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:

RK Holdings LLP v. Seth Grebbien — 7th Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 12, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Rural King's appeal. The dispute began when Seth Grebbien filed a proposed warranty class action against Rural King in Pennsylvania state court under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Rural King then filed in federal court in Illinois to enforce an arbitration clause. The judge denied its petition for lack of jurisdiction because Grebbien was the sole named plaintiff and Magnuson-Moss's federal-court provision requires at least one hundred named plaintiffs in a class action. Rural King says the Class Action Fairness Act supplies a separate route to federal court. Grebbien says it does not. RK Holdings LLP v. Seth Grebbien (No. 25-3226) — 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.25-3226.25-3226_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 Order dismissing the arbitration petition — Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/1%3A2025cv01296/96915/13/0.pdf Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&f=treesort&jumpTo=true&num=0&req=%28title%3A15+section%3A2310+edition%3Aprelim%29+OR+%28granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section2310%29 Diversity jurisdiction and CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&f=treesort&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section1332

United States v. Monteiro — 1st Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 12, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Robert Monteiro's appeal from a cocaine-conspiracy conviction. Prosecutors said Patrick Joseph's organization mailed cocaine from Puerto Rico to Massachusetts, often hidden in air fryers or cash boxes. At trial, a cooperating witness and surveillance tied Monteiro to Joseph, package pickups, and a suspected drug exchange. After a jury convicted Monteiro, he appealed. He now argues that officers should not have been allowed to opine that unopened packages contained cocaine, and that the remaining evidence did not show he knowingly joined the conspiracy. United States v. Monteiro (No. 24-2020) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 10, 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/24-2020_20260910.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/ca1/24-2020 Monteiro conviction — U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/brockton-man-convicted-cocaine-conspiracy Search-warrant affidavit filed in United States v. Joseph: https://www.universalhub.com/images/2021/airfryer-affidavit.pdf Order denying post-trial motions — U.S. District Court record via Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--21-cr-10231/USA_v._Joseph_et_al/703/ Federal Rules of Evidence — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/federal-rules-of-evidence-dec-1-2024.pdf United States v. Valdivia — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/08-1547P-01A.pdf

In re Aarons — 9th Cir. BAP (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears an appeal arising from the bankruptcy of Ashley Aarons. Patch made a three-million-dollar loan secured by her family trust’s Bel Air property. After default, a Chapter 11 restructuring, conversion to Chapter 7, and foreclosure, the remaining dispute concerned insurance proceeds connected to the property. Under the proposed settlement, the senior lenders would give up one hundred fifty thousand dollars of their claimed first-priority lien for the bankruptcy estate. Ashley said some proceeds covered exempt personal property; the final order required seven thousand five hundred dollars for her. Her father, Julius Aarons, said his junior lien might reach the proceeds and needed a separate lawsuit. The bankruptcy court approved the deal. The questions on appeal are whether Ashley or Julius has standing and whether the court could approve the settlement without first resolving Julius’s lien. In re Aarons (No. 25-1113) — 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/2026/09/10/25-1113.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1113&hearingDate=2026-09-10 BAP argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026%2009%2010%20PAS.pdf Settlement ruling — U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/NB_060325.pdf Earlier decision in the bankruptcy — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2023/06/08/22-1170.pdf Bankruptcy appellate standing — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2025/06/06/24-1114.pdf Person-aggrieved standard — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2017/11/14/Five%20Lots%20Memo16-1263.pdf Prior counsel listing — U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/NB_031224.pdf Chapter 7 panel trustees — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/ust/list-chapter-7-panel-trustees Reilly Wilkinson attorney record — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/250086 Reilly Wilkinson and Scheer Law Group — U.S. Courts via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caeb-2_25-bk-24205/pdf/USCOURTS-caeb-2_25-bk-24205-1.pdf

Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. US — Fed. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit reviews an antidumping dispute over Turkish reinforcing bar. Kaptan Demir sold rebar to U.S. buyers under contracts that it says fixed price and quantity before shipment. During the review year, inflation in Turkey exceeded 25 percent. Commerce measures dumping by comparing U.S. sales with a home-market benchmark; Kaptan says using the later invoice date matched its fixed U.S. price against higher Turkish prices. Commerce used that date and assigned Kaptan a 25.86 percent dumping margin. It relied on evidence that shipment dates, size breakdowns, and sometimes quantity could still change after contracting. Kaptan points to a board resolution and says no material term actually changed. The Court of International Trade upheld Commerce. Kaptan will ask the Federal Circuit whether the record instead requires the contract date and whether, after Loper Bright, Commerce may presume the invoice date. Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. v. US (No. 25-1559) — 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/25-1559_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 Court of International Trade opinion: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-04.pdf Commerce final review results — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-12-28/pdf/2023-28686.pdf 19 C.F.R. § 351.401 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-19/chapter-III/part-351/subpart-D/section-351.401 Loper Bright v. Raimondo — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/603us1r54_o7jp.pdf Substantial-evidence standard — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2181.OPINION.5-15-2024_2317928.pdf Daniel Delnero — BGD Legal & Consulting: https://bgdlc.com/daniel-delnero/ Daniel Delnero affiliation — U.S. Department of Justice FARA record: https://efile.fara.gov/docs/7576-Registration-Statement-20250418-1.pdf Augustus Golden affiliation — Federal Circuit opinion: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1769.OPINION.5-11-2026_2691515.pdf Augustus Golden affiliation — second Federal Circuit opinion: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1851.OPINION.1-23-2026_2637017.pdf Maureen Thorson — Wiley: https://www.wiley.law/people-MaureenThorson

California Department of Motor Vehicles v. DOT — D.C. Cir. (Sep 11, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit reviews a federal funding penalty against California's DMV. After a 2025 audit, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration said California had issued non-domiciled commercial licenses that lasted beyond the drivers' lawful-presence documents. It instructed California to cancel them and reissue compliant licenses. California sent cancellation notices to roughly seventeen thousand four hundred drivers, then moved the cancellation date from January fifth to March sixth; the agency said that breached the agreed corrective schedule and withheld about 158 million dollars in highway funds. Under the 2024 rules, non-domiciled generally meant issued by a state to a driver domiciled in a foreign country. California Department of Motor Vehicles v. DOT (No. 26-1027) — 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/2026/09/26-1027.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/26-1027 Final determination — Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2026-01/California%20Final%20Determination%20of%20Substantial%20Noncompliance.pdf Conditional determination — Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2025-11/CA%20Conditional%20Determination.pdf 49 C.F.R. part 383 (2024) — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2024-title49-vol5-part383.pdf 49 C.F.R. part 384 (2024) — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2024-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2024-title49-vol5-part384.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 2342 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2342&num=0&edition=prelim

Michael Nussbaum v. Frank Vanihel — 7th Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit reviews Michael Nussbaum's federal habeas challenge to an Indiana child-molesting conviction. Nussbaum helped his wife run a home daycare attended by three girls. In 2012, after one girl reported seeing him abuse another, the two were forensically interviewed; neither disclosed abuse, and child services closed the case as unsubstantiated. A year later, both made abuse allegations, and a third girl later did too. At trial, recordings of the 2012 interviews could not be found. Nussbaum also wanted jurors to hear that one girl had viewed pornography, arguing this could explain her sexual knowledge, but the judge excluded that evidence. He says the missing recordings and exclusion denied him a fair trial. Under Section 2254, federal review asks whether the state decision unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law or unreasonably determined the facts. Michael Nussbaum v. Frank Vanihel (No. 24-1783) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 10, 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.24-1783.24-1783_09_10_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/oralArgCal/getOralArgCalendar.pl Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/24-1783 Nussbaum v. State — Court of Appeals of Indiana: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=4Um-LRZauYFB9jdI57dSFdTUwbTDcbp1FYNLEuzqjh6lS6mGQ_GmLGq4s9xwaucv0 28 U.S.C. § 2254 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2254&num=0&edition=prelim Harrington v. Richter — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-562/pdf/USREPORTS-562-86.pdf California v. Trombetta — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-467/pdf/USREPORTS-467-479.pdf Arizona v. Youngblood — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-488/pdf/USREPORTS-488-51.pdf Michael Ausbrook — Indiana University Maurer School of Law: https://law.indiana.edu/academics/experiential-education/practica/habeas-practicum.html Courtney Staton — Office of the Indiana Attorney General: https://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/files/OAG%20Bios%20for%20Website.pdf

Codan Forsikring A/S v. Bogus — 1st Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit considers whether Northeast Marine Pilots can be responsible for a pilot's alleged negligence. Codan brought the claim as Hays Ships' subrogee, meaning it asserts Hays Ships' rights. The district court dismissed the claim against Northeast. The question is whether Codan plausibly alleged that Northeast could control the pilot's work. Codan Forsikring A/S v. Bogus (No. 25-1770) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 10, 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/25-1770_20260910.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/ca1/25-1770 District-court docket — U.S. District Court record via Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Massachusetts_District_Court/1--24-cv-12056/Codan_Forsikring_A-S_v._Bogus_et_al/ Guy v. Donald — U.S. Reports via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-203/pdf/USREPORTS-203-399.pdf Sun Oil Co. v. Dalzell Towing Co. — U.S. Reports via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-287/pdf/USREPORTS-287-291.pdf United States v. Munsey Trust Co. — U.S. Reports via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-332/pdf/USREPORTS-332-234.pdf Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States — U.S. Reports via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-338/pdf/USREPORTS-338-366.pdf Olaf Aprans — Farrell Smith O'Connell Aarsheim Aprans: https://fsofirm.com/our-team/olaf-aprans/ Joshua S. Parks — Adler Pollock & Sheehan: https://www.apslaw.com/attorney/joshua-s-parks/

In re Coflin — 9th Cir. BAP (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears Hugh Coflin's related appeals from a Hawai‘i bankruptcy. One challenges refusal to reconsider relief from the automatic stay. The other challenges dismissal of his Chapter 11 case with a two-year refiling bar and denial of reconsideration. In re Coflin (No. 25-1171 / 25-1172) — 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/2026/09/10/25-1171.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1171&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 transferring the related appeals — U.S. District Court for the District of Hawai‘i via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_25-cv-00395/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_25-cv-00395-0.pdf Mandamus order — Supreme Court of Hawai‘i (2022): https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/SCPW-22-0000326ordada.pdf Mandamus order — Supreme Court of Hawai‘i (2019): https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SCPW-19-0000448ordada.pdf 11 U.S.C. § 362 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title11-section362 In re Sazegar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2015/02/19/Sazegar%20memo%2014-1188.pdf

FlightSafety Defense Corporation v. US — Fed. Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit reviews summary judgment for the United States in FlightSafety Defense's contract dispute with the Air Force. FlightSafety built KC-46 simulators while Boeing was still developing the aircraft, and delayed design data increased its costs. FlightSafety says the Air Force promised an initial compliant data package and withheld key delay information. The government says the fixed-price contract made FlightSafety responsible for obtaining the data and bearing that risk. The question is whether any of FlightSafety's contract claims can proceed. FlightSafety Defense Corporation v. US (No. 25-1327) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 10, 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/25-1327_09102026.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 Court of Federal Claims opinion — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00095/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00095-0.pdf Kirk Ruthenberg — Dentons: https://www.dentons.com/en/kirk-ruthenberg Stephanie Fleming affiliation — Court of Federal Claims opinion on GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00456/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00456-0.pdf Scott Timber Co. v. United States — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/11-5092.pdf Ace Constructors, Inc. v. United States — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/06-5093.pdf

Shango Butler v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Sep 10, 2026) Sep 11, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit reviews summary judgment for Experian in Shango Butler's Fair Credit Reporting Act suit. After Butler's Chapter 7 discharge, Experian's bankruptcy scrub left a $108 Fingerhut balance because the account still carried a code Q from an earlier, dismissed Chapter 13 case. That code indicated the debt was not included in bankruptcy. Section 1681e(b) requires reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. The question is whether Experian reasonably relied on the old code and whether Butler identified a workable alternative. Shango Butler v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 25-2957) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 10, 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.25-2957.25-2957_09_10_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 memorandum opinion — Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2024cv00211/449922/44/0.pdf 15 U.S.C. § 1681e — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section1681e&num=0&edition=prelim Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2957 Mehak Rizvi — Consumer Justice Law Firm: https://consumerjustice.com/attorneys/mehak-rizvi/ Mehak Rizvi — Cornell LII Attorney Directory: https://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/mehak-fatima-rizvi-1674626 William Evans — Goodwin: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/people/e/evans-william William Evans filing — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1223/417627/20260730151040058_Montoya%20Palacios%20--%20letter%20re%20merits%20briefing%20schedule.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected