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:

Cocona, Inc. v. VF Outdoor, LLC — Fed. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears Cocona, Inc. v. VF Outdoor, LLC. Cocona owns a patent for a waterproof, breathable membrane used in outdoor apparel. It sued VF Outdoor and Columbia Sportswear in 2016, alleging that their products infringed that patent. After earlier Patent Office proceedings knocked out other patent claims, Cocona focused on claims that require a moisture vapor transmission rate within a stated range. The district court held those remaining claims invalid because the patent described more than one way to measure that rate, but did not tell a skilled reader which method or conditions controlled. Cocona now asks the Federal Circuit to reverse, arguing that VF and Columbia did not prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. Cocona, Inc. v. VF Outdoor, LLC (No. 25-1458) — 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/25-1458_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/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1458 Consolidated appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1462 Claim-construction order — U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-02703/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_16-cv-02703-2.pdf Prior Federal Circuit appeal — Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/20-1448/20-1448-2021-03-04.html Peter Gergely — Merchant & Gould: https://www.merchantgould.com/people/peter-a-gergely/

Teamsters Local 135 v. City of Shelbyville — 7th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 16, 2026

Show notes

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit hears Teamsters Local Union 135 v. City of Shelbyville. Dealers at Horseshoe Indianapolis began a strike seeking union recognition after a federal government shutdown postponed their scheduled union election. They picketed in areas along North Michigan Road until Shelbyville police ordered them to leave as trespassers. The union sued the city and its police chief, claiming that the First Amendment and federal labor law protected picketing there. A district judge denied a preliminary injunction, finding that the disputed areas were private casino property, had no history as a public forum, and were not shielded from trespass enforcement by the National Labor Relations Act. The appeal asks whether that ruling was wrong—and, because the election later occurred, whether enough of the dispute remains alive to decide. Teamsters Local 135 v. City of Shelbyville (No. 26-1179) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 14, 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/dab.26-1179.26-1179_09_14_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 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1179 Order denying preliminary injunction — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/1:2025cv02278/225612/28/ Horseshoe Indianapolis representation case — National Labor Relations Board: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/25-RC-372765 Report on the preliminary-injunction dispute — The Indiana Lawyer: https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/local-union-sues-city-of-shelbyville-after-police-stopped-picket-line-at-casino Peter Jannace — Herzfeld Suetholz: https://hsglawgroup.com/our-staff/peter-jannace/ Bradley Buchheit — McNeelyLaw: https://www.mcneelylaw.com/team/bradley-j-buchheit/

Kahraman v. State of Arizona — 9th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 15, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears a suit arising from Arizona's removal of twin boys D.K. and K.K. from their parents. In December 2018, six-year-old K.K. was hospitalized in life-threatening condition after a restricted diet; his twin D.K. was also severely malnourished. A juvenile court made the boys wards of the court, and the parents later stipulated to neglect. When the dependency case ended in November 2020, the father kept custody, the mother remained limited to supervised visits, and the state child-safety agency was discharged. The boys, through their mother, then pursued damages against caseworker Madison Bell for interfering with their family relationship and related state torts. The district court granted Bell summary judgment—judgment without a trial after finding no genuine dispute over a material fact. It found no evidence that Bell caused the separation or improperly controlled the juvenile judges. The boys will argue that Bell ignored changed circumstances and experts who favored loosening restrictions, leaving factual disputes for a jury. Bell will answer that the juvenile court controlled custody, independently reviewed the evidence, and repeatedly found the restrictions justified. Kahraman v. State of Arizona (No. 25-4717) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 14, 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/2026/09/14/25-4717.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4717&hearingDate=2026-09-14 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-4717 District court summary-judgment order — Midpage mirror: https://app.midpage.ai/document/kahraman-v-arizona-state-of-1000443934669 Crowe v. County of San Diego — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/01/14/05-55467.pdf Hardwick v. County of Orange — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/11/18/17-56292.pdf

Marco Tulio Flores Diaz v. Todd Blanche — 1st Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 15, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Marco Tulio Flores Diaz's challenge to removal to El Salvador. Flores came to Boston from El Salvador when he was six. He says a family friend began sexually abusing him when he was nine and continued for years. At seventeen, Flores killed the man and set fire to his apartment. He later pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and arson, served about thirteen years, and was detained by immigration authorities upon release. An immigration judge found the conviction a particularly serious crime, barring asylum and withholding of removal, but granted deferral under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the serious-crime ruling and reversed the torture ruling. Flores will argue that the Board failed to explain why the crime shows he remains dangerous and improperly reweighed the torture evidence. The government will agree that the torture issue should return to the Board but will defend the serious-crime ruling. Marco Tulio Flores Diaz v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-2032) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 14, 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/25-2032_20260914.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 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-2032 Marco Flores case background — GBH News: https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2024-02-05/an-immigrant-killed-his-molester-as-a-teen-now-facing-deportation-his-family-is-trying-to-stop-it Marco Flores criminal-case report — The Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/05/16/eastboston/QZSwuo0QAVh5DJO948YZZM/story.html Marco Flores deportation background — The Boston Globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/05/metro/marco-flores-deportation/ Marco Flores plea and sentence — WCVB: https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-man-pleads-guilty-to-killing-sexual-abuser/8182048 Marco Flores release and immigration detention — Noticias Telemundo: https://www.telemundo.com/noticias/noticias-telemundo/inmigracion/este-inmigrante-mato-a-la-persona-que-abuso-de-el-deberia-ser-deportad-rcna131775 Matter of B-Z-R- — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1504486/dl?inline= 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1003.1 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1208.16 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17 — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1208.17 Board of Immigration Appeals procedural rule — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/fedreg/2002_2003/fr26aug02.pdf Villalta Martinez v. Bondi — Second Circuit opinion via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/24-115/24-115-2025-10-08.html Dor v. Garland — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/20-1694P-01A.pdf Valerio-Ramirez v. Sessions — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/16-2272P-01A.pdf Schuyler Merker Pisha — First Circuit bar roster: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/barnumB.pdf Greater Boston Legal Services annual report: https://www.gbls.org/sites/default/files/GBLS%20Annual%20Report%202024-2025.pdf Deitz P. Lefort — First Circuit opinion: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1741P-01A.pdf Deitz P. Lefort — U.S. Department of Justice bulletin: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2014/10/17/January_2014.pdf

Kenneth Bae v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea — D.C. Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 15, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Kenneth Bae's case against North Korea. North Korea detained Bae for about two years, sentenced him to fifteen years of hard labor, and released him in 2014. Bae later sued North Korea over his imprisonment and treatment. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act normally shields foreign governments from suit, but includes an exception for certain terrorism claims. North Korea was removed from the state-sponsor list in 2008 and returned in 2017. The district court ruled against Bae, and he appealed. The question is whether Bae's detention helped cause that redesignation under the statute. Kenneth Bae v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea (No. 25-7132) — 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/2026/09/25-7132.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-7132 Kenneth Bae litigation background — Voice of America: https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_suing-north-korea-presents-legal-logistical-hurdles/6203816.html Private litigation against North Korea — National Committee on North Korea: https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/private-litigation-against-north-korean-government Kenneth Bae detention and sentence — Obama White House archive: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/02/06/president-obama-speaks-2014-national-prayer-breakfast/index__q_page=3.html Kenneth Bae release — Obama White House archive: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/10/press-gaggle-senior-administration-official-director-clappers-trip-north 28 U.S.C. § 1605A — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28%20section%3A1605A%20edition%3Aprelim%29

Archibald v. Banks — 2d Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 15, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Archibald versus Banks. N.A., a New York City student with a seizure disorder, had a 2023 individualized education program that provided a full-time one-to-one paraprofessional and access to a school nurse as needed, but not a nurse assigned only to her. Her mother rejected that plan, kept her at the private iBRAIN school, and sought public funding. An impartial hearing officer ruled that the city had offered a free appropriate public education. A state review officer disagreed because the city had not provided adequate transportation support, but still denied funding for a dedicated nurse. The federal district court also found that the record did not show the nurse was necessary or actually provided at iBRAIN. The appeal asks whether, under the Second Circuit's Ferreira decision, the district judge independently weighed the fairness factors governing reimbursement. Archibald v. Banks (No. 25-2330) — 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/25-2330.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html State Review Officer decision 24-028 — New York State Education Department: https://www.sro.nysed.gov/decision/2024/24-028 District court opinion — Archibald v. Banks: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv05919/625999/25/0.pdf?ts=1757443897 Appellate docket — Archibald v. Banks: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2330 Ferreira v. Aviles-Ramos — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-612_opn.pdf Rory Bellantoni — Liberty & Freedom Legal Group: https://libertyfreedom.law/meet-our-team/rory-bellantoni/ Rory Bellantoni appearance — New York Court of Appeals transcript: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/arguments/2026/Jan26/Transcripts/010626-1-Oral-Argument-Transcript.pdf Jennifer Lerner appearance — New York Appellate Division: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2023/12_Dec/07/PDF/Wagner%20%20v%20%20NYC%20Dept.%20%20Education%20(2023-01472).pdf

McGinley v. Luv N' Care, Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 14, 2026

Show notes

Inventor Michael McGinley and S.C. Products accuse Luv N' Care's Nuby Tear Free Rinse Pail of infringing the '178 patent. The patent covers a shampoo-rinse pitcher with a flexible front panel that molds against a child's head, helping keep water out of the child's face. McGinley sued in 2016. An earlier Federal Circuit appeal revived the suit and defined ‘generally flat’ as mostly flat and not, as a whole, V-shaped, round, or cylindrical. On remand, a Louisiana jury found no infringement, and the trial judge refused to overturn that verdict. McGinley now says no reasonable jury could find that the original Nuby pail's front section was not generally flat. Luv N' Care says the physical pail and competing expert testimony supported the verdict. The appeal also asks whether compensation for the court's technical adviser can be taxed as costs. Luv N' Care separately seeks attorney's fees, saying McGinley had no reasonable basis to accuse a redesigned pail added late in the case. McGinley v. Luv N' Care, Ltd. (No. 24-2244) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 8, 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/24-2244_09082026.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 Prior Federal Circuit opinion — McGinley v. Luv N' Care: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-2175.opinion.7-29-2020_1627240.pdf Post-trial ruling — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana: https://app.midpage.ai/document/mcginley-v-luv-n-care-1000413742019 Claim-construction order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/louisiana/lawdce/3%3A2017cv00821/157924/428/0.pdf Redesigned-pail order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/louisiana/lawdce/3%3A2017cv00821/157924/424/0.pdf?ts=1685522146 U.S. Patent No. 8,636,178 — U.S. patent record: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0f/12/87/31d7725e42dc89/US8636178.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 1920 — taxable costs: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1920 35 U.S.C. § 285 — attorney's fees: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/285 Octane Fitness v. ICON — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-1184 Kip Richards — Walters Renwick Richards and Vaughan: https://wrrvlaw.com/lawyers/kip-d-richards/

Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 9, 2026) Sep 14, 2026

Show notes

Netlist's '912 patent concerns a decoder that lets a computer designed for fewer memory ranks use more, lower-density DRAM chips. Samsung asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to review claim 16 through inter partes review, a trial that tests an issued patent against earlier patents and publications. Micron joined. The Board found the claim obvious over Ellsberry's earlier memory design and therefore unpatentable. Netlist appealed. Samsung has since settled, leaving Micron to defend the decision. One dispute is ‘rank’: Netlist says it must contain multiple memory devices; Micron says one is enough. The other is priority. Netlist relies on 2004 and 2005 filings that predate Ellsberry. To obtain those earlier dates, the filings must show a skilled reader that the inventors already possessed every claimed feature. The Board found insufficient disclosure of a register and bank-address signals. Netlist says the Board ignored what an engineer would understand and improperly relied on a website it found in 2024. Micron concedes that was improper but says other record evidence independently supports the result. Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (No. 24-2304) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 9, 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/24-2304_09092026.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 IPR2022-00615 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2022-00615%2F96 Netlist notice of appeal — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2022-00615%2F105 U.S. Patent 7,619,912 — U.S. patent record: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/01/f3/5b/756a8ca3d9ab11/US7619912.pdf Netlist opening brief — Federal Circuit filing: https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/open-1.pdf Micron response brief — Federal Circuit filing: https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Netlist-v.-Samsung-Electronics-Response-Brief.pdf Inter partes review — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/inter-partes-review Netlist–Samsung settlement — Netlist Form 8-K: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1282631/000110465926090641/tm2622153d1_8k.htm Jeffrey Lamken — MoloLamken: https://www.mololamken.com/professionals-jeffrey-lamken Melanie Bostwick — Orrick: https://www.orrick.com/en/People/4/0/B/Melanie-Bostwick

Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 9, 2026) Sep 14, 2026

Show notes

UPL and Syngenta dispute UPL's patent on three-fungicide crop treatments. UPL said combining mancozeb and benzovindiflupyr with a third fungicide improved disease control. Syngenta challenged all ten claims in post-grant review, a Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceeding that tests a recently issued patent. The Board found the claims unpatentable, ruling that earlier Godoy and Tobler publications disclosed or made obvious the claimed mixtures. UPL appeals. It says Syngenta's petition ignored a key boundary: in patent drafting, ‘consisting of’ normally limits a combination to the listed ingredients. UPL also says Godoy is ambiguous about a product called Nimbus and Tobler offers too many possible mixtures to reveal these exact ones. Anticipation requires one earlier reference to disclose every claim limitation; a list qualifies only if a skilled reader would immediately envision the claimed combination. Syngenta will defend the ruling and separately asks to revive a proposed sanctions motion. It alleged that field trials described in the patent never occurred; UPL disputed that and withdrew reliance on those trials. The Board then declined to authorize the motion. Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd. (No. 25-1018) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 9, 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/25-1018_09092026.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 PGR2023-00017 final written decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550951/download-documents?artifactId=rC-zLAcYdRiknkrDgVcSshgGoLcVaoA5Bo6suJ-sNWgypfSkk6P4BeA UPL notice of appeal — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550951/download-documents?artifactId=-W2WOYq0DNRKTOZd4GGLjhMMjwfQ9Wpqvfh3Ax3_jAMyPLPoeFCwqyM Syngenta sanctions-issue notice of appeal — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550951/download-documents?artifactId=6Hk9UTWUhssTDkd2Ptim4fl3ybtrZYWYqGlPTGMVbNiPV0B24gtLeHQ U.S. Patent 11,445,727 — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office patent record: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/54/af/44/8199af6a0cbbdf/US11445727.pdf Post-grant review — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trials/post-grant-review ‘Consisting of’ claim language — Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03: https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/print?href=d0e197004.html&version=e8r9 Mark Feldstein — Finnegan: https://www.finnegan.com/en/professionals/mark-j-feldstein-ph-d.html Charles Carson — BakerHostetler: https://www.bakerlaw.com/professionals/charles-c-carson/

Burgan v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Sep 9, 2026) Sep 14, 2026

Show notes

Lance Burgan seeks to revive an appeal over the denial of total disability benefits based on individual unemployability. The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied the benefit in 2021 and mailed the decision to his lawyer's correct street address, omitting the post-office-box line from the dual address on file with Veterans Affairs. Burgan says neither he nor his lawyer received it; after the lawyer regained access to his electronic case file and found the decision in 2023, they appealed more than two years after it was issued. Federal law then allowed 120 days from mailing, not receipt, to appeal to the Veterans Court. That court presumed the agency had performed its mailing duty properly and dismissed the appeal as late. The presumption of regularity assumes official duties were performed correctly unless clear evidence proves otherwise; equitable tolling can excuse a missed deadline after an extraordinary obstacle if the filer acted diligently. The Federal Circuit considers whether the mailing presumption became proof of receipt and whether Burgan preserved a separate tolling claim. It affirmed the dismissal the next day. Burgan v. Collins (No. 25-1202) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 9, 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/25-1202_09092026.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 Veterans Court order — Burgan v. McDonough, No. 23-7869: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/BurganLF_23-7869.pdf 38 U.S.C. § 7266 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title38-section7266 Veterans Law Journal case report — CAVC Bar Association: https://www.cavcbarassociation.org/_files/ugd/3c25be_2abaf1b7b600455592dbef9b8d4654ac.pdf Federal Circuit judgment — Burgan v. Collins, No. 25-1202: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1202.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.9-10-2026_2753421.pdf Lower-court docket — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=23-7869&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Kenneth Dojaquez — Carpenter Chartered: https://carpenterchartered.com/our-team/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected