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:

Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears a dispute over competing systems that train clinicians to inject botulinum toxin and dermal fillers. Truinject developed Kate, a simulated head, syringe, and screen that show needle position, angle, and depth. In 2014, while Truinject was also speaking with Allergan and Merz, Galderma sought exclusive negotiations. Truinject says Galderma pressured it to cancel competitor meetings and sign a ninety-day exclusivity agreement plus confidentiality terms. The talks ended without a deal. Truinject later accused Galderma of using its information to build Holly, a competing trainer, and of damaging Truinject's prospects with Allergan and others. The district court dismissed the tortious-interference claim because the second amended complaint did not plausibly allege a concrete business expectancy or intentional interference. It later entered summary judgment for Galderma on the remaining damages, trade-secret, patent, and trade-dress issues. This appeal asks whether Truinject preserved a different interference theory based on the 2014 pressure campaign, and whether any remedy remains. Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A. (No. 25-1268) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 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/25-1268_09112026.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 Initial complaint — Truinject Corp. v. Nestlé Skin Health, S.A.: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Trade-Secrets.pdf First amended complaint ruling — U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ded-1_19-cv-00592/pdf/USCOURTS-ded-1_19-cv-00592-1.pdf Second amended complaint ruling — U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ded-1_19-cv-00592/pdf/USCOURTS-ded-1_19-cv-00592-4.pdf Summary judgment opinion — U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ded-1_19-cv-00592/pdf/USCOURTS-ded-1_19-cv-00592-8.pdf Final judgment case report — Munck Wilson Mandala: https://www.munckwilson.com/news-insights/munck-wilson-mandala-achieves-substantial-win-in-a-trade-secret-patent-infringement-case/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1268 David C. Frederick — Kellogg Hansen: https://kellogghansen.com/attorneys/david-c-frederick/ Chase A. Cobern — Munck Wilson Mandala: https://www.munckwilson.com/people/chase-a-cobern/ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/restyled_federal_rules_of_civil_procedure.pdf Plain-error review opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/222998np.pdf

American Alliance for Equal Rights v. State of Illinois — 7th Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a challenge to an Illinois law requiring large grantmaking nonprofits to survey leaders about demographics and post aggregate results online for three years. The law covers nonprofits reporting at least one million dollars in annual grants and asks about race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other categories; each person may decline. American Alliance for Equal Rights sued before enforcement for two unnamed nonprofits. It says the requirements compel speech and pressure nonprofits to select leaders by race. The United States joined with an Equal Protection claim; Illinois calls the law a neutral transparency measure. The district court allowed standing only for the Alliance's objection to asking the questions. It rejected the Alliance's other standing theories, dismissed the United States' complaint, denied the Alliance's injunction request, and treated the government's request as moot. The appeals ask whether each plaintiff has standing—a concrete stake in the dispute—and which rulings the Seventh Circuit can review now. American Alliance for Equal Rights v. State of Illinois (No. 25-2461) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 11, 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.25-2461.25-2461_09_11_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 Illinois Public Act 103-0635 — Illinois General Assembly: https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0635.pdf District court order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2025cv00669/471271/100/0.pdf Verified complaint — American Alliance for Equal Rights: https://americanallianceforequalrights.org/wp-content/uploads/AAFER-Raoul-FILED-COMPLAINT-1-21-25.pdf United States opening brief — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1419596/dl United States reply brief — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1435871/dl Stipulated enforcement stay — Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse: https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/163826.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2461 Cameron T. Norris — Consovoy McCarthy: https://consovoymccarthy.com/team-member/cameron-t-norris/ Sarah A. Hunger title — Illinois Attorney General filing: https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/dA/f3bac41140/202002-25%20ILLINOIS%20SUPREME%20COURT%20TO%20PREVENT%20DESTRUCTION%20OF%20OLDER%20POLICE%20MISCONDUCT%20RECORDS.pdf Adarand Constructors v. Peña — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep515/usrep515200/usrep515200.pdf Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep432/usrep432333/usrep432333.pdf

Mike's Auto Body of Glenwood City v. St. Croix County — 7th Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a First Amendment retaliation appeal arising from St. Croix County's no-preference towing rotation. After St. Croix County Deputy Kaitie Leising was killed in the line of duty, Mike's Auto Body owner Michael Barstad sent other local towing operators an email saying a Department of Justice agent had challenged a $374 towing bill. He also urged the towing association's members to work together in dealing with the sheriff's department. After the email reached Sheriff Scott Knudson, the county did not renew Barstad's companies for the next annual rotation. Barstad and Mike's Auto Body sued under Section 1983, alleging retaliation for protected speech. The district court granted summary judgment to the county, finding the email a private commercial grievance rather than speech on a matter of public concern. The appeal asks whether that view was too narrow and whether qualified immunity nevertheless shields the sheriff. Mike's Auto Body of Glenwood City v. St. Croix County (No. 25-2801) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 11, 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.25-2801.25-2801_09_11_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 opinion and order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00295/pdf/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_24-cv-00295-0.pdf Deputy Kaitie Leising report — Associated Press: https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2023/05/07/authorities-dui-suspect-shoots-wisconsin-deputy-then-self/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2801 Jeff Scott Olson — Jeff Scott Olson Law Firm: https://www.scofflaw.com/attorneys-staff/ Jeff Scott Olson filing — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-872/28076/20180117115442729_2018%2001%2010%20Letter%20Request%20for%20Extension.pdf Kiley B. Zellner — Crivello, Nichols & Hall: https://www.crivellolaw.com/people/kiley-b-zellner/ Kiley B. Zellner — A.M. Best: https://claimsresource.ambest.com/search/Print.aspx?dpid=19917&nid=0 Pembaur v. Cincinnati — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep475/usrep475469/usrep475469.pdf Wilson v. Layne — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep526/usrep526603/usrep526603.pdf

In re Csigi — 9th Cir. BAP (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considers whether Steven Csigi can discharge about $564,000 in bankruptcy. His wife, Marylin, was trustee of her mother’s trust. A bankruptcy court found she misappropriated $858,639, including money used to settle a lawsuit against Steven and his family, expand their home, buy a car titled to Steven, and fund his bank account. After Steven filed Chapter 13, successor trustee Villia Ponce sued. The court held those benefits unjustly enriched Steven and bankruptcy could not wipe out the debt. It treated the debt as one for Marylin’s fiduciary defalcation—a culpable breach of fiduciary duty—even though Steven was not the trustee. Steven says the Supreme Court’s Bartenwerfer decision cannot make a passive recipient’s debt nondischargeable without an agency, partnership, or similar relationship. Ponce says the Code looks to the debt’s source and character, which she says flowed directly from Marylin’s misconduct. In re Csigi (No. 25-1058) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued September 10, 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/2026/09/10/25-1058.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1058&hearingDate=2026-09-10 Argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026/09/2026%2009%2010%20HNL-1.pdf Partial-summary-judgment decision — U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hib-1_23-ap-90019/pdf/USCOURTS-hib-1_23-ap-90019-0.pdf Earlier related appeal — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2024/07/26/23-1009.pdf Earlier related appeal — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2025/10/09/24-5518.pdf Earlier trial decision — U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hib-1_21-ap-90012/pdf/USCOURTS-hib-1_21-ap-90012-0.pdf Bartenwerfer v. Buckley — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-908_n6io.pdf 11 U.S.C. § 523 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title11-section523&num=0&edition=prelim

Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Google's appeal from a patent suit it filed against Sonos in 2020. Google brought five patent claims against Sonos speakers and apps. The other four had been resolved by final judgment; this appeal concerns U.S. Patent 7,899,187. It describes adding devices to a digital-rights domain tied to one account, with a private key all devices use to access protected content. Google says a Sonos household of connected speakers, controlled through its app and playing protected music in sync, meets those requirements. The district court ended the claim without a trial, granting Sonos summary judgment on Google's encryption and authentication theories. Google says the judge read utilized, private key, and domain of devices too narrowly. Sonos says each claimed device must itself use the private key cryptographically, and that Google's expert left no factual dispute for trial. Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (No. 25-1346) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 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/25-1346_09112026.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 Google's filed patent-infringement complaint: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Google-v-Sonos-countersuit.pdf U.S. Patent 7,899,187 — Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7899187B2/en Final judgment and case record — N.D. California record reproduced by PatSnap: https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/google-llc-v-sonos-inc-multi-patent-smart-speaker-dispute-patsnap/ Early district-court order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-03845/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-03845-0.pdf Federal Circuit appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1346 Claim-differentiation doctrine — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1750.OPINION.2-7-2024_2266326.pdf Google–Sonos counsel listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1097.OPINION.8-28-2025_2565220.pdf Nathan Kelley — Perkins Coie: https://perkinscoie.com/news/general-news/nathan-kelley-and-theresa-nguyen-mentioned-law360-fitbit-gets-fed-circ-back-ptab Elizabeth Moulton — Orrick: https://www.orrick.com/en/People/5/B/0/Elizabeth-Moulton

Aksharbrahma Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Company — 7th Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears a property-insurance dispute over Rock Island's American Motor Inn. A 2020 derecho and a 2021 ice-dam event damaged the motel's roofs and rooms. Owner Aksharbrahma Corporation invoked the policy's appraisal process to set the remaining loss. During the lawsuit, the parties negotiated a protocol directing the appraisers to address seven roof sections and later estimates for damage hidden during inspection. It would take effect only after both sides and both appraisers signed, but Nautilus's appraiser refused. The panel later issued an award, and Nautilus paid the balance. Aksharbrahma says the award omitted a value for Roof Seven and Nautilus rejected required supplemental items. The district court held the protocol never took effect, treated the award as binding, and entered summary judgment for Nautilus. The appeal asks whether Nautilus waived the missing signature through its conduct and whether the omissions require a trial. Aksharbrahma Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Company (No. 25-3205) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 11, 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.25-3205.25-3205_09_11_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 Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois via Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/4%3A2022cv04140/87527/54/0.pdf Filed loss-appraisal protocol — ECF exhibit: https://www.propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Appraisal-Protocol-.pdf Waiver doctrine — Illinois Appellate Court: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2018/1stDistrict/1172407.pdf Equitable-estoppel doctrine — Illinois Appellate Court: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/69c76f43-3482-4f17-96fc-f4032ca17460/1170285.pdf Keisha N. Douglas — Califf Harper: https://califf.com/attorneys/keisha-n-douglas/ James M. Eastham — Traub Lieberman: https://www.traublieberman.com/people/james-m-eastham

Granata v. Campbell — 1st Cir. (Sep 9, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears a Second Amendment challenge to Massachusetts rules limiting which handguns licensed retailers may sell. Stefano Granata wants a Glock 19 Gen 5 as his preferred carry handgun and two Sig Sauer pistols as collector's items. Cameron Prosperi wants other identified models, and The Gunrunner wants to stock models the rules exclude. Massachusetts requires handguns to pass safety tests and appear on an approved roster. Separate Attorney General regulations require childproofing and, for semiautomatic pistols, either a loaded-chamber indicator, which shows a round in the chamber, or a magazine disconnect, which prevents firing when the magazine is removed. Private sales remain possible. The plaintiffs sued in 2021. The district court dismissed the case, this court sent it back after Bruen, and in August 2025 the district court again ruled for Massachusetts. This appeal asks whether limiting retail access burdens the Second Amendment and whether historical weapons-testing laws justify the restrictions. Granata v. Campbell (No. 25-1918) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 9, 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/25-1918_20260909.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 District-court summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_21-cv-10960/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_21-cv-10960-0.pdf Plaintiffs-appellants' brief — filed appellate brief: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6166/attachments/original/1769090590/2026.01.21_Brief_of_Plaintiffs-Appellants_%28FPC%29.pdf?1769090590= Massachusetts appellees' brief — filed appellate brief: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6166/attachments/original/1774475453/2026.03.25_Brief_of_Defendants-Appellees.pdf?1774475453= United States amicus brief — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1425776/dl 501 CMR 7 — Commonwealth of Massachusetts: https://www.mass.gov/doc/501-cmr-7-approved-weapon-rosters/download 940 CMR 16 — Commonwealth of Massachusetts: https://www.mass.gov/doc/940-cmr-16-handgun-sales/download United States v. Rahimi — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/602us1r43_p860.pdf Wolford v. Lopez — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf Second Amendment Section — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/crt/second-amendment-section William V. Bergstrom — Cooper & Kirk: https://www.cooperkirk.com/lawyers/william-v-bergstrom/

In re Pigao — 9th Cir. BAP (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears Joy Pigao's challenge to WBL's $272,437 bankruptcy claim. Puhi Industrial Parts and Bearing borrowed $65,000 from Axos Bank in 2019, and Pigao mortgaged her property to secure the business loan. The agreement charged roughly 0.346% interest per day, which Pigao says exceeds 200% a year. Axos later assigned it to WBL. After filing Chapter 13, Pigao argued that the loan was usurious under Hawaii law, unconscionable, and made and serviced without required licenses. The bankruptcy judge rejected those objections. Pigao asks the panel to reverse. In re Pigao (No. 25-1076) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued September 10, 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/2026/09/10/25-1076.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1076&hearingDate=2026-09-10 BAP argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026/09/2026%2009%2010%20HNL-1.pdf Order overruling Pigao's claim objection — U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hib-1_24-bk-00591/pdf/USCOURTS-hib-1_24-bk-00591-0.pdf 11 U.S.C. § 349 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A11+section%3A349+edition%3Aprelim%29 In re Lukes — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2021/05/26/Lukes%20Memorandum%2020-1236.pdf In re Choudhuri — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2014/11/12/Choudhuri%20memo%2014-1140.pdf In re Juarez — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2019/08/21/Juarez%20Opinion%2019-1028.pdf BAP Litigants' Manual — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/Litigants_Manual_2026_01_Final.pdf Narayan v. Ritz-Carlton — Supreme Court of Hawaii: https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SCWC-12-0000819.pdf

Evans v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

Marine Corps veteran Wilbert Evans, a mail clerk in Japan, said he flew to Vietnam escorting mail. Veterans Affairs rejected his account for lack of records. The Veterans Court reversed, found his Vietnam service established, and ordered diabetes benefits. Veterans Affairs separately granted multiple-myeloma benefits for Camp Lejeune contamination from March 2017. His widow, Mary Evans, asked the court to apply the Vietnam finding and move that date back to his December 2013 claim. It refused because her briefs had not requested myeloma relief. The Federal Circuit decides whether it may review that waiver ruling. Evans v. Collins (No. 25-1403) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 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/25-1403_09112026.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 docket — official case summary: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=23-7133&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Veterans Court memorandum decision: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010879511 Motion for reconsideration — Veterans Court filing: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010940569 Veterans Court reconsideration order: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012010949033 38 U.S.C. § 7292 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title38-section7292 Kisor v. Shulkin — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/16-1929.opinion.9-5-2017.1.pdf 38 U.S.C. § 1116 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A38+section%3A1116+edition%3Aprelim%29 Multiple myeloma and Agent Orange — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: https://publichealth.va.gov/PUBLICHEALTH/exposures/agentorange/conditions/multiple_myeloma.asp Sean P. Griffin — West & Dunn: https://www.westdunn.com/team-members/sean-p-griffin/ Meredyth Cohen Havasy affiliation — Federal Circuit opinion: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1397.OPINION.8-7-2026_2735242.pdf

Pink Cheetah Express, LLC v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC — D.C. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 13, 2026

Show notes

Pink Cheetah Express hauled ice cream for broker Total Quality Logistics, then asked to inspect transaction records that federal rules let carriers review. TQL refused, citing a contract waiver. Pink Cheetah complained to federal regulators. The agency told TQL to remove the waiver and provide records, but called the email guidance and said the waiver might violate federal law. Pink Cheetah says TQL still refused, so it sued to enforce the email as an agency order. The district court dismissed the case, finding guidance rather than an enforceable order. The D.C. Circuit now reviews that pleading-stage dismissal. Pink Cheetah Express, LLC v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC (No. 25-7141) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 11, 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/2026/09/25-7141.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 District court memorandum opinion — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00552/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00552-0.pdf Filed complaint and FMCSA exhibits — court-stamped copy: https://img.overdriveonline.com/files/base/randallreilly/all/document/2025/02/pink_cheetah_tql_lawsuit.67c1fbfca0912.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-7141 49 U.S.C. § 14704 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A49+section%3A14704+edition%3Aprelim%29 49 C.F.R. § 371.3 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-371/section-371.3 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Laurence Socci — Socci Law Firm: https://soccilawfirm.com/about/ Scott Carey — Baker Donelson: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/Scott-D-Carey

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected