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:

Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, et al. v. Burgum, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute over the legal protections for Mexican wolves reintroduced into Arizona and New Mexico. The wolves were rescued from the brink of extinction through captive breeding, which supplied animals for releases beginning in 1998. A wild population grew, but its limited genetic diversity remains an important recovery concern. In 2022, the Fish and Wildlife Service revised its management rule while retaining the population's nonessential experimental status. Section ten jay of the Endangered Species Act lets the agency give reintroduced populations special management rules. Nonessential does not mean unimportant: the regulatory test asks whether losing the population would likely appreciably reduce the species' chances of survival in the wild. The label generally removes the usual formal consultation requirement for federal actions outside national parks and wildlife refuges. It also bars critical habitat designation, which identifies areas essential to conserving the species. Conservation groups challenged the rule, saying the agency had not properly assessed what losing the American wild population would mean for survival. In March 2025, the Arizona district court upheld the rule, accepting the agency's reasoning about restarting a population from captive wolves and considering wolves in Mexico. Conservation counsel will argue that the agency applied the wrong test and never properly compared survival with and without this wild population. Federal counsel will defend the agency's assessment, drawing on reintroduction experience, the captive programme, and Mexico's population. Arizona will also support the rule, emphasizing workable wolf management and the captive programme's genetic potential. This is not an attempt to remove the Mexican wolf's endangered listing; the dispute concerns the legal status of the reintroduced population. Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, et al. v. Burgum, et al. (No. 25-3936) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording; original court welcome, all advocacy, and complete closing preserved: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/13/25-3936.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3936&hearingDate=2026-10-13 Case background and challenged ruling — D. Ariz. Doc. 104, March 31, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-4_22-cv-00303/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-4_22-cv-00303-0.pdf Challenged Mexican-wolf rule and essentiality rationale — July 1, 2022, 87 FR 39348: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-07-01/pdf/2022-14025.pdf Experimental populations — Endangered Species Act section 10(j), official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title16/html/USCODE-2024-title16-chap35-sec1539.htm Critical habitat definition — 16 U.S.C. 1532(5), official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title16/html/USCODE-2024-title16-chap35-sec1532.htm Appeal, party roles and supporting amici's arguments — PERC and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation filed brief, February 19, 2026: https://www.perc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/PERC_amicusbrief_02192026_FINAL_GC-Wolf-v-Burgum-25-3936.pdf

Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears whether the Fish and Wildlife Service lawfully refused to restore federal protection to western gray wolves. Wolves had recovered after federal protection, and Congress removed protections from most Northern Rocky Mountain wolves in 2011. Many wolves outside the Northern Rockies already had federal protection; the petitions sought protection for the broader western population. In 2021, Idaho and Montana relaxed wolf-hunting rules, prompting conservation groups to request a new federal listing. The agency assessed western wolves as a distinct population segment, or D P S: a separate, biologically important population that can qualify for protection rather than the whole species. In February 2024, it found listing was not warranted, pointing to genetic connections and models showing wolves could withstand heavier killing. The groups sued in Montana, saying the agency failed to adequately assess small populations, state hunting policies, and areas where wolves had not fully returned. In August 2025, the district court set aside the refusal and sent the case back for new analysis, while leaving the agency's population-boundary decisions intact. The federal government and hunting organizations, including Sportsmen's Alliance, seek reversal. They will argue that the court disregarded scientific expertise and wrongly demanded recovery in unoccupied former habitat. Conservation groups will defend the order, arguing that the agency overlooked important evidence and risks outside the strongest populations. The Act defines an endangered species as one in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. So a large core population does not end the inquiry: the dispute is how to assess other important areas and their future threats. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation, et al. (No. 25-5109) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording; starts during a seating instruction before the full case call; all advocacy and court closing preserved: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/13/25-5109.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5109&hearingDate=2026-10-13 Background and challenged ruling — D. Mont. Doc. 98, August 5, 2025; public court-order copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/montana/mtdce/9%3A2024cv00086/77085/98/0.pdf?ts=1754474297 Hunting organizations' appeal and parties — filed Doc. 100, August 6, 2025; public copy: https://sportsmensalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/NRM-II-Wolf-SAF-Notice-of-Appeal-Dkt-100.pdf Challenged agency decision — February 7, 2024 gray-wolf finding, 89 FR 8391: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-07/pdf/2024-02419.pdf Endangered, threatened and distinct population segment definitions — 16 U.S.C. 1532, official 2024 Code text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title16/html/USCODE-2024-title16-chap35-sec1532.htm Legal interpretation and prior precedent — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, official Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

Peneycad v. RTX Corporation — 2d Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears investors' securities-fraud case against RTX, the parent of Pratt and Whitney. The investors say a powdered-metal manufacturing defect affected critical parts in Pratt's aircraft engines. They point to a 2020 failure in an older engine and a 2022 failure in a geared turbofan engine as warnings of a serious risk the company already knew about. In 2023, RTX announced accelerated engine inspections and lengthy groundings, with billions in expected costs. The investors sued RTX and several executives, alleging that earlier reassurances about technical problems and financial forecasts had concealed that risk. The district court dismissed the complaint before trial, finding that it did not adequately allege materially misleading statements or the required fraudulent state of mind. That state of mind is called scienter: deliberate deception, or recklessness so serious that it approximates actual intent. The securities litigation statute requires specific facts supporting a strong inference of that state of mind, not just a suspicion that something went wrong. That inference must be at least as compelling as a plausible innocent explanation. Materiality is a different question: would the information significantly change the picture for a reasonable investor? For an uncertain future event, the probability and potential size of the impact both matter. The investors will argue that RTX could not give reassuring answers while hiding a serious financial risk, even before a recall became inevitable. RTX will argue that it believed ordinary maintenance could address the problem until new technical findings in 2023, and that later bad news does not establish earlier fraud. Peneycad v. RTX Corporation (No. 25-2549) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit recording; starts during the case call and ends during final court closing words, after all advocacy is complete: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2549.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit recording index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Background and challenged dismissal — D. Conn. Doc. 134, September 12, 2025; official court-order copy: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_23-cv-01035/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_23-cv-01035-1.pdf Investors' allegations — filed consolidated amended complaint, Doc. 95, July 23, 2024; public copy: https://e1.nmcdn.io/assets/saxena/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Raytheon-DE-95_07-23-2024_Amended-Complaint.pdf Materiality and contingent risks — Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224; official opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-485/pdf/USREPORTS-485-224.pdf Strong-inference pleading standard — Tellabs, 551 U.S. 308; official opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-551/pdf/USREPORTS-551-308.pdf Securities-fraud pleading requirements — 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b), official 2024 Code text applied in the district ruling: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title15/html/USCODE-2024-title15-chap2B-sec78u-4.htm

Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — 9th Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears the fight over removing federal Endangered Species Act protections from gray wolves across much of the lower forty-eight states. After killings and development drove wolves from much of their range, protected populations recovered around the Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains. In 2020, the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that wolves had recovered enough to remove the remaining federal listings, returning management to states and tribes. The Northern Rocky Mountain wolves had already been delisted separately; Mexican wolves have a separate listing. Conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife, sued, saying that healthy core populations did not justify leaving smaller, recovering populations unprotected. In February 2022, the district court set the rule aside, restoring the previous protections. It found deficiencies in assessing wolves outside the core populations, defining a significant portion of their range, and explaining protections on federal land. But it upheld the agency's assessment of state management plans. The federal government and intervening farm and hunting organizations now seek reversal; the conservation groups will defend the judgment. Federal counsel will contend that the court substituted its own scientific judgment and wrongly required recovery throughout the wolves' historical range. Conservation counsel will contend that the agency failed to justify dismissing the risks to populations outside the strongest core areas. The lawyers will also discuss distinct population segments, or D P S. This allows a discrete, biologically significant population of a vertebrate species to be assessed for protection separately from the whole species. The dispute includes whether the existing wolf listings fit that category, and whether that question alone can justify removing protection. The court reviews whether the agency followed the law and adequately explained its decision, not simply which scientists the judges prefer. Defenders of Wildlife v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. 22-15529) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/13/22-15529.mp3 Case and argument date — official Ninth Circuit recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=22-15529&hearingDate=2026-10-13 Case background and challenged ruling — N.D. Cal. Doc. 138, February 10, 2022; public copy of the court order: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wolf-esa-ruling-20220210.pdf Challenged agency action — November 3, 2020 gray-wolf delisting rule, 85 FR 69778: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-11-03/pdf/2020-24171.pdf Restoration following the district ruling — November 3, 2023 official court-compliance rule: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-11-03/pdf/2023-24299.pdf Federal appellants' opening brief — filed September 13, 2024, DktEntry 32; public copy hosted by Congress: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117586/documents/HMKP-118-II00-20240919-SD006.pdf Appellants and procedural history — public copy of the N.D. Cal. docket; clerk entries 155–156: https://www.drdocket.com/case/defenders-of-wildlife-v-u-s-fish-and-wildlife-service-cand-2021

Harrison v. Local One, International Union of Elevator Constructors of New York and New Jersey, AFL-CIO — 2d Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Joseph Harrison and Stephen Mazza's lawsuit against their elevator workers' union. After a drunken incident at a 2023 union conference, Harrison resigned as a local union official. He says the local president promised not to bring disciplinary charges if he resigned. But after Harrison campaigned for a rival candidate, charges followed, and the International Union expelled him. Mazza supported the same candidate and complained about alleged intimidation of that candidate. He says he was reassigned and stripped of union responsibilities in retaliation. Both sued under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, which protects union members' speech and sets safeguards for disciplinary hearings. Harrison also challenges the notice and fairness of his union hearing. The district court dismissed the case before trial, finding the complaint did not plausibly show unlawful retaliation or an unfair hearing. On appeal, the members will argue that the court accepted the union's explanations instead of giving their allegations the required legal weight. A motion to dismiss tests whether factual allegations state a plausible legal claim, not whether the plaintiffs have already proved it. Arthur Schwartz will argue for the two members; Maura Moosnick will represent Local One and its president. Jennifer Simon will represent the International Union, arguing that it independently conducted a fair hearing and did not share any retaliatory motive. Harrison v. Local One, International Union of Elevator Constructors of New York and New Jersey, AFL-CIO (No. 26-30) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit court recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-30.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit recording index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and dismissal — E.D.N.Y. Doc. 60, December 18, 2025; public court-order copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1:2024cv08619/525154/60/0.pdf Earlier background and preliminary-injunction ruling — E.D.N.Y. Doc. 44, April 5, 2025; public court-order copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1:2024cv08619/525154/44/0.pdf Appellate identity and counsel appearances — public copy of Second Circuit docket 26-30: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-30

Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas v. EPA — D.C. Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears challenges to EPA's reduction of the 2024 cellulosic biofuel requirement. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners and fuel importers must meet annual renewable-fuel obligations. Cellulosic biofuel is a category that includes qualifying renewable natural gas used for transportation. Compliance is tracked through RINs, tradeable credits associated with qualifying fuel. EPA set the 2024 requirement in 2023, then lowered it in a rule published in July 2025, citing a shortfall. The fuel-production year was already over. The Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas will challenge that after-the-fact change. Jonathan Ellis, of McGuireWoods, will argue that it undercut the certainty producers relied on when investing. Daniel Martin of the Justice Department will defend EPA's view that the law requires a reduction when production falls below the target, even after the deadline. The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, represented by Elizabeth Dawson, will initially support EPA's reduction. But that group also wants further relief, including for unmet obligations carried over from 2023. Later in the hearing, Dawson will challenge EPA's refusal to reduce the requirement further. You will also hear about cellulosic waiver credits. Unlike RINs generated from qualifying fuel, these credits are offered by EPA as another way to satisfy the cellulosic obligation; they are not fuel produced. Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas v. EPA (No. 25-1183) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit joint hearing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-1183.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Coalition's filed petition and attached July 2025 EPA final rule — No.25-1183, Doc.2133704: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-09/us_app_cadc_25_1183_d194949567e284_petition_for_review_2133704_of_a_decision_by_feder.pdf Coalition's objections and investment background — September 4, 2025 reconsideration petition, introductory pages: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2026-01/rfs-rng-coalition-petition-2025-0904.pdf Manufacturers' waiver request and prior-year deficits — November 1, 2024 AFPM petition, pages1–4 and8–9: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-11/afpm-rfs-cellulosic-waiver-petition-2024-11-01.pdf EPA's waiver reasoning and treatment of deficits — June 2025 response to comments, sections1,2 and4.1: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P101HUJV.pdf RIN compliance credits — U.S. Department of Energy explanation: https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/RIN.html Cellulosic fuel category — U.S. Department of Energy explanation: https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10423 Jonathan Ellis's firm — McGuireWoods, September 3, 2026: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news/press-releases/2026/9/the-national-law-journals-prestigious-appellate-hot-list-recognizes-mcguirewoods/

United States of America v. Taylor (Greatsinger) — 2d Cir. (Oct 13, 2026) Oct 14, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Richard Greatsinger's appeal in United States versus Taylor. Federal investigators suspected Greatsinger had obtained drugs after visiting another man under investigation. They asked local police to stop his car in West Haven, Connecticut. Officers brought a drug-detection dog, searched the car, and found drugs. Greatsinger asked the district court to exclude that evidence, arguing the stop was unlawful. The court denied the motion, finding that the investigators' suspicions could support the stop through other officers. That principle is called the collective knowledge doctrine. A brief investigative stop requires reasonable suspicion grounded in specific facts about possible criminal activity. The question here is how much information the investigator must give the officer who actually makes the stop. Greatsinger will argue that an instruction to stop the car was not enough: the officer needed to be told the basis for suspicion. The government will contend that an officer with adequate grounds can direct another officer to act without explaining every underlying fact. United States of America v. Taylor (Greatsinger) (No. 25-1914) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit court recording: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1914.mp3 Case and argument date — official Second Circuit recording index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Case background and suppression ruling — D. Connecticut Doc.1004, November 4, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_23-cr-00062/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_23-cr-00062-5.pdf Investigative stops and reliance on other officers — United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S.221, pages226–233: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep469/usrep469221/usrep469221.pdf

Yieldmo, Inc. v. Teads, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Yieldmo versus Teads, a patent dispute over interactive online advertisements. Yieldmo sued Teads for allegedly infringing four patents covering advertisements that respond to webpage activity. The claimed methods link scrolling to the display of different image or video frames: scrolling one way advances them, and scrolling back reverses them. The district court dismissed the lawsuit before trial, finding the asserted claims directed to an abstract advertising idea without an inventive concept. Yieldmo is appealing that ruling. A patent’s claims define the invention for which protection is sought; its specification describes the invention and how it works. Section one oh one sets out patent-eligible subject matter, but courts exclude abstract ideas. Under the Supreme Court’s Alice test, courts first ask whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If so, they ask whether additional elements, individually or together, supply an inventive concept beyond that idea. Yieldmo will argue that its scrolling-controlled image player provides a specific technical improvement, not merely a new advertising strategy. Teads will contend that the claims describe desired results using conventional computer functions rather than a technical solution. Yieldmo, Inc. v. Teads, Inc. (No. 25-2012) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Federal Circuit court original: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-2012_10052026.mp3 Case and argument date — official Federal Circuit recording table: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and prior dismissal — S.D.N.Y. Doc.51, July 21, 2025, public court-opinion copy: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv00737/635664/51/0.pdf Patent eligibility — 35 U.S.C. §101, official Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec101.htm Alice eligibility test — Supreme Court, 573 U.S.208, pages216–218: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-573/pdf/USREPORTS-573-208.pdf Patent eligibility explanation — USPTO MPEP §2106: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html Claims and specification — 35 U.S.C. §112: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap11-sec112.htm Claim interpretation — USPTO MPEP §2111: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2111.html

United States v. White, Williams & Jackson — 2d Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears the consolidated appeals of White, Williams, and Jackson. James White pleaded guilty and received a twenty-five-year prison sentence, followed by supervised release—court supervision after prison. His release conditions restrict contact with felons and gang members. White says those restrictions interfere with his particularly close relationship with his nephew, who has a felony conviction. He is not asking to undo his conviction; he wants the trial court to reconsider those restrictions. Because he did not object at sentencing, his challenge faces plain-error review, a higher bar for an issue raised only on appeal. Jeremy Gutman will present White's challenge, and Ryan Allison represents the United States. United States v. White, Williams & Jackson (No. 24-3150) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Complete consolidated criminal argument — Second Circuit, Nos. 24-3150, 25-283 and 25-80: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/24-3150,%2025-283,%2025-80.mp3 Argument date and lead recording identity — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Pre-argument background and counsel — White official summary order, pages 1–4; later outcome not narrated: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-80_so.pdf

Dignity Health v. Health Care Service Corporation — 7th Cir. (Sep 28, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

Dignity Health asks the Seventh Circuit to revive its hospital-payment lawsuit against Health Care Service Corporation. The district court dismissed the complaint, including rejecting the contract claim for lack of consideration—the new value or promise exchanged to create a contract. Doing what an existing legal duty already requires ordinarily cannot supply that new bargain. The lawyers also discuss quantum meruit: payment for the reasonable value of services when no enforceable contract governs them. Dignity Health v. Health Care Service Corporation (No. 25-3245) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/gw.25-3245.25-3245_09_28_2026.mp3 Argument date and case identity — Seventh Circuit recordings: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Prior dismissal and appeal — HCSC filed request for judgment, Dignity district case Doc.27: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2022cv06969/424404/27/0.pdf Dignity contract dismissal citation and legal definitions only — Related district opinion, Doc.26: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2025cv04533/477145/26/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected