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:

Leeman v. Thornell, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Leeman v. Thornell. In 1993, seventeen-year-old Angela Leeman brought her eight-month-old son to a Tucson emergency room. He was critically ill, with infection, bruises, and at least ten broken bones. Prosecutors could not establish which caretaker caused particular injuries; their theory was that either Leeman or her twenty-nine-year-old co-defendant inflicted them and the other permitted them. A jury convicted Leeman of thirteen child-abuse counts, and she received sixty-one years. After state post-conviction litigation, she sought federal habeas relief. Count One punished failing to obtain medical care; Count Eight punished causing or permitting a left-humerus fracture. The district court denied relief. Both sides now say the two counts could rest on the same conduct, violating double jeopardy, and ask the Ninth Circuit to vacate Count Eight. The panel also tests whether it must defer to the state court under AEDPA or review the claim anew. Leeman v. Thornell, et al. (No. 25-1419) — 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/2026/09/17/25-1419.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1419&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/25-1419?hearingDate=2026-09-17 Report and recommendation — U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00551/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00551-0.pdf Order denying agreed habeas relief — U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00551/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00551-1.pdf Final habeas order — U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00551/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00551-3.pdf 2021 remand minutes — Arizona Supreme Court: https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/21/MinutesCurrent/PR%20Minutes%2007302021.pdf?ver=2021-07-30-184902-637 2022 memorandum decision — Arizona Court of Appeals (Justia mirror): https://cases.justia.com/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-two-unpublished/2022-2-ca-cr-2021-0100-pr-0.pdf?ts=1656691352 28 U.S.C. § 2254 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2254&num=0&edition=prelim

American Water Works Association v. EPA — D.C. Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears American Water Works Association v. EPA, consolidated with challenges brought by industry groups and Chemours. PFAS are persistent synthetic chemicals found in consumer and industrial products, and exposure to some PFAS is linked to serious health effects. In 2024, EPA issued nationwide drinking-water limits for six PFAS: individual limits for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA, plus a hazard-index limit for mixtures that can include PFBS. Water utilities and manufacturers petitioned for review, challenging EPA’s rulemaking sequence, occurrence data, health analysis, feasibility, and cost-benefit analysis. EPA later agreed that it had improperly combined the regulatory-determination and rulemaking steps for the index PFAS, stopped defending those provisions, and proposed rescinding them. The court declined an early partial vacatur, leaving the merits for this argument. The first part concerns those index-PFAS provisions and whether the procedural error caused prejudice. After a recess, the court turns to whether EPA lawfully analyzed PFOA and PFOS together. American Water Works Association v. EPA (No. 24-1188) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 18, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/24-1188.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Panel order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://www.amwa.net/system/files/linked-files/9.15.2026%20Order%20re%20Panel%20Change.pdf Argument-format order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://www.amwa.net/system/files/linked-files/Order%20on%20oral%20argument%20format%209-8-26.pdf Water associations’ final opening brief: https://www.amwa.net/system/files/linked-files/AWWA%20%26%20AMWA%20Final%20Opening%20Brief.pdf Industry petitioners’ final opening brief: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2026-04/2026-03-06_NAM_ACC_Chemours_Final_Opening_Brief.pdf EPA respondents’ brief: https://www.amwa.net/system/files/linked-files/AWWA%20v%20EPA%20%28PFAS%29%20Respondents%20Brief%20FINAL.docx.pdf EPA notice identifying arguments no longer advanced: https://www.amwa.net/system/files/linked-files/EPA%20notice%20of%20portions%20of%20brief%20not%20advancing%203-6-26.pdf Community intervenors’ brief: https://www.amwa.net/system/files/linked-files/2025-01-17%20-%20INTERVENOR%20FOR%20RESPONDENT%20BRIEF%20%5B2094834%5D%20filed%20by%20Buxmont%20Coalition%20for%20Safe%20Water%20et%20al.pdf Order denying partial vacatur — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://www.amwa.net/system/files/linked-files/Court%20of%20Appeals%20order%201-21-26.pdf 2024 PFAS drinking-water rule — Federal Register: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-26/pdf/2024-07773.pdf 2026 proposed rescission — Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-10085.pdf Safe Drinking Water Act — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section300g-1&num=0&edition=prelim Samuel Pickerill — Arnold & Porter: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/people/p/pickerill-samuel Tobias Loss-Eaton — Sidley Austin: https://www.sidley.com/en/people/l/losseaton-tobias-s

US v. Andrew Chafin — 4th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears United States v. Andrew Chafin. Police found Chafin with a gun, and he was later convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon. The district court sentenced him to eighteen months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Supervised release is court-ordered monitoring after prison; violating its conditions can lead to revocation and more imprisonment. After Chafin violated conditions of release, the district court revoked it and cited his breach of the court’s trust. Chapter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines describes revocation as chiefly sanctioning that breach. But the Supreme Court’s Esteras decision says Section 3583(e) excludes retribution for the original crime. This appeal asks whether Esteras also makes breach of trust impermissible and therefore displaces the Fourth Circuit’s Lewis precedent. US v. Andrew Chafin (No. 25-4521) — 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/mp3/25-4521-20260917.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=25-4521 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-4521 Related appellate docket identifying the shared issue — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-4613 Chafin certiorari petition — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5626/374307/20250910163949697_Chafin%20cert%20petition.pdf Chafin appendix, including lower-court orders — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5626/374307/20250910164000726_Chafin%20cert%20appendix.pdf Chafin Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5626.html Esteras v. United States — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-7483_6k4c.pdf United States v. Lewis — Fourth Circuit opinion: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/224291.P.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 3583 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section3583 Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter Seven — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-7

Pizza Hazel, Inc. v. American Express Company — 1st Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Pizza Hazel versus American Express. Pizza Hazel, Nunan Florist, and Skin Rejuvenation are small merchants that accept AmEx cards through the OptBlue program. They allege that AmEx's merchant rules block them from steering customers toward cheaper payment methods, keeping swipe fees high, and they filed a proposed class action for about eight million merchants. AmEx asked the district court to send the case to arbitration. But the Merchant Operating Guide let AmEx change its arbitration terms, and in 2023 AmEx made new terms effective immediately after merchants had announced claims. The district court ruled that this made the arbitration promise illusory and denied arbitration. An illusory promise looks binding but leaves one side free to back out. The appeal asks who should decide that issue—the judge or an arbitrator—and whether AmEx's change power actually made the agreement unenforceable. Pizza Hazel, Inc. v. American Express Company (No. 25-2007) — 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/25-2007_20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 Order denying arbitration — U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1%3A2024cv12505/275846/76/0.pdf American Express disclosure about the merchant litigation — SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/4962/000000496225000016/R23.htm Appellate docket — Pizza Hazel v. American Express: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-2007 Kevin J. Orsini — Cravath: https://www.cravath.com/people/kevin-j-orsini.html Thomas Scott-Railton — Gupta Wessler: https://www.guptawessler.com/thomas-scott-railton/ Illusory promise — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/illusory_promise

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

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears United States v. Barrera. Investigators were tracking Joseph Barrera during a methamphetamine-distribution investigation. On December 13, 2024, after an acquaintance took a Volvo that Barrera had paid for, Barrera's group recovered it while carrying a baseball bat and baton. Five days later, agents followed the Volvo as Barrera returned from Colorado with methamphetamine. He fled an attempted traffic stop, crashed the car, and ran. Police later recovered the same bat and baton from the Volvo. After a guilty plea and sentencing hearing, Barrera appealed. The judge had increased his offense level by two under Guideline 2D1.1(b)(1). That rule applies when a dangerous weapon was possessed, unless its connection to the offense was clearly improbable. Barrera says the bat and baton came from a separate car dispute. The appeal asks whether the judge properly applied the enhancement. United States v. Barrera (No. 25-8049) — 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/25-8049.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

Indeck Power Equipment Company v. Ashley Energy LLC — 7th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Indeck Power Equipment Company versus Ashley Energy. After a 2019 flood disabled equipment at Ashley's St. Louis steam plant, Ashley leased an industrial boiler and water-treatment trailer from Indeck for three months. When Ashley returned them, Indeck found heavy scale in the boiler. Indeck blamed improper operation; Ashley blamed start-up and equipment problems. Indeck sued for breach of contract. After a five-day trial, the jury found that Indeck performed and Ashley breached the lease, but that Ashley's breach caused Indeck no damage. The district court denied a new trial and Indeck's request for more than one million dollars in fees and costs. Indeck asks for a new trial and fees. Ashley says the verdict was rational and a losing plaintiff cannot recover fees. Indeck Power Equipment Company v. Ashley Energy LLC (No. 26-1390) — 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.26-1390.26-1390_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 Post-trial opinion — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2021cv01353/396891/220/ Counterclaim opinion — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2021cv01353/396891/122/

United States v. Arturo Contreras Soto — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus Arturo Contreras Soto. Tucson officers warned Soto after seeing him ride an electric bicycle with an open alcohol container. When they saw him do it again the next day, they arrested him and searched a satchel he was wearing before taking him to jail, finding a handgun. The district court ruled that the search was not valid as incident to arrest but was a lawful inventory search under Tucson police procedures. After suppression was denied, Soto was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon. He says the field search was investigatory, not an inventory. The government says policy required it before transport regardless of investigative suspicion. United States v. Arturo Contreras Soto (No. 25-2324) — 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/2026/09/17/25-2324.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2324&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/25-2324?hearingDate=2026-09-17 Sentencing announcement — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/convicted-felon-sentenced-60-months-prison-possession-firearm Report and recommendation — U.S. District Court: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/672ee8ab68a05673e5805406/amp Suppression order — U.S. District Court: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/673036f068a05673e580c971

United States v. Jeffrey Young-Bey — D.C. Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears United States versus Jeffrey Young-Bey. Young-Bey and Martina Jones were prosecuted over two schemes that used forged deeds to take title to Washington homes and borrow against them. At trial, the government showed that Young-Bey created false deeds, forged owners' signatures and notary seals, recorded the deeds, and used the resulting titles to obtain mortgage loans. Young-Bey said a man he called J Lo had masterminded the fraud and used Young-Bey's email, phone, and credit card; the jury instead convicted Young-Bey on twelve counts and deadlocked on all counts against Jones. The district court rejected Young-Bey's post-trial challenges and later sentenced him to prison. On appeal, he says the government failed to correct false testimony about a deed-copying fee, then used the mistake to discredit the defense. He also challenges the jury's hearing only the bare fact of a 1995 bank-fraud conviction, the combined effect of several claimed trial errors, and a sentencing enhancement for leading or supervising another participant. United States v. Jeffrey Young-Bey (No. 25-3092) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 18, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-3092.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Post-trial memorandum opinion — U.S. District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_21-cr-00661/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_21-cr-00661-8.pdf Jury-verdict announcement — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/district-man-found-guilty-jury-scheme-steal-residential-real-estate-using-fraudulent Sentencing announcement — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/district-man-sentenced-115-years-scheme-steal-residential-real-estate-using-fraudulent Douglas Mulliken — Clifford Chance: https://www.cliffordchance.com/people_and_places/people/lawyers/us/douglas-mulliken.html Napue v. Illinois — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/360/264 Glossip v. Oklahoma — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/22-7466new_6479.pdf Federal Rule of Evidence 404 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter Three — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/CHAPTER_3.pdf

United States v. Vick — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 19, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Nazeer Vick challenge a one-hundred-two-month sentence that will run after a separate four-hundred-twenty-month term. That earlier term followed federal gun and drug convictions after a high-speed chase. The later case arose from illegal drugs and other contraband entering the Bladen County jail; investigators charged Vick, his wife, and two detention officers. At sentencing, video showed Vick lift another jail officer, send him into a wall, and leave him falling onto concrete. The judge found a substantial risk of serious bodily injury and applied the six-level official-victim increase. The appeal asks whether the incident justified the increase, whether the judge addressed Vick's mitigation, and whether the consecutive sentence was reasonable. The government says any guideline error was harmless because the judge would impose the same sentence anyway. United States v. Vick (No. 25-4275) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-4275-20260916.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Public brief index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/DataBriefs.aspx?CASENUM=25-4275 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-4275 Earlier federal conviction and sentence — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/career-offender-who-led-authorities-high-speed-chase-i-95-sentenced-35-years-prison Bladen County jail contraband investigation — WECT: https://www.wect.com/2023/05/05/bladen-county-jail-staff-accused-smuggling-drugs-inmates/ Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter Three — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/CHAPTER_3.pdf Morgan McCall Reece — Fox Rothschild: https://www.foxrothschild.com/morgan-mccall-reece Jonathan Silberman attorney record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/217609.P.pdf

United States v. Pastrana-Roman — 1st Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 18, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Jayson Pastrana-Roman's challenge to a thirty-three-month federal sentence. Pastrana-Roman joined a Puerto Rico scheme involving fraudulent COVID-19 relief-loan applications. He recruited three other applicants, served as their link to the scheme's organizer, and collected their kickback checks for delivery up the chain. He later pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. At sentencing, the judge added three offense levels for acting as a manager or supervisor, denied a three-level reduction for accepting responsibility, calculated a range of fifty-one to sixty-three months, then imposed thirty-three months. The appeal asks whether recruiting and relaying instructions showed authority over another participant, whether the acceptance reduction was wrongly denied, and whether any mistake was harmless because the judge said she would impose the same sentence either way. United States v. Pastrana-Roman (No. 25-1178) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 16, 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/25-1178_20260916.mp3 Argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 Oral-argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf?simple=True District-court opinion and order — Midpage mirror: https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-pastrana-roman--42f499c3-7980-4116-82d4-646dfc76b84c COVID-relief fraud scheme — U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Puerto Rico: https://www.justice.gov/usao-pr/pr/orchestrator-multi-million-dollar-covid-19-fraud-scheme-sentenced-97-months-federal Current appellate docket — Justia (PACER-derived): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-1178 Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter Three — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2025/CHAPTER_3.pdf Robert Fitzgerald — Federal Public Defender, District of Puerto Rico: https://pr.fd.org/Robert_Fitzgerald Ricardo Imbert Fernández — U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Puerto Rico: https://www.justice.gov/usao-pr/pr/former-leader-violent-transnational-criminal-organization-sentenced-360-months-prison

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected