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:

Quality Process Services v. Whitney Oil & Gas — 5th Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 02, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Quality Process Services versus Whitney Oil and Gas. A QPS employee piloting Whitney's vessel struck an offshore well jacket, injuring a Whitney employee. The companies then disputed defense and indemnity under their master services agreement. The district court held the contract nonmaritime because vessels mainly transported workers and equipment, so Louisiana's Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act barred QPS's claim. QPS says vessel use was substantial; Whitney says it was incidental to platform work. The court also considers Whitney's entitlement to attorney's fees. Quality Process Services v. Whitney Oil & Gas (No. 25-30560) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 1, 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/25/25-30560_09-01-2026.mp3 Argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-30560 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-09-01 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-30560 Findings and conclusions — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cv-03015/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cv-03015-1.pdf Attorney-fee order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cv-03015/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cv-03015-2.pdf In re Larry Doiron — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-30217-CV2.pdf Genesis Energy v. Danos — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20357-CV0.pdf Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act — Louisiana Legislature: https://legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=107204 Marcel v. Placid Oil — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/91/91-03788.CV0.wpd.pdf Unseaworthiness rule — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-516/pdf/USREPORTS-516-199.pdf Unseaworthiness findings — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_10-cv-03296/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_10-cv-03296-1.pdf Michael McMahon — Daigle Fisse & Kessenich: https://daiglefisse.com/michael-w-mcmahon/ Michael McMahon — Louisiana State Bar Association directory: https://www.lsba.org/documents/PublicResources/ADR2023Directory.pdf Courtney Crowell — PJGG: https://pjgglaw.com/attorneys/courtney-crowell/ Courtney Crowell — Martindale: https://www.martindale.com/attorney/courtney-elizabeth-crowell-300474796/ Robert Johnston — PJGG: https://pjgglaw.com/attorneys/robert-r-johnston/ Robert Johnston — Lawyers.com: https://www.lawyers.com/new-orleans/louisiana/robert-r-johnston-605530-a/

Liu v. Hochul — 2d Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 02, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Lewis Liu's challenge to New York's winner-take-all method for choosing presidential electors. Liu says the system strips losing-candidate votes of electoral weight. The state defendants answer that Williams and later circuit decisions foreclose the challenge. Three days after argument, the court affirmed the dismissal in a nonprecedential summary order. Liu v. Hochul (No. 25-1031) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 1, 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/25-1031.mp3 Argument record — 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=784736799&d=1&v=m&m=9&s=l Summary order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-1031_so.pdf Decision index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions.html Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1031 Opinion and order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2024cv05137/624410/26/0.pdf Williams v. Virginia State Board of Elections — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-393/pdf/USREPORTS-393-320.pdf Mandel v. Bradley — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-432/pdf/USREPORTS-432-173.pdf Lyman v. Baker — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-2235P-01A.pdf Samantha Neal court appearance — New York State Unified Court System: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_02991.shtml Second Samantha Neal court appearance — New York State Unified Court System: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/Handdowns/2026/Decisions/D80751.pdf

Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria v. United States Department of the Interior, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 02, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears consolidated appeals over the Interior Department's decision to take the Shiloh parcel into trust for the Koi Nation, clearing a path toward a casino. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria challenged the approval under federal historic-preservation, environmental, and Indian-gaming laws. The district court let the case proceed despite Koi's sovereign immunity, then vacated the approval; the parcel is now out of trust. Koi seeks dismissal under Rule 19; Graton and the United States ask the court to affirm the Rule 19 ruling. Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria v. United States Department of the Interior, et al. (No. 25-4604 and No. 25-6300) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 1, 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/2026/09/01/25-4604.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4604&hearingDate=2026-09-01 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-09-01&loc=SF Appellate docket No. 25-4604 — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-4604 Appellate docket No. 25-6300 — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-6300 Rule 19 order — U.S. District Court document mirror: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/127-dct-order.pdf Summary-judgment and remand order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-08582/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-08582-0.pdf Koi Nation Shiloh project decision — U.S. Department of the Interior: https://www.bia.gov/as-ia/oig/gaming-decisions/koi-nation-northern-california-shiloh-resort-and-casino-project Notice that the Shiloh site is out of trust — Federal Register: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-04-02/pdf/2026-06434.pdf 25 U.S.C. § 5108 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title25-section5108 25 U.S.C. § 2719 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title25-section2719 Trust land acquisition — U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs: https://www.bia.gov/service/trust-land-acquisition Argument report — Courthouse News Service: https://www.courthousenews.com/tribes-fight-at-ninth-circuit-for-land-development-rights/ Hagan Scotten — Hueston Hennigan: https://www.hueston.com/wp-content/uploads/tenrec-pdf-generator/Hagan%20Scotten.pdf Neal Katyal — Milbank: https://www.milbank.com/en/professionals/neal-katyal.html Combined-docket confirmation — Supreme Court of the United States filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A178/418313/20260806140850657_Parasmo%20Extension%20Application.pdf Daniel Halainen — official federal-court opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca9-25-2473/pdf/USCOURTS-ca9-25-2473-0.pdf

State of Texas v. Pfizer — 5th Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 02, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, shields Pfizer from Texas's consumer-protection suit accusing the company of misleading the public about its COVID-19 vaccine. The district court dismissed the suit on immunity, federal-preemption, and Texas-law pleading grounds. The judges also ask whether the challenged statements were closely enough connected to Pfizer's work under a federal vaccine contract to let Pfizer move the suit from state to federal court. Texas seeks reversal; Pfizer seeks affirmance. State of Texas v. Pfizer (No. 25-10182) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 1, 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/25/25-10182_09-01-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-10182 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-09-01 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-10182 File-stamped district court dismissal order — document mirror: https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2025/01/Texas-v.-Pfizer-dismissal.pdf Texas complaint — Office of the Texas Attorney General: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Pfizer%20Vaccine%20Petition%20Filed.pdf Texas notice of appeal — Office of the Texas Attorney General: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/sites/default/files/images/press/OAG%20Pfizer%20Notice%20of%20Appeal.pdf 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d (PREP Act) — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title42-section247d-6d PREP Act overview — U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: https://asprtracie.hhs.gov/technical-resources/resource/1712/public-readiness-and-emncy-preparedness-act-prep-act 28 U.S.C. § 1442 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section1442 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-813_3e04.pdf Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act — Texas Constitution and Statutes: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/Docs/bc/htm/bc.17.htm 21 U.S.C. § 355 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title21-section355 21 U.S.C. § 337 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title21-section337 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title21-section360bbb-3 Emergency Use Authorization — U.S. Food and Drug Administration: https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization Texas appellant brief — file-stamped Fifth Circuit filing mirror: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Texas-v.-Pfizer-Appellate-Brief.pdf Pfizer motion to dismiss — file-stamped district court filing mirror: https://www.druganddevicelawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2025/01/Texas-v.-Pfizer-Brief-ISO-dismissal.pdf Pfizer notice of removal — file-stamped district court filing mirror: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Pfizer-Notice-of-Removal.pdf Johnathan Stone — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContactID=312718&Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm Kannon Shanmugam — Davis Polk: https://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/kannon-shanmugam Kannon Shanmugam Davis Polk filing — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1366/417324/20260727105100225_2026.07.27%20Extension%20request%20final.pdf

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 897 v. Ford Motor Company — 2d Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 02, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit considers whether Ford's second firing of a pipefitter must go to fresh arbitration. An arbitrator found insufficient grounds under the labor agreement for the first firing, over workplace harassment, and ordered conditional reinstatement. Ford then fired the employee again for lying during the investigation. The union says the arbitrator already considered that dishonesty; Ford calls it a new dispute. Confirmation gives an award the force of a court order; enforcement determines compliance. The district court sent enforcement and remedy to fresh arbitration, and the union appeals. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 897 v. Ford Motor Company (No. 25-2784) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 1, 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/25-2784.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=784736968&v=d&d=1&m=9&s=l Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2784 Decision and order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nywd-1_23-cv-00793/pdf/USCOURTS-nywd-1_23-cv-00793-0.pdf 29 U.S.C. § 185 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section185&num=0&edition=prelim Arbitration-confirmation standard — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_07-cv-02309/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_07-cv-02309-0.pdf Ian Hayes — Hayes Dolce: https://www.hayesdolce.com/ian-hayes Ian H. Hayes — New York attorney registration: https://data.ny.gov/resource/eqw2-r5nb.json?registration_number=5265889 Blaine H. Evanson — Gibson Dunn: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/evanson-blaine-h/ Blaine Hill Evanson — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/254338

Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, et al. — 9th Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether AIG had to defend Tetra Tech against three lawsuits arising from cleanup work at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard. The underlying complaints accuse Tetra Tech of falsifying test results and mishandling radioactive soil, while also pleading negligence. The question is whether those allegations created any potential for liability covered by Tetra Tech's pollution policies, or whether the policies' terms and exclusions foreclosed coverage. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. AIG Specialty Insurance Company, et al. (No. 25-7620) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 1, 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/2026/09/01/25-7620.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7620&hearingDate=2026-09-01 Argument metadata — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://oldrbx80f5.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/media/25-7620?hearingDate=2026-09-01 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-7620 Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-06367/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-06367-0.pdf Gray v. Zurich Insurance Co. — Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/65/263.html Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court — Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/6/287.html Superfund liability — U.S. EPA: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/superfund-liability CERCLA liability statute — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section9607&num=0&edition=prelim The False Claims Act — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/civil/false-claims-act 31 U.S.C. § 3730 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title31-section3730&num=0&edition=prelim Sarah J. Odia — Payne & Fears: https://www.paynefears.com/professionals/sarah-j-odia/ Sarah J. Odia — Super Lawyers: https://profiles.superlawyers.com/nevada/las-vegas/lawyer/sarah-j-odia/7caf6c22-3a67-4714-91ba-119b03d6ddbb.html Elliot Strader — Akerman: https://www.akerman.com/en/people/elliot-strader.html Elliot Strader — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=303008

United States v. Koan — 5th Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears David Koan's direct criminal appeal. Section 5G1.3(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines can require an adjustment for time already served on a related undischarged sentence when the Bureau of Prisons will not credit that time. For an unpreserved claim, an appellant must show a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights. The court then decides whether correction is warranted under the fairness, integrity, or public-reputation standard. United States v. Koan (No. 25-10850) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 1, 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/25/25-10850_9-1-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-09-01&to=2026-09-01 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-09-01 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-10850 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter Five — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/CHAPTER_5.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 3585 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A18+section%3A3585%28b%29+edition%3Aprelim%29 United States v. Estrada — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-40360.0.wpd.pdf Rosales-Mireles v. United States — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-9493_e0fi.pdf Fifth Circuit plain-error standard — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/12/12-40472-CV0.pdf

Juca v. Aviles-Ramos — 2d Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears a short motion argument in Juca v. Aviles-Ramos. Juca appealed after the district court denied a second request for emergency relief in a dispute over her child's special-education placement, finding no irreparable harm in the record. The court is considering Juca's request for an injunction during the appeal and the Department's argument that the appeal is now moot. A dispute is moot when the court can no longer grant effective relief. Juca v. Aviles-Ramos (No. 26-522) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 1, 2026. Sources: Motion-argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-522%20mtn.mp3 Motion-argument record — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=search&request=26-522%2A&index=%2A%7Baaa02d786aee6c9336b7efb2e231863a%7D%20audio&sort=Date&OrigSearchForm=%2Foral_arguments.html&pageSize=25 Motion calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://www.huntcal.com/cal/eventview/USCA2/USCA2?yr=2026&id=787841889&v=d&m=9&d=1 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-522 Order appealed from — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv06972/648103/38/0.pdf Student-placement background order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv06972/648103/26/0.pdf Related Juca stay-put opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-2327_opn.pdf Related school-year mootness order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-1321,%2025-1355_so.pdf MacKenzie Fillow court appearance — New York State Unified Court System: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_03629.shtml

Losavio v. Tesla, Inc., et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 31, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers Tesla's permitted appeal from an order certifying classes in Thomas LoSavio's consumer case. LoSavio alleges Tesla misled buyers by saying its vehicles had all the hardware needed for full self-driving. The district court certified two California damages classes and a narrower class seeking an injunction. The appeal asks whether LoSavio showed classwide exposure to that statement, proposed a damages model tied to it, and defined an injunction class that satisfies Rule 23. Losavio v. Tesla, Inc., et al. (No. 25-7927) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 31, 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/2026/08/31/25-7927.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7927&hearingDate=2026-08-31 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-08-31&loc=SF Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-7927 Rule 23(f) permission docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-5532 Class-certification order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_22-cv-05240/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_22-cv-05240-7.pdf Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Julie Fieber — Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy: https://www.cpmlegal.com/cases/investigations/CPM-Pursuing-California-Class-Action-Against-Tesla-for-Allegedly-Misleading-the-Public-about-its-Full-Self-Driving-Capability-Package

Ocampo Fitz v. Venegas Nunez — 5th Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears a dispute over U.S. rights to the band name Los Yaguaru de Angel Venegas. Zeferino Ocampo Fitz says common-law rights passed to him through assignments beginning in 2009, or arose from his U.S. management and promotion of the band. The district court held on summary judgment that the agreement transferred only specified Mexican rights and that Fitz could not establish U.S. ownership. It dismissed his false-association and unfair-competition claims, then his request to cancel Elizabeth Venegas Nunez's federal registration. Common-law trademark rights arise from use without federal registration; rights in one country do not automatically carry into another. A trademark transferred without its business goodwill is an assignment in gross and is generally invalid. Fitz asks the Fifth Circuit to reverse. Ocampo Fitz v. Venegas Nunez (No. 25-11245) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 1, 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/25/25-11245_09-01-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-09-01&to=2026-09-01 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-09-01 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-11245 District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/3%3A2023cv02298/382427 Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_23-cv-02298/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_23-cv-02298-1.pdf Trademark cancellation record — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92077410-CAN-10.pdf Trademark proceeding status — U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-92077410-CAN-37.pdf 15 U.S.C. § 1125 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section1125 15 U.S.C. § 1119 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title15-section1119 Rex Real Estate I v. Rex Real Estate Exchange — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-50405-CV0.pdf Amazing Spaces v. Metro Mini Storage — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-20702-CV0.wpd.pdf C.P. Interests v. California Pools — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-21038.cv0.wpd.pdf Anthony Thomas Ricciardelli — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContactID=311129&Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm Brian Casper — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContactID=316810&Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm Brian Casper — Klemchuk: https://www.klemchuk.com/team/brian-casper

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected