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:

United States of America v. Jordan — 2d Cir. (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit reviews Karl Jordan Jr.'s bail order. A jury returned guilty verdicts on two murder counts arising from the killing of Jason Mizell, known as Jam Master Jay. The district judge later entered a Rule 29 acquittal on those counts, finding insufficient evidence that the killing was connected to narcotics trafficking. Rule 29 permits acquittal when evidence cannot legally support a conviction. Drug and firearm counts remain pending. The government says Jordan remains a danger and flight risk; Jordan says changed circumstances and strict release conditions support bail. United States of America v. Jordan (No. 26-918) — 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/26-918.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/ca2/26-918 Related merits docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-16 Rule 29 memorandum and order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_20-cr-00305/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_20-cr-00305-2.pdf Jury-verdict announcement — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/two-queens-men-convicted-drug-related-murder-run-dmc-dj-jason-mizell-also-known-jam Related-case update — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/jay-bryant-pleads-guilty-accomplice-murder-run-dmcs-jason-mizell-also-known-jam-master Release-order report — Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/10f5b346f9b178b45c2e1a4909226d41 Rule 29 ruling report — Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/3df05e67540e9d60f4148f888feedbcc 18 U.S.C. § 3142 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap207-sec3142.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 3143 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap207-sec3143.pdf United States v. Mattis — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-20-01713/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-20-01713-0.pdf Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_33 Anderson v. Bessemer City — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-470/pdf/USREPORTS-470-564.pdf Miranda Gonzalez — New York attorney registration: https://data.ny.gov/resource/eqw2-r5nb.json?registration_number=5590450 Michael O. Hueston — New York attorney registration: https://data.ny.gov/resource/eqw2-r5nb.json?registration_number=2688471 Michael Hueston — Brooklyn Law School: https://www.brooklaw.edu/contact-us/hueston-michael/

Lee v. Kennedy — 9th Cir. (Aug 31, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Dr. Mansur Lee's appeal over a Medicare affiliation sanction. CMS revoked his enrollment, placed him on the preclusion list, and imposed a ten-year reenrollment bar because he served as medical director of a hospice whose billing privileges were revoked. The district court dismissed his suit before agency review ended. Lee says due process required a meaningful pre-deprivation hearing and the statute did not authorize the ten-year bar. The Secretary says Lee must finish agency review before going to federal court. Ultra vires means beyond an agency's statutory authority. Lee v. Kennedy (No. 26-1820) — 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/2026/08/31/26-1820.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1820&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/ca9/26-1820 District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/8%3A2026cv00444/1008325 Administrative ruling — HHS Departmental Appeals Board: https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/dab/decisions/alj-decisions/2026/alj-ruling-2026-18/index.html Administrative decision — HHS Departmental Appeals Board: https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/dab/decisions/alj-decisions/2026/alj-cr6930/index.html 42 U.S.C. § 1395cc — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title42-section1395cc 42 C.F.R. § 424.535 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-42/chapter-IV/subchapter-B/part-424/subpart-P/section-424.535 Counsel calendar — U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/dd5d16d2-bc22-42fb-9262-08de86bcdd42 Patric Hooper — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/57343 Patric Hooper — Hooper, Lundy & Bookman: https://hooperlundy.com/professional/patric-hooper/ Alexander Layne Farrell — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/335008 Ultra vires — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ultra_vires Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/605us2r51_c07d.pdf Opinion search — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://rf9ecr1p0i.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/opinions/search?q=26-1820 Memorandum search — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://xcglumg9bj.execute-api.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/prod/memoranda/search?q=26-1820

Presley / Bolton-Pellerin v. Collins — CAVC (Sep 1, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Veterans Court considers whether two consolidated caregiver appeals should proceed as a class action, letting named appellants seek a shared remedy for similarly situated people. Sharon Presley and Shyrl Bolton-Pellerin applied under VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers, or PCAFC. The veterans died while benefit proceedings were pending, and the Board denied both appeals as a matter of law. The caregivers seek a class-wide remand for applicants whose appeals were denied or dismissed because the veteran died. The Secretary says jurisdiction, prejudice, and eligibility require individual review; a precedential ruling, it says, is enough. Presley / Bolton-Pellerin v. Collins (No. 25-1636 / 25-5259) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued September 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Presley_Bolton-Pellerin.MP3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Public docket — Presley v. Collins, No. 25-1636: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=25-1636&fullDocketReport=Y&incPrior=Y&incAssoc=Y&incPtyAty=Y&incCaption=long&incDktEntries=Y Public docket — Bolton-Pellerin v. Collins, No. 25-5259: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=25-5259&fullDocketReport=Y&incPrior=Y&incAssoc=Y&incPtyAty=Y&incCaption=long&incDktEntries=Y Order consolidating the two appeals — Veterans Court: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011913818 Board decision — Sharon D. Presley: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011321747 Board decision — Shyrl Bolton-Pellerin: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011913850 Sharon Presley's request for class certification: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011715618 Secretary's response opposing class certification: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012555470 Appellants' reply supporting class certification: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012760180 Order limiting oral argument to class certification: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012720058 Order setting the September 1, 2026 argument: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012740077 Rule 23 — Veterans Court Rules of Practice and Procedure: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/RulesofPracticeandProcedure20250224.pdf Renée Burbank — National Veterans Legal Services Program: https://nvlsp.org/who-we-are/our-team/

Weatherford Independent School District v. K.L. — 5th Cir. (Aug 31, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears an appeal by K.L. under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. A Texas hearing officer found Weatherford Independent School District denied K.L. a FAPE—a free appropriate public education—and awarded a year at Calo Programs or a comparable approved residential facility as compensatory education—services meant to make up for that denial. The district court declined to order interim funding. On September 4, 2026, the Fifth Circuit remanded, holding that stay-put requires the hearing officer's placement while review continues and directing the district court to address the stay-put order promptly with the pending summary-judgment motions. Weatherford Independent School District v. K.L. (No. 26-10252) — 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/26/26-10252_08-31-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-09-01 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-31 Opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/26/26-10252.0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/26-10252 Opinion copy and decision metadata — Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/26-10252/26-10252-2026-09-04.html Preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/4%3A2026cv00108/414540/20/0.pdf District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/4%3A2026cv00108/414540 20 U.S.C. § 1415 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title20-section1415&num=0&edition=prelim 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-E/subject-group-ECFRb4f968895589ff4/section-300.518 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.518 Compensatory education — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40796-CV0.pdf Compensatory services guidance — U.S. Department of Education: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/return-to-school-roadmap-development-and-implementation-of-ieps/ Mark S. Whitburn — Whitburn & Pevsner: https://www.whitburnpevsner.com/mark-whitburn Mark S. Whitburn — Law360: https://www.law360.com/firms/whitburn-pevsner/attorneys/mark-s-whitburn Grant Moore — Leasor Crass: https://leasorcrass.com/staff/grant-moore/ Grant Moore — Law360: https://www.law360.com/firms/leasor-crass/attorneys/grant-moore

Park v. Shinhan Bank America — 2d Cir. (Aug 31, 2026) Sep 01, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears consolidated appeals involving four former compliance employees and Shinhan Bank America. The employees say the bank retaliated after they reported compliance concerns to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. A district court dismissed their claim under the bank-whistleblower provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, or FIRREA, because the complaint did not plausibly allege that the bank knew about the reports. The court also held that the defendants gave up arbitration by first seeking dismissal in court. Both sides appealed. Park v. Shinhan Bank America (No. 25-2453 / 25-2656) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued August 31, 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/25-2453,%2025-2656.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Lead-appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2453 Cross-appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2656 District-court opinion and order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv10331/590651/74/0.pdf Recent district-court clarification — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (via Justia): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv10331/590651/85/0.pdf 12 U.S.C. § 1831j — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title12-section1831j Independent case analysis — Proskauer Whistleblower Defense: https://www.proskauer.com/blog/court-narrowly-interprets-whistleblower-protections-under-amla-and-firrea Stephen Bergstein — Bergstein & Ullrich: https://www.tbulaw.com/about-us.html Stephen Bergstein — New York State Bar Association: https://nysba.org/am2026-labor-and-employment-law-section/ James D. Nelson — Best Lawyers: https://www.bestlawyers.com/lawyers/james-nelson/338487 James D. Nelson counsel listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/20/23-780.pdf

Shabaka Fletcher v. Verida, Inc., et al. — 11th Cir. (Jul 31, 2026) Aug 31, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears a dispute over Verida's attempt to move a Georgia tort suit filed by Shabaka Fletcher against Verida and Johnson's Medical Transport from state to federal court. Fletcher asked to send it back. The federal-officer removal statute lets certain defendants acting under federal authority make that move. The lawyers will debate whether Verida qualifies through its work in Georgia's Medicaid transportation program. The argument concerns which court will hear the suit, not who is liable. Shabaka Fletcher v. Verida, Inc., et al. (No. 25-12801) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued July 31, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-12801_07312026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=1 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal21%28Rev.2%29_1.pdf District-court docket — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (via Justia): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/georgia/gandce/1%3A2024cv04234/334236 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-2000-title28-section1442 Caver v. Central Alabama Electric Cooperative — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201515207.pdf Irving W. Jones Jr. profile — Balch & Bingham: https://www.balch.com/professionals/j/jones-irving Irving Jones partnership announcement — Alabama State Bar: https://www.alabar.org/assets/2023/04/March-2023-Web-proof.pdf Published-opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/logname.php Unpublished-opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/logname.php

KalshiEX LLC v. Matthew T. Schuler, et al. / KalshiEX LLC v. William Orgel, et al. — 6th Cir. (Jul 30, 2026) Aug 30, 2026

Show notes

The Sixth Circuit hears two appeals together over Kalshi's sports-event contracts. A federal court in Ohio refused to block state enforcement; a federal court in Tennessee did block it. Kalshi says federal commodities law treats these contracts as swaps and therefore places them within the CFTC's exclusive jurisdiction. The states say sports wagers are not swaps and remain subject to state gambling law. Both rulings are preliminary; this panel has not decided either appeal. KalshiEX LLC v. Matthew T. Schuler, et al. / KalshiEX LLC v. William Orgel, et al. (No. 26-3196 / 26-5235) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued July 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/audio/07-30-2026%20-%20Thursday/26-3196%20KalshiEX%20LLC%20v%20Matthew%20Schuler.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/aud1.php Ohio preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_25-cv-01165/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_25-cv-01165-0.pdf Ohio preliminary-injunction order — readable mirror: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohsdce/2%3A2025cv01165/306374/69/0.pdf Tennessee preliminary-injunction order — U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_26-cv-00034/pdf/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_26-cv-00034-0.pdf Tennessee preliminary-injunction order — readable mirror: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/tennessee/tnmdce/3%3A2026cv00034/107541/48/0.pdf Designated contract markets — CFTC: https://www.cftc.gov/IndustryOversight/TradingOrganizations/DCMs/index.htm KalshiEX designation — CFTC: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8302-20 Tennessee appeal explanation — Tennessee Attorney General: https://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/news/2026/5/26/pr26-22.html Tennessee opening brief — Tennessee Attorney General: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2026/pr26-22-brief.pdf William E. Havemann — Milbank LLP: https://www.milbank.com/en/professionals/will-havemann.html Mathura J. Sridharan — Ohio Attorney General: https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About-AG/Service-Divisions/Office-of-the-Solicitor-General Argument report — SBC Americas: https://sbcamericas.com/2026/07/30/kalshi-sixth-circuit-ohio-tennessee/ Murphy v. NCAA — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep505/usrep505088/usrep505088.pdf Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf Loper Bright and agency deference — Congressional Research Service: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48320/R48320.1.pdf Pending case report — Southern District of Ohio appeals: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/case_reports/rptPendingDistrict_OHS.pdf Pending case report — Middle District of Tennessee appeals: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/case_reports/rptPendingDistrict_TNM.pdf

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 28, 2026) Aug 29, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether the Civil Service Reform Act bars district-court review of a government-wide Office of Personnel Management directive under the Administrative Procedure Act. Unions, nonprofits, and Washington State sued OPM and other agencies. The district court held that OPM unlawfully directed probationary terminations and ordered corrective relief; that merits ruling is not before this panel. The government says the Act forecloses review. The plaintiffs say their challenge to OPM falls outside it because these employees had no administrative channel for this claim. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al. v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al. (No. 25-5875) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 28, 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/2026/08/28/25-5875.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5875&hearingDate=2026-08-28 Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-01780/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-01780-8.pdf Federal workforce report — U.S. Government Accountability Office: https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-26-108427/index.html Argument report — Courthouse News Service: https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-push-ninth-circuit-to-undo-corrected-employment-records-of-fired-workers/ Joshua M. Koppel — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212883p.pdf Joshua Koppel argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2025/3 Danielle E. Leonard case record — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A904/352768/20250324090408115_Application%20America%20Federation%20of%20Govt%20Employees.pdf Danielle E. Leonard — Altshuler Berzon LLP: https://altshulerberzon.com/ Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep510/usrep510200/usrep510200.pdf Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-86_l5gm.pdf

S.D., et al. v. Reese, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 27, 2026) Aug 28, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers class-wide preliminary relief over Oregon's housing reviews for transgender women in custody. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief before final judgment. Provisional class certification temporarily treats the group as a class for preliminary relief. The district court ordered individualized reviews beginning with a presumption favoring housing consistent with gender identity and accounting for preferences, safety, medical needs, and other factors. Oregon says aggregate data do not prove a statewide default. S.D., J.F., and the class say the data and declarations support the order. S.D., et al. v. Reese, et al. (No. 26-4872) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 27, 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/2026/08/27/26-4872.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-4872&hearingDate=2026-08-27 Preliminary-injunction opinion and order — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-6_25-cv-01726/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-6_25-cv-01726-0.pdf Reconsideration opinion and amended relief — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-6_25-cv-01726/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-6_25-cv-01726-1.pdf Argument report — Oregon Public Broadcasting: https://www.opb.org/article/2026/08/27/oregon-transgender-trans-prison-law-lawsuit/ Ariel T. Ashtamker — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/331199 Ariel Ashtamker — Oregon Judicial Department opinion: https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/42443/download John Burgess — Post Burgess LLC: https://civilrightsoregon.com/attorneys/john-burgess/ John Burgess — Oregon State Bar: https://www.osbar.org/members/membersearch_display.asp?b=106498&s=1 John Burgess — Oregon Judicial Department opinion: https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p17027coll5/id/39270/download Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/26-4872 Provisional class certification — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/12/10/20-55568.pdf

Angela C. Hines v. Douglas A. Collins — CAVC (Aug 26, 2026) Aug 27, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims considers an unsigned intent-to-file form. Angela Hines receives benefits for a right-arm fracture and surgical scar, effective August 22, 2018. An effective date is when benefits begin. Hines seeks August 24, 2017, when VA received her form without its signature section. The Board denied the earlier dates. The question is whether her 2018 claim completed an incomplete application within one year and preserved the 2017 date, or whether a written intent to file must be signed and dated. Angela C. Hines v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 24-8967) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued August 26, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Hines.MP3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Public docket — Hines v. Collins, No. 24-8967: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=24-8967&fullDocketReport=Y&incPrior=Y&incAssoc=Y&incPtyAty=Y&incCaption=long&incDktEntries=Y Board of Veterans' Appeals decision: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011068697 Appellant's brief — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011979049 Secretary's brief — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012295948 38 U.S.C. § 5102 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:38%20section:5102%20edition:prelim) 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.155 Kenneth H. Dojaquez — Carpenter Chartered: https://carpenterchartered.com/our-team/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected