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:

Williams v. Bally's Management Group, LLC — 1st Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit hears Williams v. Bally's Management Group. Tracy Williams participated in a Bally's employee health plan and paid a tobacco surcharge totaling about $780 a year. The plan covered a smoking-cessation program, and completing it stopped future surcharges. Williams sued under ERISA, the federal law governing employee benefit plans. She says participants who complete the cessation program or another qualifying alternative must receive the reward's full plan-year value, and that Bally's materials did not adequately explain those alternatives. The district court rejected both arguments, holding that federal law did not require repayment of earlier surcharges and that the notices were sufficient. On appeal, Williams says "full reward" covers the whole plan year; Bally's says the phrase is satisfied when the surcharge ends from completion forward. Williams v. Bally's Management Group, LLC (No. 25-2159) — 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/25-2159_20260916.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 Memorandum and order — U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_25-cv-00147/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_25-cv-00147-0.pdf Current appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-2159 District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/rhode-island/ridce/1%3A2025cv00147/59312 Argument reporting — Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/first-circuit-torn-on-employer-health-coverage-tobacco-penalties 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-4 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title42-section300gg-4 29 C.F.R. § 2590.702 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title29-vol9/pdf/CFR-2025-title29-vol9-sec2590-702.pdf Wellness-program compliance FAQ — U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/node/25144 Oren Faircloth — Siri & Glimstad: https://www.sirillp.com/profile/oren-faircloth/ Geoffrey Forney — Fisher Phillips: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/people/geoffrey-forney Reported counsel appearances — Leagle: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20251106f99

USPS v. PRC — D.C. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Postal Service challenges how its regulator reviews customized shipping contracts before they take effect. The dispute arose from Contract 620, a negotiated service agreement offering one customer volume-based discounts for Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage. The Commission approved it, but barred future clauses requiring USPS to accept packages or otherwise perform before approval. USPS calls those clauses financial protection against regulatory delay; the Commission calls them performance under an unapproved agreement. After the Commission denied reconsideration, USPS petitioned the D.C. Circuit for review. The merits turn on whether these agreements simply set customer-specific rates for existing postal products or can themselves be new products requiring approval before performance. Before reaching the merits, the judges raise an unbriefed question after Trump v. Slaughter: can Article III courts hear a dispute between two entities in a unitary Executive Branch? USPS v. PRC (No. 25-1120) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 14, 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/2026/09/25-1120.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 USPS request concerning Contract 620 — Postal Regulatory Commission docket: https://prc.arkcase.com/api/prc-dockets/filing/downloadFile?fileId=236473&inline=false Order No. 8715 — Postal Regulatory Commission: https://prc.arkcase.com/api/prc-dockets/filing/downloadFile?fileId=236862&inline=false USPS motion for partial reconsideration — Postal Regulatory Commission docket: https://prc.arkcase.com/api/prc-dockets/filing/downloadFile?fileId=237150&inline=false Order No. 8774 — Postal Regulatory Commission: https://prc.arkcase.com/api/prc-dockets/filing/downloadFile?fileId=238687&inline=false Title 39, United States Code — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title39/pdf/USCODE-2023-title39.pdf Trump v. Slaughter — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_new_geil.pdf Michael D. Weaver — USPS Law Department: https://about.usps.com/who/legal/ Michael Shih — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-honors-justice-department-employees-and-partners-72nd Michael Shih court identification — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-22-00113/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-22-00113-0.pdf

Bruckauf v. Aviles-Ramos — 2d Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers a funding dispute between the city Department of Education and the parents of 18 students with disabilities at iBRAIN, a private school. For 2025–26, the parents filed administrative complaints alleging that the city had not offered appropriate programs and seeking funding for tuition, transportation, and nursing where applicable. They then sued in federal court, seeking a preliminary injunction declaring iBRAIN the students' stay-put placement and requiring funding while the administrative cases continued. Stay-put generally keeps a student in the last agreed program at public expense while a special-education dispute is pending. The district court denied preliminary relief after finding no irreparable harm. By oral argument, the 2025–26 school year had ended. The court must decide whether the completed school year makes this appeal moot and, if not, whether stay-put permits ordinary-course funding without proof that delayed payment threatened a placement. Bruckauf v. Aviles-Ramos (No. 25-2127) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 16, 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/25-2127.mp3 Argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Filed appellate record and briefs — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A1143/405129/20260423092143874_USSC%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Mandamus%2025A1143.pdf Mendez v. Banks — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-2663_opn.pdf Juca v. Banks — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-2327_opn.pdf Related iBRAIN appeals — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-1321,%2025-1355_so.pdf 20 U.S.C. § 1415 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title20-section1415 Rory J. Bellantoni — Liberty & Freedom Legal Group: https://libertyfreedom.law/meet-our-team/rory-bellantoni/ Rory J. Bellantoni court appearance — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/arguments/2026/Jan26/Transcripts/010626-1-Oral-Argument-Transcript.pdf Amy L. McCamphill — Columbia Law School: https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/amy-l-mccamphill

Tri County Telephone Association v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, et al. — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit considers whether Twin City and The Hartford had to defend Tri County Telephone Association against a class action over the sale of a member-owned Wyoming telephone cooperative. Members approved the sale in December 2014, and the cooperative became a for-profit company on January 2, 2015. Joe Campbell, a director who opposed the deal as undervalued, and his wife Barbara later brought a class action for former members, alleging the sale cost them tens of millions of dollars. The class-action defendants won summary judgment, and the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. Tri County paid its own defense costs and sued Twin City and The Hartford, but the federal district court held the action was one excluded claim even after chief financial officer Steve Harper was added. This appeal turns on when Campbell stopped serving, whether adding Harper created a separate claim, and whether any part of the suit required a defense. Tri County Telephone Association v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, et al. (No. 26-8007) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 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/26-8007.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%2F16%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F17%2F2026 Filed summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming: https://www.executivesummaryblog.com/assets/htmldocuments/Tri%20County%20Telephone%20Assoc.%20v.%20Twin%20City.pdf Campbell v. Davidson — Wyoming Supreme Court: https://stwjbopinions.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/wsc-opinions/Campbell%20S-22-0303.pdf Lawrence v. State Farm — Wyoming Supreme Court: https://stwjbopinions.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/wsc-opinions/2006WY56.pdf Independent insurance analysis — Rivkin Radler: https://www.jdsupra.com/post/fileServer.aspx?fName=9f788b24-c80f-4eca-8954-f9cc7418b5d4.pdf Coverage ruling report — Powell Tribune: https://delta.creativecirclecdn.com/powell/files/20260204-164534-c38-TPT_2026_02.05.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/26-8007 David M. Clark — Ragain & Clark: https://www.mtwylaw.com/attorneys/david-m-clark/ Matthew W. Beato — Wiley: https://www.wiley.law/people-MattBeato

Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears a dispute that grew out of a patent suit over Simon-branded gift cards. AlexSam accused Simon Property Group and Blackhawk Network of infringing its multifunction-card patent; Blackhawk supplied and activated some of the accused cards. Simon, in turn, said its contract with Blackhawk required Blackhawk to defend and indemnify it. The district court found no infringement, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court later said Simon's indemnity claim had been dismissed as moot, without deciding it on the merits. Simon now asks the Federal Circuit to reject that mootness ruling and clarify whether the state-law contract claim was instead dismissed without prejudice after the federal patent claims ended. Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. (No. 25-1138) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1138_09142026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf 2024 noninfringement opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1598.OPINION.4-1-2024_2293967.pdf 2025 procedural order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1137.ORDER.3-3-2025_2475541.pdf 2022 noninfringement order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-1.pdf 2024 report and recommendation — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-2.pdf September 2024 order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-3.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 1367 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:28%20section:1367%20edition:prelim) Artis v. District of Columbia — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-583/pdf/USREPORTS-583-71.pdf Kemp v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-5726_5iel.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1138

Center for Gestalt Development v. Charles Bowman — 7th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a copyright dispute over an unpublished manuscript by Frederick Perls, a founder of Gestalt therapy. The Center for Gestalt Development claims an exclusive right to publish it. Charles Bowman and Jean-Marie Robine coedited a book, published in France under the Institut Français de Gestalt-Thérapie, that contained the manuscript alongside commentaries by other therapists. After a Pennsylvania court dismissed the case against Bowman for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Center refiled in Indiana. The district court granted summary judgment against the Center. The appeal asks whether publication of the book infringed the Center's claimed exclusive publication right. Center for Gestalt Development v. Charles Bowman (No. 25-3336) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 16, 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/cm.25-3336.25-3336_09_16_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 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/oralArgCal/getOralArgCalendar.pl Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3336 Prior federal memorandum — E.D. Pennsylvania: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_22-cv-02058/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_22-cv-02058-0.pdf Indiana federal order — S.D. Indiana: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_22-cv-02185/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_22-cv-02185-0.pdf Related opinion — Court of Appeals of Indiana: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=FRtGMkbqc6bk7b0XzZRKZ-aKyQrK64hSdF54Xl-Mh1VvwfnAGjt-vfCbfz0L8YBL0 Book information — L'Exprimerie / Matrana: https://www.matrana.fr/matrana/parutions-2020/psychopathologie-de-l-awareness.html John J. Powell — Montgomery McCracken: https://www.mmwr.com/attorney/john-j-powell/ Paul B. Overhauser — official USPTO filing: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91293939-OPP-7.pdf

Anton Fertikh v. Todd Blanche — 9th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Anton Fertikh's challenge to the denial of asylum. Fertikh, a Russian asylum seeker, says antiwar and anti-corruption activity put him at risk of persecution. He prepared for the hearing from immigration custody and appeared pro se. He expected a master-calendar hearing, but says the immigration judge instead held the merits hearing and refused more time to gather evidence. The judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. A master-calendar hearing normally handles pleadings and scheduling; a merits hearing takes evidence and decides whether relief should be granted. Fertikh argues that inadequate notice and the denied continuance kept him from fully presenting his case. The court will consider abuse of discretion and due process: the first examines the circumstances behind the continuance ruling, while due process also requires prejudice, meaning the alleged error may have affected the outcome. Anton Fertikh v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-7834) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 16, 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/2026/09/16/25-7834.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7834&hearingDate=2026-09-16 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-09-16&loc=PAS Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-7834 Case background — Ernest Goodman Law Firm: https://ernestgoodmanlawfirm.com/oral-argument-considered-by-ninth-circuit-in-our-clients-case-fertikh-v-blancheylum-cases-are-still-being-denied-early-2/ Case background — Russian America for Democracy in Russia: https://t.me/democracy4russia/864 Master-calendar hearings — Executive Office for Immigration Review: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-II/icpm/chapter-3-14 Individual-calendar hearings — Executive Office for Immigration Review: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-II/icpm/chapter-3-15 Ahmed v. Holder — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/24/06-71631.pdf Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/07/21-298.pdf Ernest Goodman — UCLA Extension instructor profile: https://www.uclaextension.edu/instructors/ernest-goodman

Susan Hogarth v. Sam Hayes — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Susan Hogarth’s First Amendment challenge to North Carolina’s ballot-selfie restrictions. In March 2024, Hogarth photographed herself with her marked primary ballot inside a Wake County voting booth and posted the image on X to promote her candidates and criticize the photo ban. A State Board investigator’s letter dated eight days later said taking and sharing the photo was unlawful, warned of possible prosecution, and told her to remove it. Hogarth refused and sued over five state-law provisions. The district court ruled for the election officials, applying the reasonableness standard for speech restrictions in a nonpublic forum. Hogarth says several provisions also ban photographing absentee ballots and sharing ballot photos outside a polling place. The appeal therefore asks how broadly her challenge reaches and which First Amendment test applies: strict scrutiny demands a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, while polling-place and election-law doctrines can be more deferential. Susan Hogarth v. Sam Hayes (No. 26-1328) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 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/mp3/26-1328-20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Opening brief — Susan Hogarth: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/ballot-selfie-4th-24-050126.pdf Response brief — North Carolina election officials: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ballot-selfie-4th-27-060126.pdf N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-166.3 — North Carolina General Assembly: https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-166.3.html Election Day voting FAQ — North Carolina State Board of Elections: https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-person-election-day/faq-election-day-voting District-court filing describing the March 2024 events — Democracy Docket: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/11-2024-08-27-Plaintiffs-memorandum-in-support-of-motion-for-preliminary-injunction.pdf Case and district-court background — Carolina Journal: https://www.carolinajournal.com/ballot-selfie-backer-makes-case-at-4th-circuit-against-nc-ban/ Oral-argument report — Carolina Journal: https://www.carolinajournal.com/4th-circuit-hears-libertarians-challenge-to-nc-ballot-selfie-ban/

State of Rhode Island v. Trump — 1st Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears the Trump administration’s appeal in State of Rhode Island v. Trump. Executive Order 14238 told congressionally created entities to end nonstatutory work and reduce statutory functions and staff to the legal minimum. Twenty-one states sued after the agencies placed nearly all employees on leave or reassigned them, canceled grants and services, and curtailed congressionally funded work. This appeal concerns three: the Minority Business Development Agency, supporting minority-owned businesses; the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, mediating labor disputes; and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, coordinating homelessness policy. The district court held the implementation arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and unconstitutional. It vacated the challenged actions and permanently barred future implementation of the order for the affected agencies. The government says the court lacked jurisdiction over some relief, there was no discrete final agency action to review, and the injunction is overbroad. The states say the coordinated shutdowns were reviewable and the remedy still permits lawful streamlining. State of Rhode Island v. Trump (No. 26-1070) — 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/26-1070_20260916.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 Executive Order 14238 — Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-04868.pdf Final summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island: https://ecf.rid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0128-99 Prior First Circuit opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1477P-01A.pdf Current appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/26-1070 About USICH — U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness: https://usich.gov/about/usich Ester Murdukhayeva — New York Attorney General filing: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/amicus-curiae/danco-laboratories-llc-v-lousiana-et-al-amicus-brief-2026.pdf

United States v. Ndubuisi Okafor — D.C. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Dr. Ndubuisi Okafor’s appeal from convictions arising from his Northwest Washington medical practice. Prosecutors said Okafor wrote cash-paid prescriptions for oxycodone and promethazine with codeine after minimal examinations and sent other prescriptions, sometimes in false names, across the country. A jury convicted him of conspiracy, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and twenty-two unlawful distributions; he received eighteen years. At trial, defense physician Dr. Joe Ybarra reviewed recordings of four undercover patient visits and concluded that Okafor acted within legitimate medical practice. The judge allowed that testimony but barred Ybarra from extending the same conclusion to seventeen other prescriptions for which he had no patient-interaction evidence. Okafor says that restriction left him unable to answer the government’s expert, and that the jury instructions diluted Ruan’s requirement that prosecutors prove he knowingly or intentionally prescribed without authorization. The government says the opinion was unsupported speculation, the instructions required subjective intent, and the sentence should stand. United States v. Ndubuisi Okafor (No. 25-3073) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 14, 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/2026/09/25-3073.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Pretrial evidentiary opinion — U.S. District Court via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116-0.pdf Expert-testimony opinion — U.S. District Court via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116-1.pdf Case and conviction record — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-vns/case/united-states-v-ndubuisi-joseph-okafor Sentencing record — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/physician-sentenced-18-years-prison-operating-pill-mill-his-northwest-dc-medical Federal-program exclusion decision — U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/dab/decisions/alj-decisions/2026/alj-cr6910/index.html Ruan v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-3073 Jerome Madden — The Madden Law Group: https://themaddenlawgroup.com/sitemap/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected