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:

Austin Tepp v. Portland Terminal Railroad Company — 7th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Austin Tepp's negligence appeal against Union Pacific Railroad. Tepp says a Union Pacific flagman waved him through a crossing as a train backed across the road. His car collided with the train, and he sued for negligence. The district court allowed his flagman claim to survive summary judgment. After years of missed deadlines and warnings, the court dismissed the case. It did so with prejudice after his lawyer failed to file the final pretrial order. Under Rule 41(b), a court may dismiss when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with court orders. Tepp will ask the Seventh Circuit to restore his case. He says dismissal was too severe and the judge improperly relied on his lawyer's conduct in other cases. Union Pacific will respond that repeated warnings and continued delays warranted dismissal. Austin Tepp v. Portland Terminal Railroad Company (No. 25-2926) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 18, 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/ef.25-2926.25-2926_09_18_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 Summary-judgment opinion — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/3%3A2020cv50466/393629/104/ Dismissal opinion — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/3%3A2020cv50466/393629/140/0.pdf Reconsideration opinion — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/3%3A2020cv50466/393629/147/ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41

LA Tech and Consulting, LLC v. American Express Company, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears LA Tech and Consulting versus American Express. LA Tech says third parties used its bank-account information to pay their own American Express accounts without permission. It says it told American Express that the funds were stolen and demanded the money back, but American Express kept the funds. LA Tech sued under California Penal Code Section 496, which allows a civil claim against someone who knowingly receives or withholds stolen property. An earlier Ninth Circuit panel upheld dismissal of LA Tech's receipt-of-stolen-property and conversion claims, but revived its withholding claim because the notice letter plausibly alleged actual knowledge. After the remand, LA Tech appealed again. The question now is whether the evidence leaves a genuine dispute for a jury over whether the money was stolen and whether American Express actually knew it. LA Tech and Consulting, LLC v. American Express Company, et al. (No. 25-944) — 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/2026/09/17/25-944.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-944&hearingDate=2026-09-17 Argument metadata — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://oldrbx80f5.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/media/25-944?hearingDate=2026-09-17 2023 memorandum — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2023/11/24/22-56221.pdf California Penal Code § 496 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=496. 2026 Aron order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2026cv03045/467475/34/ Section 496 case analysis — Alto Litigation: https://www.altolit.com/blog/2025/limitations-claims-stolen-property-section-496 Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-944 James Daily attorney record — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/146699 Brian Frontino biography — Morgan Lewis: https://www.morganlewis.com/bios/brianfrontino

US v. Idrissa Bagayoko — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hears United States v. Idrissa Bagayoko. In 2021, after driving from New York to Maryland and selling two boxes of Sniper DDVP, Bagayoko was stopped in Elkton with eighteen more boxes holding 1,728 bottles of the unregistered pesticide, whose active ingredient is dichlorvos. A federal jury later convicted him of knowingly selling the pesticide and recklessly transporting hazardous material without the required shipping papers, and the district court ordered $5,640 in restitution. He says the officer unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop while waiting for backup before a dog sniff. Under Rodriguez, police may not extend a traffic stop for an unrelated investigation unless separate reasonable suspicion supports it. He also says each bottle, rather than each cardboard box, was the relevant package, so no single package reached the regulatory ten-pound threshold. Finally, he challenges restitution, arguing that the government was not a victim. US v. Idrissa Bagayoko (No. 25-4230) — 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/mp3/25-4230-20260917.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=25-4230 Sentencing release — U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland: https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/new-york-business-owner-sentenced-illegally-transporting-and-selling-probable-carcinogen November 2024 Environmental Crimes Bulletin — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/enrd/blog/environmental-crimes-bulletin-november-2024 Sentencing report — U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General: https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/46778 April 2025 district-court order — CaseMine mirror: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/67f92b3a21647c6cabcadab4 October 2024 suppression ruling summary: https://fourthamendment.com/?p=59074 Rodriguez v. United States — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep575/usrep575348/usrep575348.pdf 49 C.F.R. § 171.8 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-171/subpart-A/section-171.8 September 2026 case preview — Maryland Appellate Blog: https://mdappblog.com/2026/09/10/fourth-circuit-arguments-in-appeals-from-the-district-of-maryland-september-2026/ Appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-4230

Richard Weed v. United States — 1st Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit hears Richard Weed's post-conviction challenge. A jury convicted Weed, a securities lawyer, after he wrote false opinion letters that helped two stock promoters sell overvalued shares in a pump-and-dump scheme. The First Circuit affirmed his fraud and conspiracy convictions in 2017. The government's case relied on Weed's false use of Rule 144, a safe harbor for certain stock resales; Weed says Section 3(a)(9) separately exempted the shares. He later asked the trial court to vacate his sentence under Section 2255, claiming his lawyer should have raised that theory and prosecutors withheld impeachment material about cooperating witness Coleman Flaherty's tax filings and adoption proceedings. The district court denied relief. Under Strickland, Weed must show both deficient lawyering and a reasonable probability of a different result. This appeal asks whether the omitted securities-law theory or the undisclosed impeachment material meets those standards. Richard Weed v. United States (No. 25-1498) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 15, 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/25-1498_20260915.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 2017 First Circuit opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2120P-01A.pdf SEC complaint: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2014/comp-pr2014-250.pdf SEC litigation release: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-24175 Section 2255 order — Midpage mirror: https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-weed--5496cf19-c1e8-402e-9b01-370107faa996 Reconsideration order — FindLaw mirror: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-d-mas/117436219.html Current appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-1498 Thomas C. Frongillo — Campbell Conroy & O'Neil: https://campbelltriallawyers.com/attorneys/frongillo-thomas-c/ Strickland v. Washington — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep466/usrep466668/usrep466668.pdf Brady v. Maryland — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep373/usrep373083/usrep373083.pdf Giglio v. United States — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep405/usrep405150/usrep405150.pdf

Estate of Tamar Kedem Siman Tov v. UNRWA — 2d Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 20, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears an appeal brought by victims and relatives of people killed, injured, or kidnapped in Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. Their complaint alleges that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, known as UNRWA, and several current and former officials aided Hamas for years; this appeal does not decide whether those allegations are true. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, holding that UNRWA is a subsidiary organ of the United Nations and therefore shares the UN's absolute immunity under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. The appeal asks whether that label settles the question or whether courts must examine UNRWA's finances, personnel, operations, and degree of UN control. The United States agrees with the plaintiffs that UNRWA is not immune. Estate of Tamar Kedem Siman Tov v. UNRWA (No. 25-2837) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 15, 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/25-2837.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2837 Filed complaint: https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/001-UNRWAComplaint.pdf District court opinion and order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv04765/623682/69/0.pdf District court judgment: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv04765/623682/70/0.pdf United States statement of interest: https://unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Govenment-Statement-of-Interest-04_24_25.pdf Kevin A. Meehan — Curtis: https://www.curtis.com/our-people/kevin-a-meehan/credentials

Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit returns to Mark Schell's First Amendment challenge to Oklahoma's mandatory bar. Oklahoma lawyers must join and pay dues to the Oklahoma Bar Association to practice. Schell says the Bar Journal forced him to associate with five articles on prison lawsuits, election laws, race, tribal history, and personal resilience—subjects he says fall outside the bar's proper role. In an earlier appeal, this court revived his compelled-association claim and ordered closer examination of any nongermane activity, meaning speech not reasonably related to regulating lawyers or improving legal services. After discovery, the district court found one article nongermane but granted summary judgment to the bar officials, reasoning that the isolated, disclaimed publication did not violate Schell's associational rights. This appeal asks whether Schell preserved the controlling legal standard, whether the five articles are germane, and whether limited speech can still make mandatory membership unconstitutional. Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices (No. 25-6189) — 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/25-6189.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%2F19%2F2026 Prior appellate opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110566866.pdf Summary-judgment opinion — filed district-court decision: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/schell-oklahoma-bar-association-district-opinion.pdf Schell's appellate brief — filed court brief: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/schell-oklahoma-bar-association-appeal.pdf Bar officials' appellate brief — filed court brief: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/schell-oklahoma-bar-association-response.pdf Current appellate docket — Justia mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-6189 Independent argument report — Courthouse News: https://www.courthousenews.com/at-10th-circuit-oklahoma-attorney-bucks-against-state-bar-membership-mandate/ John C. Brinkerhoff Jr. — Jones Day: https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/b/john-brinkerhoff Daniel S. Volchok — WilmerHale: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/daniel-volchok

Illinois Policy Institute v. Jane Flanagan — 7th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Illinois Policy Institute versus Jane Flanagan. Illinois's Worker Freedom of Speech Act protects employees who decline mandatory employer meetings about political or religious matters from adverse action. Before the law took effect, the Institute held mandatory meetings about public policy. The Technology and Manufacturing Association says some members held mandatory meetings about religion, unionization, and issues affecting their businesses. The groups claim the law chilled that speech and sued the state labor director under the First Amendment. The district court did not reach that claim. It dismissed the suit on sovereign-immunity grounds, finding that the director lacked the enforcement role required by Ex parte Young. That doctrine can allow prospective federal relief against a state official who enforces an allegedly unlawful measure. The appeal asks whether the director has enough enforcement authority and whether the plaintiffs have standing. Illinois Policy Institute v. Jane Flanagan (No. 25-2937) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 18, 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/ef.25-2937.25-2937_09_18_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 dismissal order — filed court record: https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Order-Dismissing-Case.pdf Worker Freedom of Speech Act — Illinois General Assembly: https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/ILCS/Articles?ActID=4525&ChapterID=68 Appellants' brief — filed Seventh Circuit brief: https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/009-IPI-v.-Flanagan-Appellants-Br-2026-01-07.pdf Appellants' reply brief — filed Seventh Circuit brief: https://libertyjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/021-IPI-Flanagan-Appellants-reply-brief-2026.04.30.pdf Appellate docket — Justia mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2937 Jeffrey M. Schwab attorney profile — Liberty Justice Center: https://libertyjusticecenter.org/bios/jeffrey-m-schwab/ R. Sam Horan official identification — Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-541/390959/20260106180712233_Schoenthal%20extension%20request.pdf Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson — U.S. Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_new_8o6b.pdf

Juca v. Aviles-Ramos — 2d Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Jhoana Juca's appeal over New York City's funding of her child K.A.'s special-education program. K.A., a student with disabilities, attended the private school iBRAIN. Juca asked the city's Department of Education to pay tuition, transportation, nursing, and any late fees for the 2024–25 and 2025–26 school years while administrative proceedings continued. The IDEA's stay-put, or pendency, rule generally keeps a child in the last agreed educational program at public expense during a dispute. The district judge denied immediate relief because Juca had not shown that delayed payment threatened K.A.'s placement or services. At oral argument, the parties tell the panel that tuition has been paid, but they still dispute nursing and late fees. The panel considers whether any effective injunction remains and whether stay-put relief requires proof of irreparable harm. Juca v. Aviles-Ramos (No. 25-2957) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 15, 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/25-2957.mp3 Argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=search&request=25-2957%2A&index=%2A%7Baaa02d786aee6c9336b7efb2e231863a%7D%20audio&sort=Date&OrigSearchForm=%2Foral_arguments.html&pageSize=25 Appellate docket — Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Second_Circuit/25-2957/Juca_v._Aviles-Ramos/ Order appealed from — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv06972/648103/26/0.pdf Mendez v. Banks — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-2663_opn.pdf Related Juca stay-put opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-2327_opn.pdf Rory J. Bellantoni — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-721.html MacKenzie Fillow court appearance — New York State Unified Court System: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_03629.shtml

United States v. Findley — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Oneil Findley's appeal from federal drug convictions. Postal inspectors seized a parcel addressed under a fictitious name to Findley's post-office box in Jackson, Wyoming, and found cocaine inside. After the trial judge declined to suppress the parcel evidence, a jury convicted Findley, and the judge later counted older drug activity in setting his sentence. Findley says the warrant affidavit lacked probable cause and was too bare-bones for good-faith reliance. He also says the older quantities rested on unreliable statements and were too remote and unrelated. United States v. Findley (No. 25-8019) — 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/25-8019.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%2F19%2F2026 Case background — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wy/pr/jackson-man-found-guilty-receiving-cocaine-redistribution-mail Appellate docket — Justia mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-8019 Issues pending in the Tenth Circuit — Federal Public Defender: https://ks.fd.org/sites/ks/files/media-library/issues-pending-20260402.pdf U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.3 — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/CHAPTER_1.pdf United States v. Leon — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-468/pdf/USREPORTS-468-897.pdf Tenth Circuit good-faith standard — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01019920406.pdf Tenth Circuit relevant-conduct discussion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111190995.pdf Jesse Naiman role — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wy/pr/activity-us-attorneys-office-73

Richard Cornelius Jackson v. DHS — 7th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Richard Cornelius Jackson versus the Department of Homeland Security. Jackson brought two whistleblower-retaliation appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. One concerned a five-day suspension; the other concerned a 2023 performance appraisal he called punitively low. After an administrative judge issued initial decisions, Jackson sought review in the Seventh Circuit. The present fight centers on whether Homeland Security proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have given him the same rating without retaliation, and whether he exhausted two additional claims. The panel also raises an unbriefed threshold question: whether the judge's decision could become a final Board decision while the Board lacked a quorum. Richard Cornelius Jackson v. DHS (No. 25-3057) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 18, 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/ef.25-3057.25-3057_09_18_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 mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3057 2024 mandamus order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-145.ORDER.12-11-2024_2433896.pdf 2025 mandamus order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-136.ORDER.7-18-2025_2546587.pdf Carr-factor opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-1552.OPINION.1-17-2025_2452529.pdf Whistleblower law report — U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-MS-PURL-gpo25177/pdf/GOVPUB-MS-PURL-gpo25177.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 1221 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section1221&num=0&edition=prelim 5 U.S.C. § 7703 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title5-section7703&num=0&edition=prelim 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-II/part-1201/subpart-C/section-1201.113 An Hoang attorney profile — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/331250 An Hoang counsel identification — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1614.OPINION.11-13-2025_2603138.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected