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:

Chianne D. v. Florida Medicaid Officials — 11th Cir. (Aug 12, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit reviews a permanent injunction requiring Florida to improve notices that terminate Medicaid for financial ineligibility. After a class-action trial, the district court found the notices confusing and too vague for recipients to tell why they had lost coverage. Florida says due process requires only the action, effective date, and general reason because recipients can get details through its call center and hearing process. It also says the district court decided notice-structure issues outside the certified class claims. The plaintiffs say the notices must identify the income, household size, eligibility category, and income limit Florida used, so recipients can decide whether to seek a hearing. Chianne D. v. Florida Medicaid Officials (No. 26-10419) — 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/26-10419_08122026.mp3 Argument listing — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?title=26-10419 Argument calendar — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal22%28panelrelease%29.pdf District-court findings and injunction: https://floridahealthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Chianne-D.-Findings-of-Fact-Conclusions-of-Law.pdf Class-certification order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/3%3A2023cv00985/417560/122/ Appellate docket — Eleventh Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/26-10419 Andy Bardos — GrayRobinson: https://www.gray-robinson.com/bios/Andy-Bardos_1111.pdf Case explainer — National Health Law Program: https://healthlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Chianne-D-Case-Explainer_update.pdf Eleventh Circuit published-opinion search: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/search-published-opinions Eleventh Circuit unpublished-opinion search: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/search-unpublished-opinions

Srinivasan v. Milestone Financial, LLC — 9th Cir. (Aug 12, 2026) Aug 13, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether a bankruptcy court could bar two Chapter 13 debtors from filing again for one year after they asked to dismiss their cases. The debtors say Section 1307(b) made dismissal mandatory and Section 109(g) limits any refiling bar to 180 days. Milestone Financial says Section 349(a) permits a longer bar for cause. It also says the appeal is moot because the one-year bar has expired. Srinivasan v. Milestone Financial, LLC (No. 26-577) — 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/2026/08/12/26-577.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-577&hearingDate=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-search?input-search-case=26-577 Appellate docket — Ninth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-8100 11 U.S.C. § 109 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section109&num=0&edition=prelim 11 U.S.C. § 349 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section349&num=0&edition=prelim 11 U.S.C. § 1307 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section1307&num=0&edition=prelim

United States v. Thomas E. Kruse — CAAF (May 19, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces considers what a commander may send to court-martial after a Special Trial Counsel defers a reported offense. The Special Trial Counsel treated allegations against Marine Corporal Thomas Kruse as covered domestic violence, then deferred them because the evidence did not meet its prosecution standard. A military judge later dismissed assault charges based on the same alleged conduct, but the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reinstated them. Kruse says Article 24a keeps the underlying conduct within the Special Trial Counsel's exclusive authority. The United States says it restricts only offenses Congress expressly lists as covered. United States v. Thomas E. Kruse (No. 26-0156/MC) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued May 19, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/CourtAudio13/20260519B.mp3 Hearing calendar and counsel — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/calendar/202605.htm Kruse's supplement and lower-court opinion — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2025Term/Kruse260156Supplement.pdf Kruse's reply — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2025Term/Kruse260156Reply.pdf United States' answer — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2025Term/Kruse260156Answer.pdf Article 24a, UCMJ — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section824a&num=0&edition=prelim Article 79, UCMJ — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section879&num=0&edition=prelim United States v. Armstrong — CAAF: https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2017OctTerm/170556.pdf

Jacqueline Roberson v. Douglas A. Collins — CAVC (Jul 16, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims considers which benefits claims were before the Board in Jacqueline Roberson's appeal for her late husband. He sought compensation under Section 1151 for a heart condition and pressure ulcers after VA treatment, and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability, or TDIU. Section 1151 can compensate certain additional disabilities caused by VA care as if service connected. TDIU can pay at the total-disability rate when service-connected disabilities prevent substantially gainful work. Roberson will argue that medical evidence linking the heart and ulcer conditions to cocaine use associated with his PTSD brought secondary service connection into the claims. Secondary service connection covers a condition caused or aggravated by an already service-connected disability. She will also argue that an unresolved 2004 PTSD appeal affects the TDIU period. The Secretary will contend that Section 1151 and service-connection claims are separate, while agreeing that the Board must reconsider TDIU from February 1, 2011. Jacqueline Roberson v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 24-5809) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Veterans Court: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Roberson_24-5809.mp3 Argument listing — Veterans Court: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Case docket — Veterans Court: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=24-5809&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Appellant's brief — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011433024 Secretary's brief — Veterans Court docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011759347 38 U.S.C. § 1151 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:38%20section:1151%20edition:prelim) 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-3/subpart-A/section-3.310 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-4/subpart-A/section-4.16 38 U.S.C. § 7105 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:38%20section:7105%20edition:prelim) Legacy VA appeals — Department of Veterans Affairs: https://www.va.gov/decision-reviews/legacy-appeals/

United States v. Luna — 5th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether federal law may constitutionally disarm Raymond Andrew Luna based on a prior simple drug-possession felony. The district judge dismissed his felon-in-possession indictment on Second Amendment grounds, and the government appeals. Recent circuit cases distinguish simple possession from drug trafficking. The government says records from Luna's prior case show trafficking activity and also notes that he was under a separate firearm indictment when he possessed this gun. Luna says the court may consider only the offense of conviction, not disputed underlying conduct, and that the separate statute for people under indictment addresses receiving or transferring a firearm, not mere possession. United States v. Luna (No. 25-40272) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-40272_08-04-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-12&page=2 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1967/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-40272 United States v. Hembree — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60436-CR0.pdf United States v. Kimble — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-50874-CR0.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 922 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section922&num=0&edition=prelim Shepard v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-544/pdf/USREPORTS-544-13.pdf Kristian Amundsen — Justice Department filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5340/275132/20230811152130255_20230811-151507-00004420-00014365.pdf Rachel E. Braver — Southern District of Texas faculty record: https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/sites/txs/files/Agenda_FPD_CJA_Panel_for_FPD_STAFF_only.pdf

Thomas v. Bruss — 5th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether two Harris County officers can be sued for failing to stop a police dog's prolonged bite. Video showed Kerry Lee Thomas prone on the ground when a canine handler released the dog. The district judge ruled that a jury could find Eric Bruss and Wayne Schultz saw the bite, had time to object, and failed to act; she denied them qualified immunity. The officers say prior cases did not clearly require bystanders to intervene in a canine apprehension controlled by a trained handler. Thomas says the Constitution clearly barred the force and existing bystander cases gave ample warning, regardless of the instrument used. Thomas v. Bruss (No. 25-20590) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20590_08-04-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-12&page=2 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/ByCase/ District-court summary-judgment opinion — Thomas v. Bruss: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/4%3A2023cv00662/1906874/143/0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-20590 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure Hamilton v. Kindred — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-40611-CV0.pdf Scott v. Harris — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-550/pdf/USREPORTS-550-372.pdf Celena Cavazos Vinson — Thompson & Horton: https://www.thompsonhorton.com/people/celena-vinson/ Celena Cavazos Vinson — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=231112 Brittany Nicole Francis — People's Counsel: https://peoplescounsel.org/meet-brittany/

Texas v. U.S. Department of the Interior — 5th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether two environmental groups should have been allowed into litigation over federal protection of the lesser prairie-chicken. The Fish and Wildlife Service listed northern and southern populations under the Endangered Species Act. Texas, other states, and industry groups challenged the rule. The environmental groups first sought to intervene while the federal government was defending it, then tried again after the government changed position and asked the district judge to vacate the rule. Both requests were denied, and the listing was vacated. The groups say the timing rulings left them no fair point to defend the rule. The appellees say intervention came too late and dispute whether the groups can obtain relief from the vacatur. Texas v. U.S. Department of the Interior (No. 25-50747) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50747_8-4-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-12&page=2 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/ByCase/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-50747 District-court order — Texas v. Department of the Interior: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/news-documents/2025/august/Lesser%20Prairie%20Chicken%20Order.pdf Lesser prairie-chicken status — Fish and Wildlife Service: https://www.fws.gov/lpc Removal rule after vacatur — Fish and Wildlife Service: https://www.fws.gov/federal-register-publication/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-removal-northern-and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-581/pdf/USREPORTS-581-433.pdf Jason Craig Rylander — Center for Biological Diversity: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/about/staff/ Jacob deKeratry — Kelly Hart: https://www.kellyhart.com/practice/appellate/ Emily Anne Polachek — Justice Department record: https://www.justice.gov/osg/media/924831/dl?inline=

United States v. Simpson — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit reviews bank-fraud convictions arising from a check-kiting scheme, moving checks among accounts to create artificial balances before they clear. Charlie Simpson and Charles Gardner worked for two northern Louisiana home-health companies. A jury convicted both of conspiracy and Simpson of four bank-fraud counts. Gardner says salary and bonus evidence let prosecutors blur motive with the object of the fraud, and the judge should have limited how jurors used it. Simpson says the judge admitted his messages to prove intent but excluded messages and banking-history evidence supporting his defense. The government says jurors received the correct law, the challenged evidence was limited, and the proof of fraud was overwhelming. United States v. Simpson (No. 25-30580) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-30580_8-5-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/ByCase/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-30580 District-court memorandum order — CaseMine: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/67da486abc5f3e372e36bd70 Trial and conviction summary — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdla/pr/two-north-louisiana-men-convicted-federal-jury-monroe-conspiring-commit-bank-fraud Federal Rules of Evidence — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-evidence Luce v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-469/pdf/USREPORTS-469-38.pdf Offer-of-proof standard — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/13/13-50235.0.pdf Sara A. Johnson — professional biography: https://www.sarajohnsonlaw.com/ Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best — Fourth Circuit counsel listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/244001.U.pdf Tory D. Roberts — Third Circuit counsel listing: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242097p.pdf

United States v. Morgan — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether a judge followed the required process before revoking Terrance Morgan's supervised release, the court monitoring that follows prison. Morgan admitted drug violations, missed probation obligations, and a state battery conviction, then completed thirty days of inpatient treatment. The judge revoked release and imposed eight months in prison. Morgan says the judge treated revocation as automatic, ignored the treatment exception, used outdated sentencing guidelines, relied on unsupported assumptions, and denied a continuance. The government says the judge considered treatment, the guideline error caused no prejudice, and the other rulings were within his discretion. On August 14, the panel affirmed in a published opinion. It held that the judge implicitly considered treatment and that the guideline error was harmless because it did not affect the result. United States v. Morgan (No. 26-30018) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/26/26-30018_8-5-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/ByCase/ Published opinion — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/26/26-30018-CR0.pdf Opinion index — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing/case-information/current-opinions 18 U.S.C. § 3583 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section3583&num=0&edition=prelim 2025 Guidelines Manual, Chapter 7 — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2025-guidelines-manual/annotated-2025-chapter-7 Samantha Kuhn — Federal Public Defender, Eastern District of Louisiana: https://lae.fd.org/office-information

Tijerina v. City of San Antonio — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit reviews summary judgment ending civil-rights claims from a 2021 San Antonio police shooting. During a hostage standoff, Angel Sanchez emerged from an apartment holding a shotgun and officers opened fire. A bullet entered the apartment and killed Neida Tijerina. Maria Tijerina sued three officers and the city under Section 1983. On appeal, she concedes that Officers Jose Claire and Nicholas Rodgers acted reasonably. Her remaining claim focuses on Officer Johnny Aguirre, who fired nine rifle rounds in less than two seconds. Tijerina says a jury could find that volley unreasonable because Aguirre knew hostages remained inside. The officers say Sanchez remained a threat and no clearly established law prohibited the volley. The city says there was no constitutional violation and no policy or training failure that caused one. Tijerina v. City of San Antonio (No. 25-50719) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50719_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1967/ Litigation disclosure — City of San Antonio: https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Files/Finance/off-statements/Statement-20240820.pdf Original complaint — Western District of Texas filing: https://www.expressnews.com/file/128/02/12802-Tijerina%20suit.pdf District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/5%3A2023cv00916/1172749148 Pearson v. Callahan — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-555/pdf/USREPORTS-555-223.pdf Monell v. Department of Social Services — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-436/pdf/USREPORTS-436-658.pdf Stephen Patrick Ballantyne Jr — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=290574 Cassandra Correa — professional profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cassandra-correa-9451b6176

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected