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:

Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC — 2d Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 17, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers Nielsen's request to pause a district-court order enforcing an antitrust injunction in favor of Cumulus. Cumulus uses Nielsen audience data to price and sell radio advertising. It sued after Nielsen conditioned access to its Nationwide report—the only national report of its kind—on buying Nielsen's local ratings in every market where Cumulus operates. The district court preliminarily barred that policy and commercially unreasonable standalone pricing; the Second Circuit affirmed in July. When the parties' contract neared expiration, Cumulus moved to enforce the injunction, and the district court granted the motion. Nielsen will contend that the resulting order went beyond the injunction and became an unlawful forced sale. Cumulus will answer that the court merely enforced its existing order and that losing Nationwide costs it customers and goodwill. The panel must first decide whether the enforcement order modified the injunction enough to permit an immediate appeal, then whether it should remain paused. Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (No. 26-2516) — 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/26-2516%20mtn.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Preliminary-injunction opinion — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv08581/651286/141/ Cumulus v. Nielsen, No. 26-88 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/26-88/26-88-2026-07-13.html Enforcement-hearing order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv08581/651286/226 Current appellate docket — Second Circuit docket mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-2516 28 U.S.C. § 1292 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1292&num=0&edition=prelim JLM Couture v. Gutman — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/21-2535_opn.pdf Cumulus quarterly report — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1058623/000105862326000042/cmls-20260630.htm Thomas H. Dupree Jr. — Gibson Dunn: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/dupree-jr-thomas-h/ Katherine Wellington — Hogan Lovells: https://pdf.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/us-supreme-court-invalidates-ieepa-tariffs-reshaping-the-administrations-trade-toolkit

Blum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

Scott and Audrey Blum challenge nearly sixteen million dollars in taxes tied to a 1999 BLIPS tax shelter. The Tax Court found that Blum used the DSIF partnership to inflate his tax basis and report a seventy-eight point five million dollar artificial loss, offsetting about seventy-four point eight million dollars from an unrelated sale. A district court upheld the partnership adjustments, and the IRS later issued personal deficiency notices. The Tax Court held them timely because DSIF's tax matters partner had extended the deadline and any challenge belonged in the earlier partnership case. The Blums say the Form 872-P in the record bears the partner's signature but not the IRS's, and that a limitations period is not a partnership item under TEFRA. The Commissioner says the consent was fully executed and TEFRA confined the defense to the partnership case. The Tenth Circuit must decide whether the Blums lost that defense and, if not, whether the deadline was validly extended. Blum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 25-9001) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 15, 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/25-9001.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%2F15%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026 Blum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-18 — U.S. Tax Court docket: https://dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/case-detail/5313-16 Blum Tax Court docket data — U.S. Tax Court: https://public-api-blue.dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/public-api/cases/5313-16 Shasta Strategic Investment Fund v. United States — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2004cv04264/24524/247/ IRS Publication 5522 — TEFRA partnership examination forms: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5522.pdf William M. Sharp — Holland & Knight: https://www.hklaw.com/en/professionals/s/sharp-william-m Clint Carpenter — U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1463.opinion.5-21-2020_1591643.pdf Expressio unius discussion — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/514bv.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-9001

Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

Pioneer is trying to preserve a patent on genetically engineered plant cells that use variants of an AAD-12 enzyme to break down two kinds of herbicides, allowing crops to tolerate them. Inari asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for post-grant review, an administrative trial testing whether a recently issued patent's claims are valid. The Board held claims one through thirty-three unpatentable for lack of enablement. It found that the patent claimed an enormous range of possible protein sequences without teaching skilled scientists how to identify which ones would work without undue experimentation. Pioneer says the Board wrongly used experiments conducted years after the patent's 2005 and 2006 priority dates and discounted structural guidance in the patent. Inari answers that the later tests used the patent's own methods and confirmed that structure did not reliably predict function. The appeal asks whether the Board applied enablement law correctly and whether substantial evidence supports its findings. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. (No. 25-1287) — 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/25-1287_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 PGR2023-00022 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FPGR2023-00022%2F51 PGR2023-00022 hearing transcript — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FPGR2023-00022%2F47 Notice of appeal — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FPGR2023-00022%2F52 U.S. Patent No. 11,371,055 — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11371055 35 U.S.C. § 112 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section112&num=0&edition=prelim In re Wands — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/858/731/446839/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1287 Charles Collins-Chase — Finnegan: https://www.finnegan.com/en/professionals/charles-t-collins-chase.html Eric Rutt — Wolf Greenfield: https://wolfgreenfield.com/professionals/rutt-eric

Demetrius Williams v. Erik Michalsen — 7th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Demetrius Williams v. Erik Michalsen. In May 2018, Williams and John Patterson, two Black Milwaukee pastors, were returning from fishing when a tire on their boat trailer went flat. They pulled fully onto I-94's shoulder, called for a tow, and waited. They allege Deputy Erik Michalsen asked about guns and drugs, insisted on both men's licenses, and kept them for warrant checks during the roughly fifteen-minute encounter. They sued under Section 1983, which allows claims against state or local officials for violating federal rights, alleging unreasonable seizure and race discrimination. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, holding that no reasonable jury could find a seizure or a sufficiently similar white motorist treated differently. The appeal asks whether disputed evidence required a jury trial and whether qualified immunity independently protects the defendants. Demetrius Williams v. Erik Michalsen (No. 25-3287) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 15, 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/ch.25-3287.25-3287_09_15_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 summary-judgment order — E.D. Wisconsin: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiedce/2%3A2019cv00056/84198/84/0.pdf Complaint — E.D. Wisconsin filing hosted by Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs: https://www.gtwlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MinisterCaseComplaint.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3287 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A42+section%3A1983+edition%3Aprelim%29 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Cady v. Dombrowski — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep413/usrep413433/usrep413433.pdf Caniglia v. Strom — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/593us1r33_4i29.pdf Pearson v. Callahan — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep555/usrep555223/usrep555223.pdf Mark L. Thomsen — Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs: https://gtwlawyers.com/wisconsin-attorneys/ Samuel C. Hall Jr. — Crivello, Nichols & Hall: https://www.crivellolaw.com/people/samuel-c-hall-jr/

K. G. v. Hall — 9th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears K. G. v. Hall. According to K. G.'s complaint, in 2002, when she was twelve, her uncle by marriage, Stephen Hall, gave her a back rub while they were alone in a room at his house. She alleges that he reached around and touched her breasts, pressed his erect penis against her back, and commented that she was growing up. K. G. later sued Hall for assault and battery; she now appeals from a judgment for Hall. Neal Weingart represents K. G. He will argue that the trial court let Hall use evidence about alleged abuse by other people without following Rule 412, while excluding other-act evidence that K. G. offered to prove Hall's intent. He will ask for a new trial. K. G. v. Hall (No. 25-3954) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 15, 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/2026/09/15/25-3954.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3954&hearingDate=2026-09-15 Appellate docket — K. G. v. Hall: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-3954 Background order — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_22-cv-01107/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_22-cv-01107-0.pdf Federal Rules of Evidence — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/federal-rules-of-evidence-dec-1-2024.pdf Rule 412 procedure — B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2002/01/08/9917087.pdf Rule 404(b) test — United States v. Bailey: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/08/27/11-50132.pdf

Derrel Leonard Thomas v. Douglas A. Collins — CAVC (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims hears Derrel Leonard Thomas versus Douglas Collins. In 2023, VA awarded Thomas retroactive disability benefits reaching back to 2001, including a one-hundred-percent rating for Meniere's disease and special monthly compensation. Thomas believed VA still owed him more. In December 2024, he asked for additional compensation and an audit, but VA's April 2025 audit said the amount due and the amount paid matched. When Thomas requested Higher-Level Review, VA refused, saying an unchanged audit is not a decision and carries no review rights. Thomas now seeks a writ of mandamus ordering VA to process that review. The court must decide whether the December request was a claim, whether the audit letter was an appealable decision, and whether Thomas instead has an adequate route through a new formal claim. Derrel Leonard Thomas v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 25-7475) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Thomas.MP3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Argument schedule — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_schedule.php Public docket — Thomas v. Collins, No. 25-7475: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=25-7475&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Order identifying the issue for decision — Veterans Court: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012121716 Secretary's memorandum of law — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012512092 Thomas's reply memorandum — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012559410 38 U.S.C. § 5104C — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title38-section5104C Choosing a decision review option — Department of Veterans Affairs: https://www.va.gov/resources/choosing-a-decision-review-option Cheney v. U.S. District Court — U.S. Supreme Court: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep542/usrep542367/usrep542367.pdf Gardner-Dickson v. Wilkie — Veterans Court: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Gardner-DicksonK_19-4765.pdf Cardoza v. McDonough — Veterans Court: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/CardozaP_20-6380.pdf Encarnacion v. McDonough — Veterans Court: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/EncarnacionCL_21-1411.pdf Colin Rettammel notice of appearance — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012652613 Colin Rettammel professional profile — LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/colin-rettammel-184922297 Debra Bernal notice of appearance — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012927210

In re: Application — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears a sealed dispute between LinkedIn and the United States. The Justice Department is investigating a national-security leak. An Eastern District of Virginia judge ordered LinkedIn to produce roughly nineteen hundred non-content records tied to six subscribers, and barred the company from notifying anyone. LinkedIn says the demand sweeps in irrelevant records and seeks permission to notify one person under tight restrictions, hoping that person can help narrow the request. The district court refused both changes, and LinkedIn appealed. The public record does not identify the journalist, the users, the alleged leak, or the evidence discussed under seal. The appeal asks whether the Stored Communications Act lets LinkedIn challenge the records order as overbroad, and whether the secrecy order violates the First Amendment. This recording contains only the public session; the court closed the courtroom for the rest of the argument. In re: Application (No. 26-4303) — 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/mp3/26-4303-20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept152026.pdf Public brief index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/DataBriefs.aspx?CASENUM=26-4303 LinkedIn appeal statement — Microsoft: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2026/09/15/protecting-customer-privacy-means-standing-up-for-transparency/ Report on the sealed LinkedIn dispute — Politico via Yahoo News: https://news.yahoo.com/articles/doj-seeking-reporter-linkedin-records-194925986.html Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703 Nondisclosure orders, 18 U.S.C. § 2705: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2705 Branzburg v. Hayes — U.S. Supreme Court: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep408/usrep408665/usrep408665.pdf United States v. Sterling — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/115028.p.pdf Doe v. Mast — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241900.P.pdf Reed v. Town of Gilbert — U.S. Supreme Court: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep576/usrep576155/usrep576155.pdf Ari Holtzblatt — WilmerHale: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/people/ari-holtzblatt Ari Holtzblatt — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/354631

American Hospital Association v. AbbVie Inc. — 1st Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears American Hospital Association versus AbbVie. The 340B program requires drugmakers to discount outpatient drugs for eligible safety-net providers. In 2025, the Health Resources and Services Administration approved a pilot allowing selected manufacturers to collect more up front and refund the difference later, partly to prevent duplicate discounts. Hospital groups sued federal health officials, saying the change violated the Administrative Procedure Act and imposed new costs and paperwork. The district court blocked the pilot. AbbVie and other manufacturers sought to join the defense, but the court ruled that the government adequately represented them. The court later vacated the pilot and returned it to the agency, ending the underlying case. The agency has since announced a revised pilot. The manufacturers now appeal the intervention ruling; the hospitals say the appeal is moot because the old case no longer exists. American Hospital Association v. AbbVie Inc. (No. 25-2237) — 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/25-2237_20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 2025 340B pilot notice — Health Resources and Services Administration: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-08-07/pdf/2025-14998.pdf Order denying intervention — U.S. District Court for the District of Maine: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-2_25-cv-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-med-2_25-cv-00600-0.pdf Preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court for the District of Maine: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-2_25-cv-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-med-2_25-cv-00600-1.pdf Vacatur-and-remand order — U.S. District Court for the District of Maine: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-2_25-cv-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-med-2_25-cv-00600-3.pdf Corrected opening brief for the manufacturers and PhRMA — First Circuit filing: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/American-Hospital-Association-et-al-v.-AbbVie-Inc.-et-al_2026.05.07_PROPOSED-INTERVENORS-BRIEF.pdf Response brief for the hospital plaintiffs — First Circuit filing: https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/American-Hospital-Association-et-al-v.-AbbVie-Inc.-et-al_2026.06.04_PLAINTIFFS-BRIEF.pdf 2026 revised 340B pilot notice — Health Resources and Services Administration: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-08-03/pdf/2026-15633.pdf Matthew Owen — Gibson Dunn: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/owen-matthew-s/ L. Rush Atkinson — Dunn Isaacson Rhee: https://www.dirllp.com/l-rush-atkinson Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_24 United States v. Munsingwear — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/340/36

United States v. Ruben Oseguera-Gonzalez — D.C. Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears United States versus Ruben Oseguera-Gonzalez. Federal prosecutors described Oseguera-Gonzalez as the second-in-command of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel; Mexico extradited him to the United States in 2020. In April 2023, he signed an English statement of facts for a planned guilty plea, but the plea was never entered. Before trial, the district court barred prosecutors from using that statement in their case-in-chief because no Rule 11 plea colloquy had occurred. A jury later convicted him of a drug-trafficking conspiracy and a firearms offense. In March 2025, the district court sentenced him to life in prison plus thirty consecutive years. On appeal, Oseguera-Gonzalez challenges both his convictions and sentence, while the government asks the court to affirm. United States v. Ruben Oseguera-Gonzalez (No. 25-3032) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 15, 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/2026/09/25-3032.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Pretrial opinion on the signed statement of facts — U.S. District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_16-cr-00229/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_16-cr-00229-1.pdf Conviction announcement — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/notorious-mexican-cartel-leader-convicted-international-drug-trafficking-and-firearms Sentencing announcement — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/notorious-violent-mexican-cartel-leader-sentenced-life-plus-30-years-prison-international Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-3032 Devin Burstein — Warren and Burstein: https://www.warrenburstein.com/our-firm 2024 Sentencing Guidelines Manual — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/GLMFull.pdf Napue v. Illinois — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/360/264 Federal Rule of Evidence 403 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_52

Javino v. Denton — 2d Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Javino versus Denton. The dispute began with the purchase and operation of Senix Marina on Long Island. Dale Javino and Ranee Denton were personal and business partners, but the relationship collapsed; Javino was excluded from the marina, and state-court litigation began in 2015. Representing himself, Javino later sued Denton, her lawyers, a bank employee, the bank, and others in federal court. He alleged that litigation and banking activity formed a scheme against him under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, and related fraud theories. The district court dismissed the complaint, finding the claims untimely and inadequately pleaded. Javino will argue that suspicion in 2014 did not start RICO's four-year clock because his alleged injury occurred later. The appellees will answer that he knew of the alleged injury years before filing in 2022 and did not plead a racketeering enterprise, qualifying predicate acts, or fraud with the required detail. Javino v. Denton (No. 24-2676, 24-3300) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 14, 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/24-2676,%2024-3300.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District court memorandum and order — Javino v. Denton: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2%3A2022cv01072/476486/60/0.pdf Appellate docket — Javino v. Denton: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/24-3300 Related state-court docket record — New York Courts: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2026/2026_62191.htm Ryan Soebke — Cullen and Dykman: https://www.cullenllp.com/attorneys/ryan-m-soebke/ 18 U.S.C. chapter 96 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title18-chapter96 Sua sponte — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sua_sponte

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected