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:

SDNW Inc. v. Brycer, L.P. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit reviews a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision about software for tracking fire-hydrant inspections. Tegris, now named SDNW, owns U.S. Patent 11,126,966, which describes a shared online registry where owners, inspectors, and approving authorities can track inspections, deficiencies, notices, and compliance. Brycer and Brycer Management petitioned for inter partes review, a process in which the Board tests issued patent claims against earlier patents and publications. The Board found claims 8 through 16 obvious over four earlier references and therefore unpatentable. SDNW says the Board waited until after the hearing to invoke the printed-matter doctrine, allowed only seven pages of supplemental briefing, and denied expert evidence. It also says the Board misconstrued fire-hydrant management software and accepted an expert outside the relevant specialty. Brycer answers that SDNW had notice and a chance to respond, raised parts of its claim-construction theory too late, and cannot overcome the Board's alternative obviousness findings. The appeal asks whether the Board used a new ground without a meaningful chance to respond, and whether its claim construction and obviousness findings can stand. SDNW Inc. v. Brycer, L.P. (No. 25-1417) — 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/25-1417_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 Final written decision, IPR2023-01196 — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1554365/download-documents?artifactId=d70ERPz4Al7lISo6p7cR8Qck3Vl7-X3xU34pb_VRuxUT8hgee-aI0KA U.S. Patent 11,126,966 — Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11126966B2/en Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1417 Notice of appeal — Patent Trial and Appeal Board record via RPX: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/1491591/rpx-ptab/IPR2023-01196/Tegris_Notice_of_Appeal_2_3_25_h1oVm2_iJCzTinTkIhbWd6GP61Pk-TSDvMpCmsvUIehzOPxr3GV-vNs.pdf 35 U.S.C. § 311 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A35+section%3A311+edition%3Aprelim%29 C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1756.opinion.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund — 7th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears consolidated appeals over damage from four abandoned coal mines in Macoupin County, Illinois. Superior Coal operated the mines from 1904 to 1953 and dissolved in 1957. Decades later, collapsing mine structures damaged homes and a school. Illinois requires property insurers to offer mine-subsidence coverage and created the Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund to reimburse them. After paying claims, the Fund repeatedly sued Union Pacific, arguing that the railroad inherited Superior's liabilities through corporate succession. A 2019 federal judgment rejected the Fund's alter-ego and de facto merger theories, but another homeowner claim followed. Union Pacific then sought declaratory and injunctive relief to stop further relitigation. The district court barred claims the Fund had acquired before the 2019 judgment, but did not reach issue preclusion and denied an injunction. These cross-appeals ask whether the same corporate-liability issues may be relitigated for each new homeowner, whether the Fund acts in a different legal capacity each time, and whether Union Pacific is entitled to an injunction. Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund (No. 26-1095; 26-1219) — 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/nv.26-1095.26-1095_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 Prior appellate opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2025/D06-02/C:24-1604:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:3380260:S:0&Submit=Display Final district-court order — Central District of Illinois: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/3%3A2020cv03281/81567/80/0.pdf Appeal docket — Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1095 Cross-appeal docket — Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund v. Union Pacific Railroad Company: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1219 Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund statute — Illinois General Assembly: https://ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/021500050K803.1.htm Subrogation statute — Illinois General Assembly: https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/ilcs/documents/021500050K815.1.htm

Tallman v. Spencer — 9th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Jonathan Tallman's defamation appeal against Dillon Spencer. Tallman owns a coffee shop in Boardman, Oregon, coached youth soccer, and unsuccessfully ran for four local offices from 2020 through 2023. A former teenage employee alleged that Tallman touched her and behaved sexually toward her while she worked at the shop; police investigated, but Tallman was never charged. In August 2023, after the former employee shared the police report on Facebook, her stepbrother Spencer posted that Tallman was a predator who had victimized children and had multiple victims. Tallman says those statements are false and sued for defamation and false light. The district court treated Tallman as a public figure, required him to plausibly allege actual malice, and ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice. The appeal asks whether a recent former candidate remains a public figure, and whether the court drew improper inferences against Tallman under Oregon's anti-SLAPP procedure. Tallman v. Spencer (No. 25-4506) — 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/2026/09/15/25-4506.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4506&hearingDate=2026-09-15 Appellate docket — Tallman v. Spencer: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-4506 Initial findings and recommendation — District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773-0.pdf Public-figure order — District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773-1.pdf Actual-malice findings and recommendation — District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773-2.pdf Procedural history — District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-2_23-cv-01773-4.pdf Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 31 — Oregon Legislature: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors031.html

Wantagh Union Free School District v. New York State Board of Regents — 2d Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Wantagh Union Free School District's challenge to New York's Part 123, which bars public schools from using team names, logos, or mascots that depict or refer to Indigenous people or cultures. Wantagh had used Warriors with Native American imagery. It agreed to retire the imagery but sought to keep and rebrand the name; the State Education Department refused. Wantagh, its school board, and board member Anthony Greco sued. The district court dismissed the municipal plaintiffs because they generally cannot bring constitutional claims against the state, and dismissed Greco's First Amendment claim involving Warriors apparel at school events. The appeal asks whether the rule is unconstitutionally vague, whether Greco's clothing is protected speech, and whether his status as an elected volunteer changes the public-employee speech analysis. Wantagh Union Free School District v. New York State Board of Regents (No. 25-1136) — 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: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1136.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Part 123 regulation and guidance — New York State Education Department: https://www.nysed.gov/indigenous-education/mascot-guidance Filed complaint — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://s3.amazonaws.com/scschoolfiles/3683/lawsuit_filing_9-29-23.pdf District court memorandum and order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/2%3A2023cv07696/504485/55/

Wons v. Thermo Fisher Scientific — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Richard Wons's employment-discrimination appeal against Thermo Fisher Scientific. Wons objected on religious grounds to the company's COVID-19 vaccine requirement. Thermo Fisher conditionally excused vaccination if he instead complied with weekly nasal-swab testing, masking, and distancing. Wons asked about spit tests and did not accept those conditions; the company placed him on unpaid leave and later fired him. The district court entered summary judgment for Thermo Fisher, holding that the offered accommodation was reasonable and that Wons had not told the company that nasal-swab testing itself conflicted with his religion. Wons says a jury should decide whether his original request and later communications gave enough notice. Thermo Fisher asks the court to affirm. Wons v. Thermo Fisher Scientific (No. 26-1009) — 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: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/26-1009.mp3 September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/calendar/events/September_2026_-_Final_Calendar.pdf District court summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_23-cv-00480/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_23-cv-00480-3.pdf Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf

Barron v. US — Fed. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears two consolidated appeals involving Sarasota's Legacy Trail. In 2019, the Surface Transportation Board railbanked about seven-point-seven miles of a former railroad corridor, preserving it for possible future rail service while allowing interim trail use. Nearby landowners sued the United States for compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Their claims turn on seven early-twentieth-century deeds and a 1926 condemnation judgment. The Court of Federal Claims held that those documents gave the railroad full ownership of the corridor, leaving the landowners with no property interest that trail use could take. The landowners appealed. Barron v. US (No. 25-1179) — 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: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1179_09142026.mp3 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Court of Federal Claims opinion: https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2021cv2181-59-0= Landowners’ opening brief: https://truenorthlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/030-05-05-25-BARRON-Consolidated-Opening-Brief.pdf United States’ response brief: https://truenorthlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/050-09-17-25-BARRON-Appeal-DOJ-Response-Brief.pdf

Ashley Lewis v. CIR — 7th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Ashley Lewis versus the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The IRS mailed Lewis a notice of tax deficiency on September 30, 2024. Federal law gave her ninety days, through December 30, to petition the Tax Court. Her petition was postmarked February 18, 2025, and the Tax Court dismissed it as late. This appeal asks whether that deadline limits the Tax Court's jurisdiction, or instead can be equitably tolled. Ashley Lewis v. CIR (No. 26-1173) — 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.26-1173.26-1173_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 Case record and dismissal order — U.S. Tax Court: https://dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/case-detail/2604-25 Section 6213(a) — United States Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section6213 Boechler v. Commissioner — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1472_6j37.pdf Tilden v. Commissioner — Seventh Circuit opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03838/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03838-0.pdf

National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation v FOMB — 1st Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears consolidated appeals from Puerto Rico's restructuring of its public electric utility, PREPA. PREPA entered a court-supervised debt adjustment under PROMESA in 2017. In 2024, this court held that the bondholders' nonrecourse claim was secured by PREPA's net revenues, meaning money remaining after operating expenses. The bondholders now say PREPA generated and used at least three-point-seven billion dollars of that collateral after the case began. They asked to treat that amount as an administrative expense, a priority claim for qualifying costs of preserving the debtor. The district court denied the request as a matter of law, without deciding whether the claimed net revenues existed. The appeals ask whether PREPA's postpetition use can support priority under Section 503, the Reading doctrine, Section 922(c), or the Constitution. National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation v FOMB (No. 26-1330) — 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/26-1330_20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09

Diego N. v. HHS — D.C. Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Diego N. versus the Department of Health and Human Services. Four minors entered the United States without a parent, were placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and later released to relatives whom the agency had vetted and approved. After separate encounters with police or immigration authorities, the children were sent back to the agency, which required their former sponsors to apply again before release. Diego, for example, had lived with his father after the agency approved him in 2024; a year later, Border Patrol detained Diego during a traffic stop and returned him to federal custody. The children sued in February 2026, seeking a class-wide preliminary injunction and a prompt, individualized process before full re-vetting. The district court denied that request. On appeal, the children will argue that blanket reapplication violates due process and the Administrative Procedure Act. HHS will argue that federal law requires current vetting of each child and sponsor, and that habeas petitions provide the proper route for challenges to detention. Diego N. v. HHS (No. 26-5157) — 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/2026/09/26-5157.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9

Rodrock Homes of Johnson County, et al. v. City of Olathe, Kansas — 10th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Rodrock Homes of Johnson County versus the City of Olathe, Kansas. Rodrock and Prieb Homes are residential developers in Olathe. They sued over the city's Park Excise Tax, a five-hundred-twenty-dollar charge per dwelling unit that residential developers must pay before getting a building permit. They say the charge is really a monetary land-use exaction, so under Nollan, Dolan, Koontz, and Sheetz, the city must connect it to the impact of their development. The district court entered judgment for Olathe, treating the charge as a tax rather than a taking. The appeal asks whether that was the wrong starting point. Rodrock Homes of Johnson County, et al. v. City of Olathe, Kansas (No. 26-3004) — 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/26-3004.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=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/calendar/events/September_2026_-_Final_Calendar.pdf Case docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/26-3004 District court order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02592/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02592-0.pdf Rule 59 order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02592/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_24-cv-02592-1.pdf Taxes and fees — City of Olathe: https://www.olatheks.gov/government/finance-services/taxes-fees

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected