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:

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. United States — Fed. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit considers responsibility for a deteriorating building on the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation. The United States built Building 2001 in 1959 on tribal trust land after the Oahe Dam flooded the old agency site. Federal and tribal offices shared it for decades, and the government made major repairs. The lower court rejected a contract claim before trial, then rejected trust and takings claims after trial. Those theories ask whether the government had to care for the building as tribal property or effectively deprived the Tribe of property. On appeal, the Tribe relies on an 1868 treaty, a 1954 relocation law, tribal resolutions, and decades of maintenance. The government says those sources required an agency on the reservation, not perpetual maintenance of this building for tribal use. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. United States (No. 25-1086) — 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/25-1086_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/ Argument calendar and counsel — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Summary-judgment opinion — U.S. Court of Federal Claims: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00126/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00126-0.pdf Post-trial opinion — U.S. Court of Federal Claims: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00126/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_20-cv-00126-1.pdf Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 — U.S. Government Publishing Office: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-15/pdf/STATUTE-15-Pg635.pdf Cheyenne River Oahe Act of 1954 — U.S. Government Publishing Office: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-68/pdf/STATUTE-68-Pg1191.pdf John L. Smeltzer — U.S. Department of Justice filing: https://www.justice.gov/osg/media/1325421/dl?inline=

Sakon v. Connecticut — 2d Cir. (Sep 9, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears John Alan Sakon's appeal from the dismissal of federal claims arising from a Connecticut child-custody trial. Sakon, who represents himself, says the state court replaced a half-day schedule granted for his health with nonconsecutive full days, then ended his presentation when he did not return after lunch. He claims this violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which bars disability discrimination in state and local public services, as well as due process. Connecticut says prior state and federal judgments prevent him from relitigating those claims, and that federal courts should leave core custody matters to state courts. The appeal also raises whether claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction should have been dismissed without prejudice. Sakon v. Connecticut (No. 25-814) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 9, 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/25-814.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://www.huntcal.com/cal/eventview/USCA2/USCA2?yr=2026&id=785937793&v=d&d=9&m=9&s=l Ruling on motion to dismiss — U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_22-cv-00897/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_22-cv-00897-1.pdf F. S. v. J. S. — Connecticut Appellate Court: https://cases.justia.com/connecticut/court-of-appeals/2024-ac45698.pdf?ts=1708542497 Related summary order, No. 24-3218 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/24-3218_so.pdf Appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-814 Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section12132&num=0&edition=prelim Alma Rose Nunley — Connecticut Attorney General's Office: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Releases/2023-Press-Releases/AG-Tong-Appoints-AAGs-Alma-Nunley-and-Emily-Gait-as-Special-Counsels-for-Reproductive-Rights

Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC — Fed. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit considers whether Cartessa's Skinwave skincare machine infringes Edge Systems' U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052. The patent claims a console that can select among treatment-fluid containers and send fluid through a manifold to a handheld applicator. The district court found the patent not invalid but granted Cartessa summary judgment of noninfringement. Edge says the court had to decide what "manifold" means and that its photo and expert evidence create a jury question. Cartessa says Edge asked for ordinary meaning and still offered no evidence of the device's internal fluid path. The appeal asks whether the court wrongly skipped claim construction or properly found Edge's proof insufficient. Cartessa also cross-appeals the invalidity ruling, but the questioning centers on noninfringement. Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC (No. 25-1119 / 25-1190) — 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/25-1119_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/ Argument calendar and counsel — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Summary-judgment order — Edge Systems v. Cartessa Aesthetics, E.D.N.Y.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_20-cv-06082/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_20-cv-06082-0.pdf U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/9550052 Appeal docket and cross-appeal — Edge Systems v. Cartessa Aesthetics, Nos. 25-1119 and 25-1190: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1119 Ali Razai — Morgan Lewis: https://www.morganlewis.com/bios/alirazai Steven Tepera — Pillsbury: https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/lawyers/steven-tepera.html

Mummert v. Department of the Army — Fed. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit considers whether Lester Mummert's 22 years as an Army criminal investigator qualify for special law-enforcement retirement under the Federal Employees Retirement System, or FERS. The Merit Systems Protection Board said no, though the Army had treated his position as covered for more than two decades. The test asks whether his primary duties were federal law enforcement and whether the position was reserved for young and physically vigorous employees. Mummert says arrests, raids, and physical confrontations made the job rigorous. The Army points to the lack of ongoing fitness, age, or 24-hour on-call requirements. After this argument, the court affirmed the Board without a written opinion under Rule 36. Mummert v. Department of the Army (No. 25-1251) — 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/25-1251_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/ Argument calendar and counsel — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf MSPB final order — Mummert v. Department of the Army: https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/nonprecedential/Mummert_Lester_F_PH-0842-19-0036-I-1_Final_Order.pdf Klipp v. Department of Homeland Security — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1386.OPINION.5-19-2022_1953820.pdf 5 C.F.R. § 842.802 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-842/subpart-H/section-842.802 FERS special retirement provisions — U.S. Office of Personnel Management: https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/benefits-officers-center/fers-election-options/ Rule 36 judgment — Mummert v. Department of the Army: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1251.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.9-9-2026_2752595.pdf Independent judgment listing — Fed Circuit Blog: https://fedcircuitblog.com/opinions/?action=search-opinion&date=&keyword=25-1251&origin=&subject=&type= Federal Circuit judgments and Rule 36: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/case-filings/judgments/ Lawrence Berger — Mahon & Berger: https://www.bergerdeplas.com/about Liridona Sinani — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/bay-area-businessmen-chinese-national-and-three-companies-charged-scheme-evade

University of Massachusetts v. Forte Biosciences, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit reviews a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that claims 1–5 of UMass's vitiligo-treatment patent lack adequate written description and enablement. Written description asks whether the inventors showed they possessed what they claimed; enablement asks whether they taught a skilled reader how to make and use it. UMass says Forte's experts did not meet the Board's own definition of that reader. Forte says they were qualified and the evidence supports the ruling. The judges also ask whether UMass raised that objection in time. University of Massachusetts v. Forte Biosciences, Inc. (No. 25-1342) — 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/25-1342_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/ Argument calendar and counsel — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Final written decision — Forte Biosciences v. University of Massachusetts, PGR2023-00014: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550812/download-documents?artifactId=n6lL20rHxg7BcNvb1JnmZG9HB4gkclyGZKQKlxdbrordDciyYIS0DGs Rehearing decision — Forte Biosciences v. University of Massachusetts, PGR2023-00014: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550812/download-documents?artifactId=4uSoCII3Xqjwa45BJ7eoGCZFE1jdz_GGiTHYyHyP9Xgt6TCP1-MRBNs 35 U.S.C. § 112 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A35+section%3A112%28a%29+edition%3Aprelim%29 Written-description and enablement standards — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2103.html Appeal docket and counsel — University of Massachusetts v. Forte Biosciences, No. 25-1342: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1342 Mark J. Feldstein — Finnegan: https://www.finnegan.com/en/professionals/mark-j-feldstein-ph-d.html Mark J. Feldstein — Georgetown Law: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/mark-j-feldstein/ Richard Torczon — Wilson Sonsini: https://www.wsgr.com/en/people/richard-torczon.html Richard Torczon biography — U.S. House of Representatives: https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/115027/witnesses/HHRG-117-JU03-Bio-TorczonR-20220721.pdf Patent-review history — Forte Biosciences SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1419041/000119312526346787/fbrx-20260630.htm

Peralto v. New York City Department of Education — 2d Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Julio Peralto's appeal from the denial of an injunction requiring New York City's education department to fund his child's private-school placement while a special-education dispute continues. The IDEA's stay-put rule generally keeps a child in the current educational placement during administrative and court proceedings. The panel focuses on whether Peralto preserved his argument, whether the past school year makes the case moot, and whether the appeal is properly before it. Peralto v. New York City Department of Education (No. 25-1710) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 8, 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/25-1710.mp3 Argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appellate docket — PACER via Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Second_Circuit/25-1710/Peralto_v._New_York_City_Department_of_Education/ District-court opinion — S.D.N.Y. via Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv01118/636554/34/0.pdf 20 U.S.C. § 1415 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A20+section%3A1415+edition%3Aprelim%29 Mendez v. Banks — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/22-2663_opn.pdf Juca v. Banks — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-2327_opn.pdf Counsel record — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-461.html

Sean Nealy v. Hung Cao — D.C. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears Sean Nealy versus Hung Cao. Nealy is a Navy veteran seeking disability retirement for post-traumatic stress disorder. He says the Physical Disability Board of Review could place him temporarily at fifty percent, but lacked authority to assign a ten-percent rating six months later and remove him from temporary retirement. The government says the board could make both decisions from the historical record. The judges will consider the board's statutory authority and whether it adequately supported the ten-percent rating. Arbitrary-and-capricious review asks whether an agency considered the relevant evidence and gave a rational explanation; the court does not choose the rating itself. Sean Nealy v. Hung Cao (No. 25-5175) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 8, 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/2026/09/25-5175.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/25-5175 Sean Nealy party filing — U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: https://www.militarydefense.com/wp-content/uploads/Nealy-MSJ.pdf Dylan Thayer firm affiliation — U.S. Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-204/323061/20240821135943876_Clark%20Petition%20and%20Appendix%20Combined.pdf Mason Bracken government-attorney record — U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/foia-crew-25-10005-final-response-letter.pdf Hung Cao official biography — U.S. Navy: https://www.navy.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?Article=4156165&ModuleId=692&PortalId=1 10 U.S.C. § 1554a — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title10-section1554a 38 C.F.R. § 4.129 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title38-vol1/pdf/CFR-2025-title38-vol1-part4.pdf 5 U.S.C. § 706 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title5-section706 Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm — U.S. Reports via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-463/pdf/USREPORTS-463-29.pdf

Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties, LLC v. Stark Truss Company, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties versus Stark Truss Company. In an earlier construction case, a federal judge excluded Affinity's late evidence of additional building defects and granted Stark Truss partial summary judgment on that part of Affinity's counterclaim. Affinity then sued over the same defects in state court. After Stark Truss removed that suit, the federal court dismissed it because the earlier ruling barred the claim. The appeal asks whether the partial ruling was sufficiently final and on the merits to bar the second suit. Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties, LLC v. Stark Truss Company, Inc. (No. 26-142) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 8, 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/26-142.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Report and recommendation — Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties v. Stark Truss Company, W.D.N.Y.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nywd-1_25-cv-00737/pdf/USCOURTS-nywd-1_25-cv-00737-0.pdf Order adopting dismissal — Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties v. Stark Truss Company, W.D.N.Y.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nywd-1_25-cv-00737/pdf/USCOURTS-nywd-1_25-cv-00737-1.pdf Partial-summary-judgment order in the original action — Stark Truss Company v. Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties, W.D.N.Y.: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nywdce/1%3A2022cv00979/143778/104/0.pdf Appellate docket — Affinity Elmwood Gateway Properties v. Stark Truss Company, Second Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-142 Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-531/pdf/USREPORTS-531-497.pdf

Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Cellco Partnership — Fed. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Traxcell Technologies versus Cellco Partnership. After an Eastern District of Texas court ordered Traxcell to pay Cellco's attorney's fees in a patent case, Traxcell filed a separate action in the Western District of Texas to have the fee judgment declared void. The appeal focuses on whether that separate challenge can proceed, whether Traxcell can satisfy the demanding standard for an independent action, and whether the earlier Federal Circuit mandate allowed the trial court to award the fees. Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Cellco Partnership (No. 25-1496) — 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/25-1496_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/ Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Original complaint — Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Cellco Partnership, No. 6:24-cv-00613: https://cdn.lawlytics.com/law-media/uploads/2360/314054/original/Traxcell-v.-Cellco.pdf?1735061248= Western District docket — Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Cellco Partnership: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6%3A2024mc00613/1172815257 Consolidated appellate docket — Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Cellco Partnership: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1683 Bankruptcy Court opinion describing the underlying fee award — In re Traxcell Technologies, LLC: https://www2.txwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/opdf/23-60482-mmp_Traxcell_Technologies%2C%20LLC_2024-01-29_230528.pdf Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf United States v. Beggerly — U.S. Government Publishing Office: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-524/USREPORTS-524-38 William P. Ramey III and Traxcell representation — Ramey LLP: https://www.rameyfirm.com/traxcell-technologies-files-new-legal-action-against-cellco-partnership-in-western-district-of-texas Jacob K. Baron and Cellco representation — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557562/download-documents?artifactId=hQW7hEEcoE2VKhrk6Sgip1BuAwQORDkRYwhJJWi_MrZ6w0CKMRv5UtY

New Civil Liberties Alliance v. SEC — D.C. Cir. (Sep 8, 2026) Sep 09, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit reviews a Freedom of Information Act dispute over an SEC control deficiency that allowed enforcement staff to access adjudication memoranda. The New Civil Liberties Alliance says the agency's Vaughn index and declarations did not justify withholding forensic records or employee names, or show foreseeable harm from disclosure. The SEC says releasing the names could expose staff to stigma and harassment, while the forensic material is protected attorney work product. The district court granted summary judgment to the SEC; the alliance asks the court to reverse. New Civil Liberties Alliance v. SEC (No. 25-5383) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 8, 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/2026/09/25-5383.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 SEC statement on the adjudication control deficiency — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/commission-statement-relating-certain-administrative-adjudications Brief for appellant — New Civil Liberties Alliance: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/FILING_NCLA-v.-SEC_Brief-for-Plaintiff-Appellant_02172026.pdf District court opinion — U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (PDF via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2022cv03567/249607/28/0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-5383 Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A5+section%3A552+edition%3Aprelim%29

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected