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 v. State of California — 9th Cir. (Aug 25, 2026) Aug 26, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit returns to the United States' challenge to Section 10 of California's No Vigilantes Act. The provision generally requires nonuniformed law-enforcement officers, including federal officers, to display their agency and either a name or badge number while performing specified enforcement duties. The district court declined to block it. In April, this same panel barred California from enforcing it against federal agencies and officers while the appeal proceeds. The merits question is whether the law impermissibly regulates the federal government under the Supremacy Clause. United States v. State of California (No. 26-926) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 25, 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/2026/08/25/26-926.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-926&hearingDate=2026-08-25 Prior injunction-pending-appeal opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/22/26-926.pdf California Penal Code § 13654 — California Legislative Information: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=&lawCode=PEN&part=4.&title=4.7. Argument report — Courthouse News Service: https://courthousenews.com/california-faces-uphill-battle-to-keep-no-vigilantes-act-intact/

Haw River Assembly v. United States Army Corps of Engineers — 4th Cir. (May 13, 2026) Aug 25, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit considers whether to pause a Clean Water Act permit for Transco's Southeast Supply Enhancement Project while five environmental groups challenge it. The groups say the Corps failed to independently verify Transco's reasons for trenching through streams and wetlands instead of boring beneath them, and assessed cumulative harm without adequate baseline data. The Corps says the record contains the required crossing analysis; Transco says a stay would disrupt active construction. Five days later, the court denied the stay. Haw River Assembly v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (No. 26-1470) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued May 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1470-20260513.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalMay132026.pdf Petitioners' motion for a stay — Fourth Circuit filing: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/transco-4th-13-042226.pdf Federal respondents' opposition — Fourth Circuit filing: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/transco-4th-34-043026.pdf Transco's opposition — Fourth Circuit filing: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/transco-4th-33-043026.pdf Order denying a stay — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/transco-4th-59-051826.pdf Petitioners' counsel report on the stay order — Southern Environmental Law Center: https://www.selc.org/press-release/fourth-circuit-court-denies-stay-for-southeast-supply-enhancement-project/ Derek Teaney — Appalachian Mountain Advocates: https://appalmad.org/about-us/ Mary Gabrielle Sprague — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/justice-departments-successful-defense-lands-trust-case-will-preserve-land-massachusetts George P. Sibley III — Hunton Andrews Kurth: https://www.hunton.com/people/george-sibley

Schindler v. Squires — Fed. Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 24, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Edwin Schindler's challenge to a suspension of at least two years from practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The agency found that Schindler helped Michael Kroll continue patent work after Kroll had been suspended and excluded from USPTO practice, violated fee-sharing rules, and failed to keep clients informed. Schindler asks the court to set that discipline aside. Schindler v. Squires (No. 25-1557) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued July 10, 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/25-1557_07102026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Initial decision — In re Schindler, USPTO proceeding D2019-43: https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/oed/1-Schindler-Initial-Decision-Redacted.pdf Final order — In re Schindler, USPTO proceeding D2019-43: https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/oed/2-Schindler%27s-Final-Order-%28D2019-43%29-Redacted.pdf Final order on reconsideration — In re Schindler, USPTO: https://foiadocuments.uspto.gov/oed/5-Schindler-Final-Order-on-Reconsideration-%28D2019-43%29-Redacted.pdf District-court opinion — Schindler v. Vidal, E.D. Va.: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/virginia/vaedce/1%3A2024cv00262/549786/51/ Judgment — Schindler v. Squires, Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1557.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.7-17-2026_2724302.pdf

United States v. Nathaniel A. Casillas — CAAF (May 20, 2026) Aug 23, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviews two prosecutions over different child-pornography files on the same iPhone. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals set aside Casillas's second possession conviction on double-jeopardy grounds but left his second viewing conviction intact. The government says files acquired on different dates are separate offenses. Casillas says the phone was the unit of prosecution—the thing that counts as one offense—so a second trial for possession or viewing on it was barred. Because the Air Force Judge Advocate General certified the questions, the government argues first. United States v. Nathaniel A. Casillas (No. 26-0096/AF) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued May 20, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/CourtAudio13/20260520B.mp3 Hearing calendar and counsel — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/calendar/202605.htm United States' brief on the certified issues — CAAF filing: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2025Term/Casillas260096AppellantBrief.pdf United States' reply brief — CAAF filing: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2025Term/Casillas260096AppellantReplyBrief.pdf Casillas's answer brief — CAAF filing: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2025Term/Casillas260096AppelleeBrief.pdf Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals opinion: https://afcca.law.af.mil/afcca_opinions/cp/casillas_-_40551_u_2479433.pdf Certificate for review — CAAF Daily Journal: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/journal/2026Jrnl/2026Jan.htm Oral-argument entry — CAAF Daily Journal: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/journal/2026Jrnl/2026May.htm

Salazar v. National Basketball Association — 2d Cir. (Jun 16, 2026) Aug 22, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Michael Salazar’s second appeal over the NBA website’s Facebook Pixel, tracking code he says linked him to videos he watched. The Video Privacy Protection Act generally restricts disclosure of a consumer’s personally identifiable viewing information. The district court dismissed his claim under circuit precedent requiring the data to identify a viewer to an ordinary person. An earlier appeal held that his free NBA newsletter subscription made him a consumer. Joshua Hammack of Bailey & Glasser will argue for Salazar that later Supreme Court decisions undermine that test. Hilary Preston of Vinson & Elkins will argue for the NBA that the panel remains bound by it and should affirm. Salazar v. National Basketball Association (No. 25-2478) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued June 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2478.mp3 Argument date — Second Circuit oral argument search: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html First-appeal opinion — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-1147_opn.pdf Opinion and order on remand — Southern District of New York: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2022cv07935/586473/81/ Current appellate docket — PACER entries mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2478 NBA appellee brief — filed Second Circuit brief: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/salazar-nba-second-circuit-appellee-brief.pdf Golden v. NBCUniversal summary order — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-2226_so.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 2710 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title18-section2710 Joshua I. Hammack — Bailey & Glasser: https://www.baileyglasser.com/lawyers-joshua-i-hammack Joshua I. Hammack filing — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A23/415458/20260701131443763_No.-_ApplicationForAnExtensionOfTime.pdf Hilary L. Preston — Vinson & Elkins: https://www.velaw.com/people/hilary-l-preston/ Decision search — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions.html

Orozco Aguilar v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 21, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Orozco Aguilar versus Blanche. Yenifer Orozco Aguilar sought asylum after a Guatemalan gang threatened to kill her daughter unless she paid. Her appeal asks whether her relatives' safety undermined her fear of returning, even though they moved often and hired guards. Counsel for Orozco Aguilar will argue that those precautions show why her fear is reasonable. Government counsel will argue that the family's continued safety permits the agency's denial. Orozco Aguilar v. Blanche (No. 21-1288) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/10/21-1288.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=21-1288&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Memorandum disposition — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/03/21-1288.pdf

National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser — 10th Cir. (Aug 18, 2026) Aug 19, 2026

Show notes

The full Tenth Circuit reconsiders how far Colorado's opt-out from a federal banking law lets it enforce state interest-rate caps. A federal district court blocked enforcement against certain loans by out-of-state, state-chartered banks. Colorado says a borrower's location in Colorado brings a loan within the opt-out. Three banking trade groups say the bank's loan-making location controls, not the borrower's. National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser (No. 24-1293) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued August 18, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/24-1293_enbanc.mp3 Argument date and recording — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F19%2F2026 Historical panel opinion — Tenth Circuit; judgment later vacated: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111333659.pdf En banc rehearing order — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111411559.pdf Colorado officials' filed en banc response: https://afsaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/CO-DIDMCA-Weiser-DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-EN-BANC-SUPPLEMENTAL-RESPONSE-BRIEF.pdf Trade groups' filed en banc brief: https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Brief.pdf David Gossett — current firm profile: https://www.dwt.com/people/g/gossett-david David Gossett — independent FCBA event roster, page 3: https://www.fcba.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FINAL-FCBA-News-July-2025.pdf DIDMCA Section 521 — 12 U.S.C. § 1831d: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title12-section1831d DIDMCA Sections 521 and 525 — enacted statute: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg132.pdf Federal interest-rate authority — FDIC: https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2020/fil20065.html Usury — OCC glossary: https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/glossary/index-glossary.html Usury ceilings — CFPB official commentary: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1026/2024-01-01/interp-18/

Mukantagara, et al. v. Mullin, et al. — 10th Cir. (Aug 17, 2026) Aug 18, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit reconsiders whether Agnes Mukantagara and her son, Ebenezer Shyaka, may obtain court review of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services finding that they were not refugees when admitted. The agency based that finding on its conclusion that Mukantagara had participated in the Rwandan genocide; she denies it. A January panel decision allowed their suit to proceed, but the court vacated that decision after the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe. The panel will now consider whether review is barred and whether another route remains. Mukantagara, et al. v. Mullin, et al. (No. 24-4071) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued August 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/24-4071_rehearing.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F18%2F2026 Order granting panel rehearing — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111468891.pdf Opinion search for No. 24-4071 — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/search?combine=24-4071 Vacated January 2026 panel opinion — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111366275.pdf Earlier jurisdiction opinion — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110860407.pdf Mullin v. Doe — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf Statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (refugee admission and termination): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1157&num=0&edition=prelim Statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (judicial review): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1252&num=0&edition=prelim Statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (refugee definition): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1101&num=0&edition=prelim Attorney biography — Daniel R. Black, Stowell Crayk: https://stowellcrayk.com/team-member/daniel-r-black/

United States v. Ruiz and United States v. Hebert — 10th Cir. (Aug 17, 2026) Aug 18, 2026

Show notes

The full Tenth Circuit hears United States versus Ruiz and United States versus Hebert together. Separate juries convicted Joel Ruiz and Dennis Hebert of federal sexual-abuse offenses in Indian country. Separate appellate panels later held that prosecutors had not proved either defendant was a non-Indian, as circuit precedent required. The full court vacated those judgments. It will reconsider whether non-Indian status is an element the government must prove or an affirmative defense the defendant must raise, who bears the ultimate burden, and whether the cases may be retried if the rule changes. United States v. Ruiz and United States v. Hebert (No. 24-2128 & 24-7030) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued August 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/24-7030_enbanc.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F18%2F2026 Panel opinion — United States v. Hebert: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111338503.pdf Revised panel opinion — United States v. Ruiz: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111377175.pdf Order granting rehearing en banc — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111430408.pdf Opinion search for No. 24-7030 — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/search?combine=24-7030 Opinion search for No. 24-2128 — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/search?combine=24-2128 Filed brief (copy) — United States' supplemental en banc brief: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/us-en-banc-brief.pdf Filed brief (copy) — Joel Ruiz's response to rehearing petition: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/response.pdf Filed brief (copy) — Dennis Hebert's response to rehearing petition: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/response-1.pdf Statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (General Crimes Act): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:1152%20edition:prelim) Statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian country defined): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1151&num=0&edition=prelim McGirt v. Oklahoma — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

Mark Freund, et al. v. Douglas A. Collins — CAVC (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 17, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reviews a proposed class settlement in Freund v. Collins. The case concerns files automatically closed in the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System, or VACOLS, because the system treated them as missing a timely substantive appeal—the filing used to carry an old-system benefits dispute to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The class covers files closed from December 12, 1990, through February 6, 2025, and still closed. Under the proposal, VA would manually review 28,258 files flagged as likely to contain timely appeals, reactivate qualifying appeals, and let other class members request review. Up to 64,599 additional files would receive individual notice. The court will decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Mark Freund, et al. v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 21-4168) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued August 13, 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/Freund(Rule%2023(e)(2)%20Hearing).MP3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Public docket — Freund v. Collins, No. 21-4168: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=21-4168&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Class-certification and fairness-hearing order — Veterans Court: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/FreundM_21-4168.pdf Proposed settlement agreement — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012108535 Proposed-settlement notice — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: https://news.va.gov/146172/notice-proposed-settlement-substantive-appeals/ Fairness-hearing notice — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: https://news.va.gov/147326/freund-v-collins-fairness-hearing-scheduled/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected