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:

USA v. Mitchell — 9th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers Kristin Mitchell's challenge to her conviction for attempted harboring under federal immigration law. She gave three men a place to stay in Shelby, Montana, and bailed one out after a drunken-driving arrest. Prosecutors said the men were in the United States unlawfully; Mitchell described two of them as political asylees. The appeal first concerns mens rea, the required criminal state of mind. Harboring requires knowledge or reckless disregard that the person is here in violation of immigration law, and an intent to violate the law. Mitchell argues that the evidence did not prove the required mental state. You will hear Rule twenty-nine, the procedure for seeking an acquittal because the evidence cannot support a conviction. The other issue comes from voir dire, the questioning of prospective jurors. A prospective juror recalled a newspaper article and said something similar had happened before. Mitchell says that remark unfairly hinted at her past; the government calls it ambiguous and says the judge's instructions protected the jury's impartiality. The district court denied her request for a new trial. Clark Mathews will argue for Mitchell, seeking an acquittal or a new trial. USA v. Mitchell (No. 25-7799) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit; complete argument and closing preserved: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/14/25-7799.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7799&hearingDate=2026-10-14 Hearing and appeal — official Ninth Circuit calendar: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-10-14&loc=MTMRH Jury-selection dispute and denied new trial — D. Montana Doc. 132, September 29, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mtd-4_25-cr-00034/pdf/USCOURTS-mtd-4_25-cr-00034-4.pdf Prosecution account of underlying events — DOJ, July 10, 2025: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/shelby-woman-convicted-attempting-harbor-illegal-aliens Case-linked counsel and appeal filings — public clerk docket transcription: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-7799 Harboring statute — 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), official Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title8/html/USCODE-2024-title8-chap12-subchapII-partVIII-sec1324.htm Acquittal and new-trial procedures — Federal Criminal Rules 29 and 33: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf Harboring mental-state requirements — Ninth Circuit Tydingco opinion, 2018: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/11/27/17-10023.pdf

Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. Emblem Health, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears a dispute over payment for pandemic testing. Murphy Medical and its co-plaintiffs sued EmblemHealth and other insurers, saying testing claims were unpaid or underpaid. Central to the dispute is a machine that screened a sample for twenty-two respiratory pathogens, including the virus that causes COVID-19. The providers say pandemic coverage rules require reimbursement regardless of plan terms; the insurers dispute coverage of the full testing panel. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for insufficient detail about insurance plans and internal claim appeals. The providers want the case reinstated, or another chance to amend. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act required coverage of qualifying COVID tests without patient cost sharing. The CARES Act set reimbursement rules, including for providers without a negotiated rate. The suit uses ERISA, the federal employee-benefits law, to pursue plan benefits, alongside state contract claims. Assignment means a patient's transfer of payment rights to a provider; exhaustion means using the plan's required internal review process before suing. The question here is whether the allegations state a plausible claim, not which bills must ultimately be paid. Roy Breitenbach will argue for the medical providers. Murphy Medical Associates, LLC v. Emblem Health, Inc. (No. 25-3225) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit; complete argument preserved: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-3225.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit recording archive: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Background and appealed dismissal — D. Connecticut Doc. 76, November 25, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_22-cv-00059/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_22-cv-00059-1.pdf Case-linked counsel and appeal filings — public clerk docket transcription: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-3225 Pandemic test coverage — Families First Coronavirus Response Act, section 6001: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ127/html/PLAW-116publ127.htm Qualifying tests and reimbursement — CARES Act, sections 3201 and 3202: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-116publ136/html/PLAW-116publ136.htm ERISA benefits actions — 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B), official Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title29/html/USCODE-2024-title29-chap18-subchapI-subtitleB-part5-sec1132.htm

Navarrete v. Sherwood, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 14, 2026) Oct 15, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers a civil-rights suit against Kent police officer James Sherwood. Cristian Navarrete spent more than four months in jail after being identified as a shooting suspect. His lawsuit says surveillance showed one suspect substantially shorter than the other, while Navarrete was almost as tall as the taller suspect. He accuses Sherwood of leaving out that discrepancy and misrepresenting a teenage witness's identification in warrant documents. Sherwood disputes deliberate or reckless deception and says the evidence still established probable cause, a reasonable basis to believe Navarrete committed the crime. The suit invokes Section nineteen eighty-three, the federal law allowing claims that state or local officials violated federal rights. The district court found factual disputes requiring trial and refused to dismiss Navarrete's claims against Sherwood. Sherwood seeks qualified immunity, which protects officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. This is an interlocutory appeal, brought before trial. Sherwood's counsel will ask the court to reverse the ruling. Navarrete v. Sherwood, et al. (No. 25-6449) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit; complete advocacy and court closing preserved: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/14/25-6449.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-6449&hearingDate=2026-10-14 Appeal from denial of qualified immunity — official hearing calendar: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-10-14&loc=MTMRH Case background and challenged ruling — W.D. Washington Doc. 145, October 8, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2022cv01431/315027/145/0.pdf Civil-rights cause of action — 42 U.S.C. 1983, official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap21-subchapI-sec1983.htm Case-linked counsel and appeal filings — public clerk docket transcription: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-6449

Edmar Financial Company, LLC v. Currenex, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers whether to allow an early appeal in a lawsuit over Currenex's currency-trading platform. Traders allege that Currenex secretly gave Goldman Sachs, State Street, and HC Technologies priority over other users when their orders offered the same price. They say those undisclosed advantages distorted trading and harmed users without the privileges. In June 2026, the district court allowed the case to proceed as a class action on some claims. Class certification lets named plaintiffs pursue a case for a larger group; it does not decide that defendants broke the law. For a damages class like this one, common questions must predominate, meaning they outweigh questions requiring individual answers. The defendants seek review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 F, which permits an appeal of class certification before final judgment, but only with the appeals court's permission. You will hear references to a Daubert motion, a request to exclude unreliable expert testimony. Carmine Boccuzzi, of Cleary Gottlieb, will begin for the defendants, asking for permission to appeal the class-certification ruling now. Edmar Financial Company, LLC v. Currenex, Inc. (No. 26-1739) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit; this complete matter only, before the next case: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-1739%20mtn.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit recording index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Alleged trading-platform conduct and background — S.D.N.Y. Doc. 83, May 18, 2023: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2021cv06598/564492/83/0.pdf?ts=1684501168 Plaintiffs' own account of the trading allegations — case counsel Zigler Law Group: https://www.ziglerlawgroup.com/fincancial-misconduct Rule 23 F petition, caption changes and case-linked counsel — public clerk docket transcription: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-1739 Challenged class-certification ruling — June 11, 2026; public opinion excerpt, not full text: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/edmar-fin-co-v-1121668190 Class certification, predominance and permission to appeal — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23 Expert testimony and reliability — Federal Rule of Evidence 702: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702 Expert-admissibility screening — Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579 (1993): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/579/ Carmine Boccuzzi's current firm — Cleary Gottlieb professional profile: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/professionals/carmine-d-boccuzzi-jr David Cooper's current firm — Quinn Emanuel professional profile: https://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/cooper-david/ Independent 2026 counsel-affiliation check only — New York court's Shanklin opinion: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2026/2026_00480.htm

CREW v. OMB — D.C. Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The D C Circuit considers public access to the government's federal spending decisions. Congress approves federal funding; the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, then apportions it, setting amounts and timing for agency use. Apportionment documents and their footnotes can set binding conditions on when money is available. Congress's 2022 and 2023 appropriations laws require public posting of those documents within two business days. In March 2025, OMB took the website offline, saying publication interfered with its supervision of agency spending. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known as CREW, and the Protect Democracy Project sued to restore the public database. Both organizations use the data to monitor federal spending. Protect Democracy had invested in its own website that reuses OMB's data, and says the shutdown impaired that investment. In July 2025, the district court held the shutdown unlawful and ordered the agency to restore the data and keep the system running. The appeal raises standing, whether the watchdogs' claimed injuries let them bring this suit, and the president's constitutional authority over disclosure. It also concerns how far the court's ongoing order may reach. Joshua Ha will begin for the government, challenging the watchdogs' standing and contending that the disclosure rules unconstitutionally burden executive decision-making. CREW v. OMB (No. 25-5266) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording; full opening, related appeals, advocacy, rebuttal and submitted closing preserved: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-5266.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Case background and challenged ruling — D.D.C. Doc. 33, July 21, 2025: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/33-Mem-Op-on-SJ.pdf Challenged permanent injunction — D.D.C. Doc. 32, July 21, 2025: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/32-Order-on-PI-and-MSJ.pdf Prior interlocutory stay ruling and standing discussion — D.C. Circuit, August 9, 2025; not this argument's final outcome: https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/25-5266LDSN.pdf Government's filed position and case-linked counsel dockets — July 23, 2025 stay motion and appendix: https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/164013.pdf Apportionment of appropriations — 31 U.S.C. 1512, official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title31/html/USCODE-2024-title31-subtitleII-chap15-subchapII-sec1512.htm Apportionment officials and statutory public-posting requirements — 31 U.S.C. 1513 and notes, official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title31/html/USCODE-2024-title31-subtitleII-chap15-subchapII-sec1513.htm Wendy Liu's current employer — Public Citizen professional profile: https://www.citizen.org/about/person/wendy-liu/ Daniel Jacobson's current firm — Jacobson Lawyers Group professional profile: https://www.jacobsonlawyersgroup.com/dan-jacobson

David Bollinger v. William Gittere — 9th Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears David Bollinger's challenge to the handling of his federal habeas case. Bollinger received a death sentence in a Nevada murder case. He seeks federal review of whether his trial violated the Constitution. A central dispute concerns his trial judge, Whitehead. Bollinger alleges that prosecutors helped investigate Whitehead while the judge was hearing his case, creating an intolerable risk of bias. He also alleges that his first post-conviction lawyers had conflicting loyalties because their firm represented Whitehead. The federal district court denied habeas relief in twenty-fifteen. Bollinger later sought to reopen the case after a state-court hearing developed evidence concerning the judge. The federal court initially reopened proceedings, but later treated the new bias claim as a successive habeas petition, subject to strict federal restrictions. The appeal asks which claims the federal court may consider, including earlier allegations of ineffective trial counsel. Another issue is procedural default: whether failures to raise claims properly in state court bar federal consideration, and whether Bollinger has a legally sufficient excuse. Heather Fraley will begin for Bollinger, seeking reconsideration of the barriers to reviewing his claims. David Bollinger v. William Gittere (No. 15-99007) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording; complete advocacy and court-adjournment ending preserved: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/13/15-99007.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=15-99007&hearingDate=2026-10-13 Conviction and sentence — Nevada Supreme Court, Bollinger v. State, August 24, 1995: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/1995/26404-1.html Capital habeas status and prior procedural history — District of Nevada Doc. 232: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A1998cv01263/21876/232/0.pdf Judicial-bias and counsel-conflict allegations; initial reopening — District of Nevada Doc. 298, March 2, 2021: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A1998cv01263/21876/298/0.pdf?ts=1614766333 Later reopening ruling and successive-petition issue — District of Nevada Doc. 360, June 12, 2023: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A1998cv01263/21876/360/0.pdf?ts=1686731766 Prior state post-conviction ruling — Nevada Supreme Court, February 13, 2020: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nv-supreme-court/2047985.html Related appeal, counsel identities and represented sides — case-linked clerk record, No. 23-99002: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/23-99002 De novo review — official Ninth Circuit legal glossary: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/guides-resources/glossary/ De novo review — Cornell Legal Information Institute, Wex: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/de_novo

Beaird v. United States — SCOTUS (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court hears Beaird versus United States, about the power of official notes attached to the federal sentencing guidelines. Beaird pleaded guilty in Texas to possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. His case involved a seventeen-round magazine and a prior aggravated-assault conviction. The guideline increases the offense level for certain gun offenses involving a large capacity magazine. The explanatory note draws the relevant line at more than fifteen rounds. Beaird objected, arguing that his standard magazine was not large under the ordinary meaning of the guideline. The district court followed the commentary and rejected his objection, then imposed a six-year sentence. The Fifth Circuit affirmed under binding circuit precedent. The Court took the case to reconsider Stinson, a nineteen-ninety-three decision that generally makes interpretive commentary authoritative. Beaird will ask judges to interpret the guidelines without deference, or alternatively follow Kisor, which requires genuine ambiguity before deferring to an agency's reading of its own rules. The government also wants the appeal judgment set aside, but will defend a limited form of deference. The Court appointed another lawyer to argue for preserving Stinson. Although these guidelines now recommend rather than mandate a prison term, courts must still calculate the recommended range correctly. Stare decisis, which you'll hear, is the principle of respecting prior court decisions. Kevin Joel Page, an assistant federal public defender, will begin for Beaird. Beaird v. United States (No. 25-5343) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Supreme Court recording: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-5343.mp3 Official transcript and speaking counsel — October 13, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-5343_m6io.pdf Case, limited grant and appointed advocate — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5343.html Prior rulings, criminal judgment and sentencing hearing — Joint Appendix: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5343/415592/20260702125806813_25-5343JointAppendix.pdf Beaird's background and position — corrected merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5343/415355/20260709161945466_25-5343BriefForPetitioner.pdf Government's position and reproduced guidelines — corrected merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5343/416115/20260709173938351_25-5343tsUnited_States-corrected.pdf Court-appointed advocate's position — Anthony Dick's merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5343/420016/20260825104551865_25-5343%20Court%20Appointed%20AC.pdf Commentary deference — Stinson's 1993 opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-8685.ZO.html Deference limits and precedent — Kisor's official 2019 opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-15_9p6b.pdf Stare decisis — Cornell Wex legal definition: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis Appointed advocate's current firm — Jones Day profile: https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/d/anthony-dick?tab=overview

Wisne, et al. v. NCAA — 10th Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Wisne versus the NCAA, a dispute over whether college athletes can compete for a fifth season. The old eligibility rule generally allowed four seasons within five years of college enrollment. A new age-based system allows up to five seasons within a continuous five-year period. But its transition rules give no extra eligibility to athletes who used their final season under the old rules during 2025 to 2026. These plaintiffs began playing college sports in 2022 and had used four years of athletic eligibility. They want to compete in a fifth season while remaining full-time students. They say exclusion threatens playing opportunities, scholarships and NIL income, meaning compensation for their name, image and likeness. In July, the federal district court in Colorado granted a preliminary injunction protecting a defined nationwide class from that exclusion. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief before a final judgment, not a final decision on every claim. Before this argument, the Tenth Circuit put the injunction on hold while the NCAA appealed. Rakesh Kilaru, representing the NCAA, will challenge the proof of a relevant labor market and competitive harm, and argue that extra returning athletes would displace other players. The athletes will defend the evidence and argue that excluding this group unlawfully restricts competition for Division One athletic services. The question is whether the antitrust evidence and balance of harms support this temporary remedy. Wisne, et al. v. NCAA (No. 26-1309) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Tenth Circuit recording: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/26-1309.mp3 Case and argument date — official Tenth Circuit recording search: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F13%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=10%2F14%2F2026 Facts, evidence and preliminary injunction — D. Colo. Doc. 38, July 31, 2026: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_26-cv-03063/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_26-cv-03063-1.pdf Injunction scope — D. Colo. Doc. 41, August 2, 2026: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_26-cv-03063/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_26-cv-03063-2.pdf Defined class and appointed counsel — D. Colo. Doc. 37, July 31, 2026: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_26-cv-03063/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_26-cv-03063-0.pdf Age-based eligibility and transition rules — NCAA: https://www.ncaa.org/eligibility-center/division-i-and-division-ii-age-based-eligibility-rules/ Prior stay and counsel appearances — public appellate clerk entries through September 30, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/26-1309 Antitrust law — Sherman Act section 1, official 2024 Code: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title15/html/USCODE-2024-title15-chap1-sec1.htm Buyer power and rule of reason — NCAA v. Alston, Supreme Court's 2021 opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf Class counsel's current firm — Rob Shelquist's Cuneo profile: https://www.cuneolaw.com/about-us/our-team/rob-shelquist/ Preliminary injunction versus final merits trial — Federal Rule 65(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

Livevideo.AI Corp v. Redstone — 2d Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Livevideo dot A I versus Redstone, a request to revive a dismissed appeal. The underlying lawsuit arose from Paramount's merger with Skydance. But the case stalled over service of process, the formal delivery of a summons and the operative complaint to defendants. In September 2025, the New York district court dismissed the suit without prejudice under Rule four M, after finding that the defendants had not been properly served in time. It also imposed a ten thousand dollar penalty on Livevideo and its lawyer for frivolous litigation, and required court permission for further merger-related suits. Rule eleven allows sanctions for legally baseless filings or improper litigation purposes, not merely for losing a case. Livevideo appealed but did not file its opening brief by March thirty-first, 2026, and the appeal was dismissed for that default. The company now asks to reinstate the appeal. A mandate formally gives effect to the appellate court's final disposition and ordinarily returns authority over the case to the lower court. Recalling it is an exceptional step requiring extraordinary circumstances. Alfred Constants, for Livevideo, will ask the court to reopen the appeal. Ani-Rae Lovell of Ropes and Gray, representing National Amusements, will oppose that request. Livevideo.AI Corp v. Redstone (No. 25-2954) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit motion hearing; all advocacy and closing preserved: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2954%20mtn.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit recording search: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Prior dismissal, sanctions and filing restrictions — S.D.N.Y. Doc. 170, September 30, 2025; public filed copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv06290/626952/170/0.pdf Underlying dispute and service history — Magistrate Judge Moses's August 12, 2025 report, ECF 163; public court-text copy: https://app.midpage.ai/document/livevideo-ai-corp-v-redstone-1000448850928 Brief deadline, dismissal and reinstatement filings — public copy of substantive appellate docket entries, through May 8, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2954 Service of process and time limit — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c) and (m): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4 Filing sanctions — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 Mandate contents and effectiveness — Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_41 Mandate procedure — Second Circuit clerk's explanation: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/clerk/case_filing/appealing_a_case/civil_case/issuance_of_mandate.html Exceptional mandate recall — Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549–550 (1998); official U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-523/pdf/USREPORTS-523-538.pdf#page=13 Advocate's firm — current Ropes & Gray profile of Ani-Rae Lovell: https://www.ropesgray.com/en/people/l/ani-rae-lovell

Noble Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China — D.C. Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit considers whether a U.S. court can hear Noble Capital's claim against the People's Republic of China over historic bonds. Noble says it owns debt issued by earlier Chinese governments between 1898 and 1913. Those bonds included promises protecting their priority against later borrowing. The People's Republic repudiated the historic debt decades ago. The new dispute follows China's 2020 and 2021 dollar-bond issues in Hong Kong, which Noble alleges were sold to U.S. investors. Noble says those sales put newer debt ahead of the old bonds and breached the priority promises. It seeks roughly eleven point five billion dollars in compensation measured by the old principal and interest. In September 2025, the D.C. district court dismissed the case because China was entitled to sovereign immunity. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ordinarily protects foreign states from suit in U.S. courts, subject to specified exceptions. Noble invokes the commercial activity exception, focusing on new bond sales it says occurred in the United States. Kenneth Noble will seek reversal of the dismissal, arguing those sales caused a new breach rather than merely reviving old unpaid debt. Eric Shumsky, representing China, will argue that the claim's real basis is historic nonpayment abroad, and that the claim is also too late. The district court did not reach the statute of limitations, the legal deadline for bringing a claim. You will also hear pari passu, meaning equal ranking of debt, in contrast to the old bonds' promises of priority. The question is which conduct this suit is really about, and whether that changes the immunity and timeliness analysis. Noble Capital LLC v. People's Republic of China (No. 25-7156) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording; full advocacy, rebuttal and court closing preserved: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-7156.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Case background and challenged dismissal — D.D.C. Doc. 43, September 15, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-03139/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-03139-0.pdf Foreign-state immunity — 28 U.S.C. 1604, official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap97-sec1604.htm Waiver and commercial activity exceptions — 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(1)–(2), official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title28/html/USCODE-2024-title28-partIV-chap97-sec1605.htm Core-of-the-suit inquiry — OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 577 U.S. 27 (2015), Court opinion pp. 29–38: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/577BV.pdf#page=231 Pari passu meaning — Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pari%20passu Pari passu meaning and debt-priority usage — Collins: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pari-passu

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected