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:

Andrew Filipowski v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue — 11th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit considers Andrew Filipowski's challenge to the IRS's rejection of his one point five million dollar offer to settle a tax debt exceeding one hundred twenty-seven million dollars. The agency estimated he could pay nearly six million dollars and also rejected the offer on public-policy grounds. Filipowski says factual errors and disputed evidence made summary judgment improper; the Commissioner says the rejection was reasonable. Andrew Filipowski v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 25-11382) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11382_08132026.mp3 Argument recordings — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Tax Court appellate report: https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/resources/appellate_reports/appellate_report_april_2025.pdf Tax Court order: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/6778bb2fe67ab624d05437aa Appellate docket — Docket Alarm: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Eleventh_Circuit/25-11382/Andrew_Filipowski_v._Commissioner_of_Internal_Revenue/ Case report — Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/irs-backs-rejecting-deal-on-entrepreneurs-127-million-tax-debt Offer in compromise — IRS: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc204 Public-policy review — IRS Manual: https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-008-007 Offer regulations — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title26-vol20/pdf/CFR-2025-title26-vol20-sec301-7122-1.pdf Summary judgment — U.S. Tax Court: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/Rule-121_Amended_03202023.pdf Summary-judgment review — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201615851.pdf Collection review — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/200513234.pdf Tom Laser — Saul Ewing: https://www.saul.com/professionals/tom-laser Adam S. Fayne — Saul Ewing: https://www.saul.com/professionals/adam-s-fayne/experience Ellen Page DelSole — federal court record: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca6-19-03469/pdf/USCOURTS-ca6-19-03469-0.pdf Published-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/search.php Unpublished-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/search.php

Simmons v. Bauer Rentals — 9th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Kimeka Simmons and her children appeal a jury verdict for their former landlords. Simmons requested permission for an emotional-support animal, and the landlords later declined to renew her lease. The appeal asks whether two jury instructions wrongly used the landlords' subjective belief instead of what a reasonable landlord knew, and whether an instruction improperly invoked an interactive process the Fair Housing Act does not require. Simmons v. Bauer Rentals (No. 25-2238) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/13/25-2238.mp3 Argument record — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2238&hearingDate=2026-08-13 District-court case background — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00523/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00523-6.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2238 42 U.S.C. § 3604 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=2023&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-2023-title42-section3604 Assistance animals — HUD: https://www.hud.gov/helping-americans/assistance-animals Interactive process — Ninth Circuit (Howard): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/02/23/18-55923.pdf Accommodation elements — Ninth Circuit (Salisbury): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/06/07/20-55039.pdf Constructive knowledge — Ninth Circuit (2022): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2022/12/27/22-55068.pdf Constructive knowledge — Ninth Circuit (2024): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2024/05/28/23-55378.pdf Stuart E. Fagan — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/152732 Law Offices of Stuart E. Fagan: https://sfaganlaw.wordpress.com/about-us/ David M. Gilmore — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/105429 GM Legal: https://www.gmlegal.net/ Opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/opinions/ Memorandum search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

United States v. Jose Brown — 11th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears Jose Antonio Brown's appeal in a federal case arising from four armed-store robberies in Tuscaloosa County. United States v. Jose Brown (No. 23-10653) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/23-10653_08132026.mp3 Argument listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Charging background — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndal/pr/two-tuscaloosa-men-indicted-series-tuscaloosa-county-armed-store-robberies District-court record — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-alnd-7_18-cr-00400 Justification standard — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112291.pdf Sentencing reasons and plain error — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210742.enb.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 3553 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&hl=false&num=0&path=%2Fprelim%40title18%2Fpart2%2Fchapter227&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section3553

Usanovic v. Americana, LLC — 9th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Kelly Usanovic asks the Ninth Circuit to revive a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case over calls to her cell phone on the National Do Not Call Registry. The district court dismissed her complaint for failing to plausibly connect the callers to Americana. The appeal concerns agency liability and whether the statute covers cell phones. Usanovic v. Americana, LLC (No. 25-2263) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/13/25-2263.mp3 Argument record — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2263&hearingDate=2026-08-13 Dismissal order — District of Nevada: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2023cv01289/164011/77/0.pdf Telephone Consumer Protection Act — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title47-section227&num=0&edition=prelim National Do Not Call rule — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-64/subpart-L/section-64.1200 Agency liability — Ninth Circuit (Jones): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/04/04/15-17328.pdf Cell phones under section 227(c) — Ninth Circuit (Chennette): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/12/20-35962.pdf Loper Bright — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf McLaughlin — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1226_1a72.pdf Loper Bright analysis — Congressional Research Service: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11189 Opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/opinions/ Memorandum search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

Beaverdam Creek Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue — 11th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Beaverdam Creek Holdings challenges the Tax Court's valuation of a conservation easement on granite-bearing land in Georgia. A conservation easement permanently restricts land use. The court accepted quarrying as the land's highest and best use: the reasonably probable, most valuable use. But it rejected Beaverdam's discounted cash flow model and relied on comparable sales. The issue is whether that was error. Beaverdam Creek Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 25-12624) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-12624_08132026.mp3 Argument record — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Tax Court docket and opinion — U.S. Tax Court: https://dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/case-detail/12362-21 26 U.S.C. § 170 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section170 Conservation easements — Internal Revenue Service: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/conservation-easements Conservation-easement valuation rule — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title26-vol4/pdf/CFR-2025-title26-vol4-sec1-170A-14.pdf Ranch Springs — U.S. Tax Court: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/164_TC_73-163.pdf Published-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/logname.php Unpublished-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/logname.php

Western Watersheds Project, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Western Watersheds Project and the Center for Biological Diversity ask the Ninth Circuit to reverse a ruling that upheld the Bureau of Land Management's vegetation plan for Nevada's South Spring and Hamlin Valleys. The groups say the environmental assessment is too vague about which treatments will occur where and when. Interior says the plan identifies preferred treatments and preserves flexibility as conditions change. The court must decide whether the plan complies with the National Environmental Policy Act and federal land-management law in light of the Supreme Court's Seven County decision. Western Watersheds Project, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (No. 25-2985) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/13/25-2985.mp3 Argument record — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2985&hearingDate=2026-08-13 Project record — Bureau of Land Management: https://eplanning.blm.gov/Project-Home/?id=ea0d08bf-a7f2-f011-8407-001dd806295a Project documents — Bureau of Land Management: https://eplanning.blm.gov/Documents/?id=ea0d08bf-a7f2-f011-8407-001dd806295a&spid=096c137d-a8f2-f011-8407-001dd80c29f3 Notice of appeal — filed district-court record: https://biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/pdfs/Notice-of-Appeal---Ninth-Circuit---FINAL.pdf Summary-judgment decision — Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5949166516646237776&hl=en Environmental-assessment rule — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-V/subchapter-A/part-1501/section-1501.5 Seven County — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf Cascadia Wildlands — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/08/27/24-4542.pdf Ruhs — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/07/18/15-17031.pdf Opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/opinions/ Memorandum search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

Ranch Springs, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue — 11th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Ranch Springs asks the Eleventh Circuit to overturn a Tax Court ruling that valued a conservation easement on one hundred ten acres of Alabama farmland at three hundred thirty-five thousand five hundred dollars and imposed a forty-percent valuation penalty. A conservation easement restricts future land use; its value generally is the property's value before the restriction minus its value after. Ranch Springs says the land's highest and best use—the reasonably probable use producing its greatest value—was a limestone quarry, and uncertainty belonged in the valuation. The Commissioner says a quarry was speculative and nearby land sales showed a much lower value. Ranch Springs, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 25-12753) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-12753_08132026.mp3 Argument record — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Tax Court docket — U.S. Tax Court: https://dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/case-detail/11794-21 Tax Court opinion — U.S. Tax Court: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/164_TC_73-163.pdf 26 U.S.C. § 170 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title26-section170 Conservation-easement valuation rule — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2025-title26-vol4/pdf/CFR-2025-title26-vol4-sec1-170A-14.pdf Published-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/logname.php Unpublished-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/logname.php

Charles Eubanks v. Jeremy Bean, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 13, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Charles Eubanks asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse the denial of four claims in his federal habeas case challenging Nevada murder, attempted-murder, and attempted-robbery convictions. Federal habeas lets a state prisoner challenge custody that violates federal law. Eubanks says prosecutors withheld evidence that could impeach jailhouse witnesses and his lawyers mishandled plea offers, accomplice liability, and sentencing. Under Brady, prosecutors must disclose favorable evidence when its suppression could affect the result. Nevada says the witnesses were already heavily impeached, the remaining evidence was strong, and Eubanks cannot overcome procedural bars or show prejudice. Charles Eubanks v. Jeremy Bean, et al. (No. 25-973) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 13, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/13/25-973.mp3 Argument record — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-973&hearingDate=2026-08-13 Federal habeas order — District of Nevada court-file mirror: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/3:2016cv00336/115822/91/0.pdf Appeal docket — Ninth Circuit court-record mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-973 28 U.S.C. § 2254 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2254&num=0&edition=prelim Brady v. Maryland — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep373/usrep373083/usrep373083.pdf Martinez v. Ryan — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep566/usrep566001/usrep566001.pdf Opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/opinions/ Memorandum search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

Colleen McGuigan v. Thomas Murray, et al. — 11th Cir. (Aug 12, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Colleen McGuigan asks the Eleventh Circuit to revive federal civil racketeering, or RICO, and Florida claims against her brother Thomas Murray and two companies. She says a forged nineteen eighty-eight stock option induced her to give up shares in their family business in two thousand six. A Delaware court later barred related claims under laches, an equitable rule against harmful delay, and the federal district court dismissed this suit. McGuigan says that timeliness ruling did not decide who forged the option. The appellees say Delaware already resolved the facts needed here and that the new claims are also late. Colleen McGuigan v. Thomas Murray, et al. (No. 25-11698) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 12, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11698_08122026.mp3 Argument record — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Federal district-court docket — court-record mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flsdce/9%3A2024cv81599/681239 Federal appellate docket — court-record mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-11698 Delaware Court of Chancery opinion — court-file mirror: https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/court-of-chancery/2023/c-a-no-2018-0829-ksjm.html McGuigan Delaware opening brief — Delaware Supreme Court: https://www.courts.delaware.gov/supreme/oralarguments/download.aspx?id=4872 Murray Delaware answering brief — Delaware Supreme Court: https://www.courts.delaware.gov/supreme/oralarguments/download.aspx?id=4873 Delaware Supreme Court case materials: https://www.courts.delaware.gov/supreme/oralarguments/download.aspx?id=4952 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure Taylor v. Sturgell — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-371.pdf Ashcroft v. Iqbal — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf Robert Sweeney — Sweeney Scharkey: https://www.ssbpartners.com/robert-sweeney-and-john-scharkey-named-thomson-reuters-stand-out-lawyers-for-fourth-consecutive-year/ Kevin Shannon — Potter Anderson & Corroon: https://www.potteranderson.com/people/Kevin-Shannon Published-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/logname.php Unpublished-opinion search — Eleventh Circuit: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/logname.php

Mattia, et al. v. Whitehouse, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 12, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

Three Border Patrol agents ask the Ninth Circuit to dismiss a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim arising from the fatal shooting of Raymond Mattia outside his home on the Tohono O'odham Nation. The district court allowed the claim to proceed. In this pretrial appeal, the panel first must decide whether it can review a dispute over what body-camera footage shows. The agents say the footage contradicts the complaint, entitles them to qualified immunity, and that Bivens does not extend to this setting. Mattia's estate and family say the edited footage cannot resolve disputed facts and that the claim fits the Fourth Amendment context Bivens already recognized. Mattia, et al. v. Whitehouse, et al. (No. 25-6118) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 12, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/12/25-6118.mp3 Argument record — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-6118&hearingDate=2026-08-12 Initial district-court order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00252/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-4_24-cv-00252-1.pdf District-court dismissal order — document mirror: https://app.midpage.ai/document/mattia-v-united-states-of-1000448442190 District-court stay order — court-file mirror: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/4%3A2024cv00252/1378526/54/0.pdf Appeal docket — Ninth Circuit court-record mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-6118 CBP internal-investigations report: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/2024-11/24_1024_fy23-report-internal-investigations-employee-accountability.pdf Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep403/usrep403388/usrep403388.pdf Egbert v. Boule — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf Ashcroft v. Iqbal — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf Sophia Shams — U.S. Department of Justice filing: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2026-03/24-1287ts_govt_ieepatariffs_final.pdf Sophia Shams — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=384037 Ryan Stitt — Stitt Vu Trial Lawyers: https://stittvu.com/ Ryan Stitt — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/273651 Opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/opinions/ Memorandum search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected