim. Nationwide later said material misrepresentations in the claim defeated coverage. The district court entered summary judgment for Nationwide on the insureds' breach-of-contract and bad-faith claims. Summary judgment resolves a claim without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact remains and the party seeking judgment is entitled to it as a matter of law. The appeal asks whether materiality and intent instead present factual disputes that a jury must decide. Gurwinder Singh v. Nationwide Insurance Company (No. 25-3061) — 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.25-3061.25-3061_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/ca7/25-3061 District-court docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/indiana/insdce/1%3A2024cv00550/213691 Natalie Limber — Dentons: https://www.dentons.com/en/natalie-limber Natalie Limber — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/304252 Michael Schultz — Parr Richey: https://www.parrlaw.com/attorney/schultz-michael-l/ Michael Schultz — Indiana State Bar Association: https://www.inbar.org/members/?id=29030782 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure-dec-1-2024.pdf Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28a/courtrules-Civil/title-VII/courtrule-56

Disability Rights Oregon, et al. v. Hathi, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 21, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Disability Rights Oregon v. Hathi. Oregon courts find criminal defendants unable to understand proceedings or help with their defense. They may wait in jail for transfer to Oregon State Hospital for competency-restoration treatment. A 2002 federal injunction requires the hospital to admit them within seven days. In January 2025, the average wait was 29 days. Disability Rights Oregon sought civil contempt, which lets a court use sanctions to compel compliance with its order. After a March hearing, the district judge found the state health officials in contempt and imposed a daily 500-dollar sanction for each person waiting beyond seven days. The central issue is procedural: the judge received the court-appointed neutral expert's eleventh report after the hearing and relied on it in the June decision. The officials say they had no fair chance to rebut new information; the appellees say the report repeated familiar data and the hearing record independently supports contempt. The officials also challenge the order's clarity and the fines' justification. Disability Rights Oregon, et al. v. Hathi, et al. (No. 25-3868) — 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/2026/09/17/25-3868.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3868&hearingDate=2026-09-17 June 2025 contempt order — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/OSH/reports/Mink-Contempt-Ruling.pdf Order supplementing the appellate record — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_21-cv-01637/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_21-cv-01637-15.pdf Mink/Bowman case materials — Oregon Health Authority: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/OSH/Pages/mink-bowman.aspx Oregon State Hospital contempt appeal — Oregon Public Broadcasting: https://www.opb.org/article/2025/06/20/oregon-state-hospital-contempt-appeal/ Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-3868 Thomas Stenson — Disability Rights Oregon: https://www.droregon.org/our-staff/thomas-stenson

Therrien v. Hearst Television, Inc. — 1st Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

Charles Therrien says Hearst Television violated federal video-privacy law through its WMUR News 9 app. He gave the app his email address, enabled location services, requested news and weather alerts, and watched local-news videos. The app sent Braze and Google combinations of his email, location, device identifiers, and article identifiers. The law generally bars disclosures linking a person to specific videos, subject to an ordinary-business exception. A district judge entered summary judgment for Hearst, ending the case without a trial. The judge found the retained location point and advertising IDs insufficient to identify Therrien, and treated the email transfer as processing requested alerts. The appeal asks whether the combined data could let a jury identify Therrien and his video choices, and whether tailored messages were marketing outside the exception. The United States supports neither side and intervened to defend the law's constitutionality. Therrien v. Hearst Television, Inc. (No. 25-1487) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1487_20260914.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf?simple=True Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, mirrored by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly: https://masslawyersweekly.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2025/05/02-236-25.pdf Current appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-1487 Video Privacy Protection Act — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title18-chapter121 Yershov v. Gannett — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1719P-01A.pdf Max S. Roberts — Bursor & Fisher: https://www.bursor.com/team/max-roberts/

Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Drummond — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit reviews an order blocking part of Oklahoma's 2025 340B Nondiscrimination Act. The federal 340B program requires participating drugmakers to discount outpatient drugs for qualifying hospitals and clinics, known as covered entities. Those providers may use outside contract pharmacies to dispense the drugs. Oklahoma's law barred manufacturers from restricting delivery to those pharmacies or requiring claims data as a delivery condition. Novartis, AbbVie, and AstraZeneca sued before the law took effect. The district court preliminarily blocked the delivery rule and its penalty provision. This recording covers the Novartis and related AbbVie appeals. Garry Gaskins for Oklahoma will say federal law leaves drug delivery to the states. Jessica Ellsworth for Novartis and Matthew Owen for AbbVie will say the law changes the federal program and compels additional discounted sales. Maxwell Baldi will appear for the United States; his shared argument continues in the companion AstraZeneca recording. Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Drummond (No. 25-6182) — 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/25-6182.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%2F20%2F2026 Preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/news-documents/2025/november/340B%20PI%20Order.pdf Oklahoma House Bill 2048 — Oklahoma Legislature: https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20ENR/hB/HB2048%20ENR.PDF 340B program requirements — Health Resources and Services Administration: https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/program-requirements 340B contract-pharmacy services — Health Resources and Services Administration: https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/implementation-contract Novartis district-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oklahoma/okwdce/5:2025cv00727/131727 Novartis appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-6182 Related AbbVie district-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oklahoma/okwdce/5:2025cv00726/131726 Related AbbVie appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-6184 Companion argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-6183.mp3

Center for Food Safety v. EPA — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Center for Food Safety v. EPA. Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides often applied as coatings before seeds are planted. Under EPA's treated-article exemption, a coated seed avoids separate pesticide registration if the coating pesticide is registered for that seed use, sale and use follow the registered label, and claims concern protecting the seed or resulting plant. In 2017, Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action Network asked EPA to exclude systemic-pesticide-treated seeds from the exemption and enforce separate registration and labeling. They say separate registration would require seed-specific data and enforceable directions; EPA and agricultural trade groups say EPA already evaluates the treated seed when registering the coating pesticide. EPA denied the petition in 2022, and the groups sued in 2023. The district court rejected their arbitrary-and-capricious claim and dismissed their separate claim that EPA lacked statutory authority to exempt the seeds, finding no subject-matter jurisdiction. This appeal concerns that dismissal and asks whether another FIFRA review path can address the claim. Center for Food Safety v. EPA (No. 25-437) — 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/2026/09/17/25-437.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-437&hearingDate=2026-09-17 EPA response to treated-seed petition — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-responds-treated-seed-petition November 2024 district-court order — filed order (Courthouse News mirror): https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/center-for-food-safety-v-epa-ruling.pdf 40 C.F.R. § 152.25 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-152/subpart-B/section-152.25 7 U.S.C. § 136n — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title7-section136n&num=0&edition=prelim Axon Enterprise v. FTC — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf September 2026 argument report — Courthouse News Service: https://www.courthousenews.com/environmentalists-ask-ninth-circuit-to-revive-lawsuit-over-pesticide-coated-seeds/ Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-437 Amy van Saun — Center for Food Safety: https://centerforfoodsafety.org/our-team

Marshall Austin v. Charleston Day School — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hears Marshall Austin v. Charleston Day School. Austin was a volunteer trustee and parent of three students. In December 2021, he reviewed board-portal records about federal pandemic-relief funds; the school then cut off his access. Seven weeks later, the board removed him and declined to reenroll his children. Austin sued under the False Claims Act, which protects employees, contractors, and agents from retaliation for lawful efforts to stop false claims against the government. Austin says that protection covered his investigation; the school says it acted over confidentiality, masking, and governance disputes. The district court granted the school summary judgment, finding Austin was not its agent and failed the notice and causation requirements. The appeal asks whether agency, protected activity, notice, and causation should go to a jury. Marshall Austin v. Charleston Day School (No. 25-1858) — 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/mp3/25-1858-20260917.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=25-1858 June 2025 summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Justia mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2023cv02899/281439/84/0.pdf December 2025 reconsideration order — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Justia mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2023cv02899/281439/102/0.pdf April 2026 brief of defendants-appellees — Fourth Circuit filing (FITSNews mirror): https://www.fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2026/04/25_-_Brief_of_Appellees_4.9.26.pdf Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-1858 31 U.S.C. § 3730 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title31-section3730&num=0&edition=prelim Case summary — Liebert Cassidy Whitmore: https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/federal-court-dismisses-retaliation-suit-by-former-trustee-over-covid-19-funding-disputes/ Hannah Rogers Metcalfe — Metcalfe & Atkinson: https://malawfirmsc.com/hannah-rogers-metcalfe Alice F. Paylor — Saxton & Stump: https://www.saxtonstump.com/our-people/alice-paylor/

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals v. Drummond, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit reviews an order blocking part of Oklahoma's 2025 340B Nondiscrimination Act. The federal 340B program requires participating drug manufacturers to sell outpatient drugs at discounts to qualifying hospitals and clinics, called covered entities. Those providers may use outside contract pharmacies to dispense the drugs. Oklahoma's law barred manufacturers from restricting delivery to covered entities or their contract pharmacies and allowed civil fines. Before it took effect, AstraZeneca sued Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond and Insurance Commissioner Glen Mulready. The district court preliminarily barred enforcement of the delivery rule and the associated penalty provision. The recording also includes argument in the related PhRMA appeal. Garry Gaskins will argue that federal law leaves drug delivery open to state regulation. Erin Murphy for PhRMA, Allon Kedem for AstraZeneca, and Maxwell Baldi for the United States will argue that Oklahoma changed the terms of a federal program or unlawfully discriminated against its participants. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals v. Drummond, et al. (No. 25-6183) — 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/25-6183.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%2F20%2F2026 Preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/news-documents/2025/november/340B%20PI%20Order.pdf Oklahoma House Bill 2048 — Oklahoma Legislature: https://www.oklegislature.gov/cf_pdf/2025-26%20ENR/hB/HB2048%20ENR.PDF 340B program requirements — Health Resources and Services Administration: https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/program-requirements 340B contract-pharmacy services — Health Resources and Services Administration: https://www.hrsa.gov/opa/implementation-contract AstraZeneca district-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oklahoma/okwdce/5:2025cv01156/132851 AstraZeneca appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-6183 Related PhRMA district-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oklahoma/okwdce/5:2025cv01305/133215 Related PhRMA appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/26-6001

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected