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:

USA v. Glenn Bowden — 7th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Glenn Bowden's sentencing appeal. Bowden has an earlier federal robbery sentence. This appeal concerns a separate eighty-seven-month sentence on three counts, including false statements. The false-statement count involved denying the other conduct investigators were looking into. The dispute centers on a sentencing cross-reference: a rule directing the court to another offense's guideline when the count establishes that other offense. The court also considers waiver: intentionally giving up an objection is different from simply failing to raise it. USA v. Glenn Bowden (No. 25-2297) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2297.25-2297_10_06_2026.mp3 Argument date and case identity — Seventh Circuit recordings: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Current sentencing background — Northern District of Illinois DOJ release: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/federal-inmate-sentenced-additional-seven-years-prison-threatening-us-probation Earlier robbery sentence only — District court opinion,24-cv-04528 Doc16: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2024cv04528/459611/16/ False-statement allegations — Filed indictment,24-cr-143 Doc1: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/media/1344421/dl?inline= Sentencing cross-reference mechanism — USSC section2B1.1(c)(3): https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-2-c Waiver and forfeiture — United States v. Olano: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep507/usrep507725/usrep507725.pdf

US v. Selah Street — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit reviews Street's sentence. The sentencing dispute concerns an increase for reckless endangerment during flight. Street also challenges the judge's alternative sentence, saying it relied on mistaken factual findings. An alternative sentence states what the judge would impose even under a different guideline calculation. Harmless-error review asks whether an alleged mistake mattered to the sentence, rather than assuming every mistake requires sending the case back. US v. Selah Street (No. 25-4051) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-4051-20260916.mp3 Argument date and prior sentencing dispute — Fourth Circuit hearing calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Harmless-error rule — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/criminal_federal_rules_pamphlet_dec_1_2023.pdf Alternative sentences and harmless-error review — United States v. Elbaz: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/204019A.P.pdf

USA v. Rodriguez Velasquez — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears United States versus Rodriguez Velasquez. Rodriguez Velasquez was sentenced for smuggling goods from the United States, and he is appealing that sentence. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, a base offense level is the starting number used to calculate a recommended sentencing range. Other adjustments and criminal history also enter the calculation; offense levels are not years of imprisonment. USA v. Rodriguez Velasquez (No. 25-5044) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit (official recording ends during the judge's closing remarks; both sides' arguments and rebuttal are retained): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/17/25-5044.mp3 Argument date and case identification — Ninth Circuit recording archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5044&hearingDate=2026-09-17 Prior sentencing and appeal background — Ninth Circuit hearing calendar: https://nspdsbhgkjtdjkn7olazqapgei0ileeg.lambda-url.us-west-2.on.aws/?search=25-5044 Sentencing levels and ranges — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/about/overview/2025_Guidelines-Basics-Trifold.pdf Independent example of sentencing calculation — United States v. Stines: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202011035.pdf

Jenyfer Fajardo-Rivas v. Todd Blanche — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit reviews a refusal to reopen Fajardo-Rivas's immigration case. Fajardo-Rivas asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen the case to seek asylum and related protection. The Board refused because it found she had not made an initial showing that she could qualify. The question is whether the Board abused its discretion in denying that request. Asylum requires a connection between persecution and a protected ground, such as membership in a particular social group. That connection is called a nexus. Jenyfer Fajardo-Rivas v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-1280) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1280-20260916.mp3 Argument date and prior agency decision — Fourth Circuit hearing calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Asylum's protected-ground requirement — 8 U.S.C. § 1158: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 Nexus requirement — Perez Vasquez v. Garland: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191954.P.pdf

US v. Jesse Owens — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears United States versus Jesse Owens. Owens appeals following a hearing to revoke his supervised release. Supervised release is court supervision after prison; violating its conditions can lead to more imprisonment. The dispute concerns conduct treated as South Carolina first-degree assault and battery, and whether it counts as a crime of violence under the federal sentencing guidelines. A qualifying crime of violence can make a release violation Grade A, the guidelines' most serious category. The appeal asks whether a later South Carolina decision, Clemons, changes that classification. US v. Jesse Owens (No. 25-4469) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-4469-20260916.mp3 Argument date and appeal issue — Fourth Circuit hearing calendar: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Revocation hearing and counsel appearance — appellate docket entries: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/25-4469 Supervised release — 18 U.S.C. § 3583: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap227-subchapD-sec3583.pdf Revocation grades — 2024 Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter 7: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/GLMFull.pdf Crime-of-violence analysis — United States v. Mack: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/214191.P.pdf Plain-error review — United States v. Olano: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/725/ Plain-error review — United States v. Holman: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/254041.P.pdf Elements versus means — Mathis v. United States: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-6092/

Mohammed Basheer v. Todd Blanche — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit reviews an immigration agency's treatment of a Virginia marijuana offense. The case had already returned to the agency for another review. On remand, the agency determined that violations of the statute at issue categorically involve moral turpitude. That label refers to seriously reprehensible conduct, not merely anything illegal, and it can carry serious immigration consequences. The petitioner challenges that classification. The Virginia statute covers selling or giving marijuana, and possessing it with intent to distribute. A categorical test focuses on the offense defined by the statute, rather than retrying a person's actual conduct. The question is whether even the least culpable conduct covered by the law necessarily meets that serious standard. Mohammed Basheer v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-1804) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1804-20260916.mp3 Case and argument date — Fourth Circuit recording listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Prior agency remand and classification — Fourth Circuit September calendar, page 10: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Virginia marijuana-distribution statute — Code of Virginia § 18.2-248.1: https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter7/section18.2-248.1/ Moral turpitude and categorical analysis — Matter of Silva-Trevino, pages 831–834: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/902461/dl Categorical approach — Moncrieffe v. Holder, majority opinion § II A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-702

Bales v. Houston Independent School District — 5th Cir. (Sep 3, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Bales versus Houston Independent School District. Leslie and Bryan Bales sued the school district and Lamar High School's principal over school employees' treatment of them and their adult daughter. They alleged violations of free speech, equal protection and due process. The district judge dismissed the lawsuit. The father's claims failed for lack of standing: the court found he had not alleged a sufficiently personal injury. The mother's free-speech claim alleging viewpoint discrimination failed on qualified immunity because she had not identified clearly established law. The appeal challenges that dismissal. You will hear repeated references to Rule Twelve. For the failure-to-state-a-claim question, the court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and asks whether they plausibly support legal relief; legal conclusions alone are not enough. Bales v. Houston Independent School District (No. 25-20487) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 3, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20487_9-3-2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Fifth Circuit recording listing: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-20487 Family/school background and prior dismissal grounds — Fifth Circuit opinion: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-20487.0.pdf Pleading standard — Ashcroft v. Iqbal, printed pages 678–679: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-662.pdf Failure-to-state-a-claim motion — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/civil_federal_rules_pamphlet_dec_1_2023.pdf

United States v. Chadwick Lemaine — 11th Cir. (Oct 1, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

We hear United States versus Chadwick Lemaine, a sentencing appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. Lemaine pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. A guilty plea can support a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility, but it does not guarantee that reduction. The guideline focuses on accepting responsibility for one's offense, while its commentary also tells judges to consider whether the defendant stopped criminal conduct. United States v. Chadwick Lemaine (No. 24-14049) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued October 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-14049_10012026.mp3 Case and argument date — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Guilty plea and prior felony background — U.S. Attorney, Middle District of Florida: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/orlando-felon-pleads-guilty-possessing-firearm-0 Acceptance of responsibility — 2024 Sentencing Guidelines §3E1.1, printed pages384–386: https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2024/CHAPTER_3.pdf Appeal docket — appellate clerk entries through January24,2025: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-14049

In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 — 2d Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears an appeal in the September 11 litigation involving judgments against Iran. Several groups of plaintiffs had obtained judgments in cases handled together in the Southern District of New York. The district court later certified Iran judgments as final under Rule 54(b) and authorized their registration in the Eastern District of New York. When a case has multiple claims or parties, Rule 54(b) allows a court to enter a final judgment on fewer than all of them, but only if it expressly finds no just reason for delay. In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 (No. 26-666) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-666.mp3 Argument date and docket — Official Second Circuit recording listing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Prior Iran-judgment certification and registration — Daniels order, April 1, 2026: https://app.midpage.ai/document/smith-v-the-islamic-emirate--26347602-0cca-4011-9284-ea9ce188e1e9 Rule 54(b) — Current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, page 80: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf

Gutierrez-Flores v Blanche — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 10, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears Maritza Gutierrez-Flores's challenge to the denial of immigration protection. She sought asylum and related protection, relying on the groups Salvadoran women and single Salvadoran women. The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected both groups. Her lawyers contend that being single is a characteristic she should not be required to change. She will ask this court to set aside the Board's decision and send her claim back for reconsideration. Gutierrez-Flores v Blanche (No. 25-1964) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1964_20261007.mp3 Argument date and docket — Official First Circuit recording listing: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Prior agency reasoning and petitioner's position — AILA/CGRS amicus brief, pages 3–4 and 14–15: https://assets.aila.org/files/8bec6be2-5172-4fd2-b2da-d6816a8f705a/26042133.pdf?1776776236=

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected