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:

N. P. v. Lago Vista — 5th Cir. (Aug 31, 2026) Sep 05, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears N. P. versus Lago Vista Independent School District. N. P. is a student with disabilities. The school district wants to move some instruction into a separate functional academics classroom, saying he needs more intensive support. His parents oppose that move. They say better help with his visual impairment would let him learn in a less restrictive setting. A special-education hearing officer and then a federal district judge sided with the district. The appeal asks whether the proposed plan meets federal requirements for an appropriate education and the least restrictive classroom placement. N. P. v. Lago Vista (No. 25-50521) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 31, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50521_08-31-2026.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-50521 Appealed district ruling — March 20, 2025, pp. 1–4, 7–18: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-1_24-cv-00457/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-1_24-cv-00457-0.pdf Appeal and counsel — Fifth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-50521 Meredith Walker — current firm biography: https://walshgallegos.com/people-with-purpose/meredith-prykryl-walker Walsh Gallegos corroboration — filed petition, counsel page ii: https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/TPPF-v-HPISD-Petition-for-Review.pdf Individualized education programs — 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1414 Least restrictive environment — 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1412 Fifth Circuit framework — H. W. v. Comal, pp. 2–3, 11–13, 22–24: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-50838-CV0.pdf ARD committees and IEPs — Texas Education Agency: https://spedsupport.tea.texas.gov/resource-library/ard-supports

Pistilli v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company — 2d Cir. (Sep 3, 2026) Sep 05, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Pistilli versus First Unum Life Insurance Company. Lia Pistilli, a lawyer, sought long-term disability benefits after a car accident. First Unum denied her claim, and the district court upheld that decision. Her appeal challenges the handling of her claim and the judge's review of the medical evidence. Pistilli v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company (No. 25-2866) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2866.mp3 Case and argument date — Second Circuit recording index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Appealed findings — October 3, 2025, pp. 1–3, 13–20: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv05266/624696/39/0.pdf Appeal and counsel — Second Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2866 Mark DeBofsky — current firm biography: https://www.debofsky.com/about-us/mark-d-debofsky/ DeBofsky Law corroboration — Oye v. Hartford, counsel appearances: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/117385111.html Patrick Begos — current firm biography: https://www.rc.com/patrick-w-begos Robinson and Cole corroboration — January 21, 2026 court opinion, p. 1: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_21-cv-05825/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_21-cv-05825-1.pdf Benefit-plan coverage — 29 U.S.C. § 1003: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1003 ERISA overview — GAO, pp. 4–6: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-376.pdf Review of benefit denials — McCauley, pp. 13–15: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/06-5100/06-5100-cv_opn-2011-03-27.pdf Independent review and trial findings — Krizek, Discussion II: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/345/91/550623/ Clear-error review — Doe v. Menefee, pp. 163–165: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/391/147/559366/

Fund Texas Choice v. Deski — 5th Cir. (Aug 31, 2026) Sep 05, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Fund Texas Choice versus Deski. The plaintiffs include abortion funds that help Texans travel to other states for abortion care, and a physician. After Roe was overturned, they feared prosecution under Texas's older abortion laws for assisting or providing care outside the state. They sued local prosecutors to protect that work. The district court initially let the challenge proceed, but later dismissed the claims against the prosecutors on sovereign-immunity grounds. This appeal asks whether the lawsuit can go forward. Fund Texas Choice v. Deski (No. 25-50563) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 31, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50563_08-31-2026.mp3 Case, argument date and advocates — Fifth Circuit recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-50563 District-court dismissal — May 23, 2025, especially pp. 2, 5, 10–22: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-1_22-cv-00859/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-1_22-cv-00859-4.pdf Plaintiff's account of this appeal — Fund Texas Choice: https://fundtexaschoice.org/what-we-do/legal/ Appeal and counsel appearances — Fifth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-50563 John Atkins — current firm biography: https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/people/john-p-atkins/ Counsel and firm corroboration — district-court reporter appearance list: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/fund-texas-choice-v-1098785782 Heather Hacker — current firm biography: https://www.hackerstephens.com/heather-hacker Hacker's firm corroboration — independently filed service affidavit (2021), p. 2: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-463/197749/20211027122919891_21-463_21-588%20Proof%20of%20Service.pdf Officer-suit exception — Ex parte Young, pp. 155–160: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-209/pdf/USREPORTS-209-123.pdf Prospective federal-law relief — Verizon Maryland, Part III: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1531.ZO.html Fifth Circuit immunity and standing distinction — Mi Familia Vota v. Ogg, pp. 17–31: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-50732-CV0.pdf Standing requirements — Lujan, pp. 560–561: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-504/pdf/USREPORTS-504-555.pdf Standing requirements — Spokeo, pp. 338–339: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-578/pdf/USREPORTS-578-330.pdf

Harger Da Silva v. New York City Transit Authority — 2d Cir. (Sep 4, 2026) Sep 05, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers an immunity appeal in Da Silva's subway-injury lawsuit. She was struck by a train after falling onto the tracks. The transit agencies challenge a pretrial ruling that let her platform-safety claims proceed. The case has since been tried to a jury. The question here is whether the earlier immunity ruling can be reviewed separately. Harger Da Silva v. New York City Transit Authority (No. 25-727) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-727.mp3 Case and argument date — Second Circuit recording index: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Hearing date — court's September 4, 2026 calendar: https://www.huntcal.com/cal/eventview/USCA2/USCA2?d=4&id=784738248&m=9&yr=2026 Pretrial immunity ruling — district court, March 6, 2025, pp. 2, 8–12: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_17-cv-04550/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_17-cv-04550-6.pdf Immediate-appeal dispute — district court, May 29, 2025, pp. 2–4: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_17-cv-04550/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_17-cv-04550-7.pdf Appealed order, dismissal motion and counsel — Second Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-727 Accident and completed jury trial — plaintiff trial counsel's firsthand report: https://www.subway.legal/test-page New York planning immunity — Turturro v. City of New York: https://www.nycourts.gov/REPORTER/3dseries/2016/2016_08579.htm Collateral-order jurisdiction — In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation (2008): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1417447.html Limits on immediate appeals — Will v. Hallock, pp. 349–353: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-546/pdf/USREPORTS-546-345.pdf Holding and dicta — Baraket v. Holder, pp. 6–7: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/09-0739_opn.pdf Nonbinding dicta — Tyler v. Cain, p. 663, note 4: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-533/pdf/USREPORTS-533-656.pdf Elliot Shields — current firm biography: https://www.rothandrothlaw.com/attorneys/elliot-shields

Archer Western v. McDonnel Group — 5th Cir. (Sep 3, 2026) Sep 05, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears a dispute between Archer Western and the McDonnel Group, construction partners on an Orleans Parish project. Archer Western sued over their joint venture, including demands for additional project funding. McDonnel defeated those demands and the remaining trial claims, but lost a separate dispute over settlement funds. It then sought its legal fees under the joint venture agreement. The district court denied the request because Archer Western had not been found to breach that agreement. McDonnel's appeal challenges whether a separately litigated breach-of-contract claim was necessary. Archer Western v. McDonnel Group (No. 25-30739) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 3, 2026. Sources: Appellate opinion — Fifth Circuit, October 5, 2026: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-30739.0.pdf Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-30739_9-3-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fifth Circuit recording record: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-30739 Case and counsel appearances — Fifth Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-30739 Fee-denial order — district court, November 17, 2025, pp. 2–8: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cv-05323/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cv-05323-13.pdf Randall Smith — current firm biography: https://www.smithfawer.com/attorney/smith-randall-a/ Smith firm affiliation — Chambers 2026 editorial: https://chambers.com/lawyer/randall-a-smith-usa-5%3A26599697 McDonnel trial counsel — Smith & Fawer case report: https://www.smithfawer.com/blog/2025/06/smith-fawer-secures-jury-win-dismissing-multimillion-claims/ Jeremy Grabill — current firm biography: https://www.phelps.com/professionals/jeremy-t-grabill.html Grabill firm corroboration — opposing counsel's Supreme Court service record (separate case): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-257/374432/20250911143250042_2025-09-11%20Zyla%20Final%20Waiver.pdf Claims and defenses — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 13: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Counterclaim/defense distinction — Leoris, district court opinion, pp. 7–8: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_18-cv-02575/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_18-cv-02575-1.pdf

Natalia Golban v. Todd Blanche — 9th Cir. (Sep 3, 2026) Sep 05, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Natalia Golban's challenge to the denial of asylum and related relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal. She now asks the court to set aside the agency's decision. Natalia Golban v. Todd Blanche (No. 15-73093) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/03/15-73093.mp3 Case summary and argument date — Ninth Circuit calendar: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-search?input-search-case=15-73093 VAWA self-petitions — USCIS program explanation, p. 1: https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-updates/20220210-VAWA.pdf VAWA program background — United States v. Aborisade, p. 3: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/244466.p.pdf Factual review — 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1252&num=0&edition=prelim Factual-review standard — Garland v. Ming Dai, pp. 7–8: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1155_new_197d.pdf Apostille meaning and limits — HCCH Handbook, pp. 31–32: https://assets.hcch.net/docs/a19ae90b-27bf-4596-b5ee-0140858abeaa.pdf Apostille explanation — California Secretary of State: https://www.sos.ca.gov/notary/apostille-faqs

SlackPass, Inc. v. Frosted, Inc. — 2d Cir. (Sep 4, 2026) Sep 05, 2026

Show notes

We hear the Second Circuit argument in SlackPass versus Frosted, a dispute between LaunchPass and its competitor Whop. LaunchPass helps people charge for access to private chat communities, including on Slack and Discord. It sued Whop over alleged misuse of LaunchPass's website and services, with claims including unauthorized computer access and unfair competition. The defendants first asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, but won only in part. They then sought arbitration under LaunchPass's own terms of use. The district court refused, finding that they had given up that right by litigating first. This appeal concerns whether that conduct waived arbitration and how the terms' jury-trial waiver should be read. SlackPass, Inc. v. Frosted, Inc. (No. 26-967) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-967.mp3 Argument date — Second Circuit calendar: https://www.huntcal.com/cal/eventview/USCA2/USCA2?d=4&id=784738248&m=9&yr=2026 Appeal docket — No. 26-967 (court docket mirrored by Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-967 District court ruling — SlackPass v. Frosted, Dkt. 104: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2023cv06393/602700/104/0.pdf Competing products — Whop's description of LaunchPass: https://whop.com/blog/what-is-launchpass/ Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — 18 U.S.C. § 1030: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&f=treesort&jumpTo=true&num=0&req=%28title%3A18+section%3A1030+edition%3Aprelim%29+OR+%28granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section1030%29 Computer-access law — Van Buren v. United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf Colorado River doctrine — Supreme Court opinion: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep424/usrep424800/usrep424800.pdf Second Circuit doctrine — Doyle v. UBS: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/24-696_opn.pdf Advocate background — Fred Shrayber, Dentons: https://www.dentons.com/en/fred-shrayber Firm corroboration — ARDEX appearance, August 10, 2026: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cit/1%3A2026cv03542 Product background — LaunchPass: https://www.launchpass.com/

Rushing, et al. v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 3, 2026) Sep 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether some members of a class action over Williams-Sonoma's thread-count advertising must arbitrate. Federal law allows an immediate appeal from an order refusing to compel arbitration, so the court first must decide whether the district judge issued such an order or merely maintained the class definition. On the merits, the judge found Williams-Sonoma had not shown which screens consumers saw or when, and that its links to contract terms were not conspicuous enough. Williams-Sonoma will seek reversal; the plaintiffs will defend the ruling. Rushing, et al. v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al. (No. 25-5252) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 3, 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/2026/09/03/25-5252.mp3 Argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5252&hearingDate=2026-09-03 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://n76qzwo6zclpoahpmjr4buzwf40yjjly.lambda-url.us-west-2.on.aws/?date=2026-09-03&loc=SF Appellate docket — PACER court record via Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Ninth_Circuit/25-5252/Rushing_et_al._v._Williams-Sonoma_Inc._et_al/ Appealed district-court order — N.D. Cal. via Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2016cv01421/296909/382/0.pdf 2022 district-court order — N.D. Cal. via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01421/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01421-19.pdf In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/01/13/19-70522.pdf 9 U.S.C. § 16 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title9/pdf/USCODE-2024-title9-chap1-sec16.pdf Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation Co. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/26/15-15257.pdf P. Craig Cardon — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/168646 Kevin Kamuf Green — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/180919 Opinion search — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://rf9ecr1p0i.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/opinions/search?q=25-5252 Memorandum search — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://xcglumg9bj.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/memoranda/search?q=25-5252

Teves Realty, Inc. v. Terry — 2d Cir. (Sep 3, 2026) Sep 04, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears cross-appeals over the foreclosure of Karl Terry's commercial property. After a bench trial, the district court allowed Teves Realty to foreclose a 2010 mortgage for ninety-one thousand eight hundred sixty-four dollars in principal, rejected Teves's claim for a separate eighty thousand dollars, and awarded half the requested prejudgment interest. Teves will challenge the rejected claim and interest reduction. Terry will contest the mortgage assignment, foreclosure remedy, and remaining interest. Teves Realty, Inc. v. Terry (No. 25-759 and No. 25-800) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 3, 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/25-759,%2025-800.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=784737947&d=3&m=9 Lead appeal docket — Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Second_Circuit/25-759/Teves_Realty_Inc._v._Terry/ Cross-appeal docket — Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Second_Circuit/25-800/Teves_Realty_Inc._v._Terry/ 2021 order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226-1.pdf Bench-trial findings — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226-2.pdf Foreclosure judgment — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226-3.pdf Post-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_14-cv-03226-4.pdf Delshah 60 Ninth, LLC v. Free People of PA LLC — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-148_opn.pdf Unjust enrichment — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unjust_enrichment Aymen A. Aboushi — The Aboushi Law Firm: https://www.aboushi.com/partners/aymen-a-aboushi/

Lee v. Alonzo — 5th Cir. (Aug 31, 2026) Sep 04, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether two Midland police officers have qualified immunity in a suit alleging that false or misleading affidavits were used to arrest five school officials for failing to report suspected child abuse. Qualified immunity protects officials from civil suit unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. The officers will argue the affidavits supported probable cause; the officials will answer that correcting material falsehoods and omissions would eliminate it. Lee v. Alonzo (No. 25-50687) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 31, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50687_08-31-2026.mp3 Argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-50687 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-31 Opinion search — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/results?docket=25-50687&group=flat Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Justia filing mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txwdce/7%3A2022cv00185/1187058/166/0.pdf Stapleton v. Lozano — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/Opinions/pub/24/24-40155-CV0.pdf Winfrey v. Rogers — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-20702-CV1.pdf Texas District Clerk Manual — Texas Judicial Branch: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457335/district-clerk-manual-2023-edition.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected