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:

Teeuwissen v. Hinds County — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears a second appeal over two one-year legal-services contracts with Hinds County, Mississippi. In 2019, the county retained lawyer Pieter Teeuwissen and his firm. A newly elected board ended the contracts three months later and stopped paying. The first appeal held that Mississippi law allowed the prior board to bind its successors for that year. On remand, the county argued that two contract terms violated state attorney-ethics rules. The district court refused to add that late defense and granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The county says it raised illegality early enough. The plaintiffs say the new defense would require reopening discovery and motions, and the county cannot reverse its earlier position that the contracts were valid. Teeuwissen v. Hinds County (No. 25-60605) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60605_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/ByCase/ First Teeuwissen opinion — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60457-CV0.pdf District-court summary-judgment order — Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/mississippi/mssdce/3%3A2022cv00009/113818/143/0.pdf Current appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-60605 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Judicial-estoppel standard — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-40364-CV0.pdf Charles E. Cowan — Wise Carter: https://www.wisecarter.com/attorneys/charles-e-cowan/ Michael T. Jaques — Gainsburgh Benjamin: https://gainsburghbenjamin.com/attorneys/michael-t-jaques/

Payne v. City of Houston, Texas — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit again hears a lawsuit over a 2021 crash between Houston police officer Christopher Cabrera and Charles Payne Senior, who died from his injuries. Cabrera was returning to his station after booking a DWI suspect. The Payne family says he drove seventy miles per hour in a thirty-five zone and looked at his in-car computer before impact. Houston says Payne's left turn alone caused the crash. A prior panel let the family's Texas Tort Claims Act case proceed at the pleading stage. After discovery, the district court again rejected Houston's governmental-immunity defense. Houston says the evidence now defeats negligence, Cabrera was still responding to the 9-1-1 call, and another statutory rule bars the claim. The family says factual disputes belong at trial and part of this appeal is premature. Payne v. City of Houston, Texas (No. 25-20492) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20492_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/ Earlier Payne opinion — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-20150.0.pdf Current appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-20492 District-court summary-judgment order — Midpage: https://app.midpage.ai/document/payne-v-city-of-houston-1000456958664 Texas Tort Claims Act — Texas Legislature: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CP/htm/CP.101.htm Transportation Code chapter 545 — Texas Legislature: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm Transportation Code chapter 546 — Texas Legislature: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.546.htm City of Killeen v. Terry — Supreme Court of Texas: https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1460374/220186pc.pdf Mitchell v. Forsyth — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-472/pdf/USREPORTS-472-511.pdf Musacchio v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-577/pdf/USREPORTS-577-237.pdf Christy Lynn Martin — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContactID=240105&Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm James E. Sherry — McCathern: https://mccathernlaw.com/james-e-sherry/

Olibris v. Blanche — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether Peniel Olibris's firearms-smuggling conviction makes him removable under an immigration provision covering prohibited exports. Olibris admitted helping buy seventy-seven firearms and export fifty to Haiti in cars. He says neighboring references to espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and genocide limit it to conduct affecting national security or public safety, and the agency made no such finding. The government says any prohibited export is enough. Olibris also challenges the denial of Convention Against Torture protection and the immigration judge's use of outside evidence after the record closed. On August fourteenth, the court denied his petition. The majority read the export clause broadly and upheld the other rulings; Judge King dissented on the statute's scope. Olibris v. Blanche (No. 25-60322) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60322_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/ByCase/ Olibris v. Blanche opinion — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60322-CV0.pdf Olibris guilty plea — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/haitian-national-pleads-guilty-firearms-trafficking Olibris sentencing — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/haitian-national-sentenced-federal-prison-firearms-trafficking 8 U.S.C. § 1227 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1227&num=0&edition=prelim 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-B/part-1208/subpart-B/section-1208.16 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-B/part-1208/subpart-B/section-1208.18 Mellouli v. Lynch — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-575/pdf/USREPORTS-575-798.pdf SEC v. Chenery Corp. — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-318/pdf/USREPORTS-318-80.pdf Danial M. Gividen — Western District of Texas attorney directory: https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/addrbook.cgi?LT=G Danial M. Gividen — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=316677

Consumers' Research v. FCC — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit reviews the FCC's 38.1 percent Universal Service Fund contribution factor for late 2025. The fund supports telecommunications for rural and low-income users, schools, libraries, and rural health providers. Consumers' Research says the Supreme Court's earlier decision made Section 254's funding limits mandatory, yet the FCC ignored those limits and the group's comments. It also challenges Congress's delegation to the FCC and the role of the private administrator, USAC. The FCC says the statute supplies adequate limits, the agency controls every funding decision, and USAC performs supervised administrative work. Intervenors defend the funded programs. Consumers' Research asks the court to vacate the factor. Consumers' Research v. FCC (No. 25-60535) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60535_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/ByCase/ Fourth-quarter 2025 contribution factor — FCC: https://www.fcc.gov/document/usf-contribution-factor-4q2025 Petitioners' merits brief — Fifth Circuit filing: https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/shlbc/25-60535_-_Petitioners_Brief.pdf Respondents' merits brief — FCC: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-419782A1.pdf Intervenors' merits brief — Fifth Circuit filing: https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/shlbc/PDFs_and_Documents/2026_Filings/SHLB_et_al__Intervenor_Brief.pdf FCC v. Consumers' Research — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-463/pdf/USREPORTS-463-29.pdf Appointments Clause overview — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-1/ALDE_00013092/ Lucia v. SEC — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-130_4f14.pdf Laura B. Ruppalt — Boyden Gray: https://boydengray.com/our-team/laura_ruppalt/ Jason E. Neal — HWG: https://hwglaw.com/members/jason-e-neal/

Black v. UniBank — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether a Texas receivership court could block UniBank from collecting distributions owed to borrowers it financed. The borrowers invested in what the SEC alleged was a Ponzi scheme, and the receiver proposed dividing recovered money by each victim's net loss. UniBank says its loan agreements gave it security interests in the borrowers' distributions. The receiver says the bank should be treated like the other victims rather than paid first. The district court accepted the receiver's recommendation. UniBank appeals. Black v. UniBank (No. 25-50986) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50986_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/ByCase/ Appellate docket — Fifth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-50986 Receiver's report on UniBank's objection — Western District of Texas: https://pnc.5fd.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/137-Unibank-RR.pdf Receiver's second-quarter 2026 report — Western District of Texas: https://pnc.5fd.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/179-Receivers-Quarterly-Report-2Q26.pdf Bowman v. UniBank order — Western District of Washington: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2023cv00971/323763/42 Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-456/pdf/USREPORTS-456-694.pdf SEC v. Stanford International Bank — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-10726-CV0.pdf Montana v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-440/pdf/USREPORTS-440-147.pdf RecoverEdge v. Pentecost — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/93/93-02523.CV0.wpd.pdf Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-424/pdf/USREPORTS-424-800.pdf Murphy v. Uncle Ben's — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/Opinions/pub/98/98-20239.CV0.wpd.pdf Andrew R. Escobar — Seyfarth Shaw: https://www.seyfarth.com/people/andrew-r-escobar.html Andrew Ramiro Escobar — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/248242 Dennis L. Roossien Jr. — Munsch Hardt: https://www.munsch.com/Professionals/Dennis-Roossien Dennis L. Roossien Jr. — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=230096

Santander Consumer v. City of San Antonio — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers what process San Antonio owes a lender when it impounds vehicles securing its loans. Santander held liens on thirty-four vehicles. The city's ordinance let officials deem a vehicle abandoned after twenty days, but generally required Santander to show the borrower was thirty days behind before repossession. Santander calls that gap an impossibility trap. It says the city offered no meaningful hearing before keeping or selling the cars, continued the seizures after the safety reason for towing ended, and took the collateral without compensation. The city and Alanis Wrecker Service say Santander received notices, access to hearings about the tow and state-court remedies, and reasonable conditions for release. The district court ruled for both defendants without a trial. Santander appeals. Santander Consumer v. City of San Antonio (No. 25-50682) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50682_08-06-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-06&to=2026-08-12 Summary-judgment opinion — Western District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txwd-5_24-cv-00249/pdf/USCOURTS-txwd-5_24-cv-00249-0.pdf Earlier state appeal — Texas Fourth Court of Appeals: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/fourth-court-of-appeals/2020/04-20-00341-cv.html Monell v. Department of Social Services — U.S. Supreme Court: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep436/usrep436658/usrep436658.pdf 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section1983 Nicholas A. Duston — Norris McLaughlin: https://norrismclaughlin.com/Attorneys/nicholas-a-duston Jacqueline M. Stroh — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContactID=154313&Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm Dylan Owen Drummond — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?Template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&contactid=239599

Skenandore v. Bean, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 10, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Jonathan Skenandore understood the crime when he pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. He originally faced first-degree felony murder after an eighteen-year-old was killed during a planned robbery. The plea reduced his exposure, but second-degree murder required implied malice: extreme recklessness and conscious disregard for human life. Due process requires a guilty plea to be knowing and voluntary, including an understanding of the offense's essential elements. On federal habeas review—a federal court's review of a state conviction—the court cannot grant relief merely because it disagrees with the state court; the state decision must be legally or factually unreasonable. The district court granted relief, finding that the record kept explaining felony murder rather than implied malice. Nevada appeals. Skenandore v. Bean, et al. (No. 25-3475) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/10/25-3475.mp3 Argument calendar — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-sitting/?casenum=25-3475 Skenandore v. State — Nevada Court of Appeals: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/crt-app-nev/2115563.html Henderson v. Morgan — U.S. Supreme Court: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep426/usrep426637/usrep426637.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 2254 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2254 Guidry v. State — Nevada Supreme Court: https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2022/80156.html Case background — Carson Now: https://www.carsonnow.org/03/17/2017/two-carson-city-men-enter-guilty-pleas-friday-2016-drug-robbery-and-murder Christine M. Greve — Nevada bar admission list: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/July%202013%20Unofficial%20Pass%20List.pdf Shelly Richter — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/343104 Shelly Richter filing — District of Nevada: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2022cv02184/160948/32/0.pdf

CMB Infrastructure Investment Group IX v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance — 9th Cir. (Aug 10, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers who can be required to arbitrate claims arising from the failed Crescent Dunes solar project in Nevada. CMB Group Nine and Group Eleven made separate project loans. A guaranty tied to Group Eleven's loan contained an arbitration clause; Group Nine's loan did not. The district court nevertheless sent claims involving both loans to arbitration. The tribunal dismissed five claims and awarded the project companies about 2.4 million dollars in fees. The dispute turns on equitable estoppel. A nonsignatory, someone who did not sign the arbitration agreement, may sometimes be bound when a lawsuit seeks direct benefits from that contract. The court also relied on the complaint's allegation that the defendants were alter egos, meaning separate legal entities alleged to operate as one. The investors say several claims have no signatory on either side. The project companies say those claims rely on Group Eleven's agreement and therefore carry its arbitration requirement. CMB Infrastructure Investment Group IX v. Cobra Energy Investment Finance (No. 25-4430) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/10/25-4430.mp3 Argument calendar — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-sitting/?casenum=25-4430 Order compelling arbitration — District of Nevada: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2021cv00214/148468/70/0.pdf Order confirming the arbitration award — District of Nevada: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2021cv00214/148468/124/0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-4430 Raymond Kenneth Wilson — Lewis Brisbois: https://lewisbrisbois.com/attorneys/wilson-jr-raymond-kenneth Philip D. Robben — Kelley Drye: https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/philip-d-robben

Handy, et al. v. Jones, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 10, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers qualified immunity after four Anchorage police officers fatally shot Kristopher Handy. Responding to a domestic-disturbance call, officers ordered Handy outside with his hands up and repeatedly told him to drop a shotgun. He came out carrying it and walked toward them; the complaint and incorporated video say the barrel remained pointed down when they fired. Qualified immunity asks whether the alleged facts show unconstitutional force and whether existing precedent clearly warned the officers. A court may decide either question first. On a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded allegations generally receive the benefit of disputed inferences. Through incorporation by reference, a court may also consider recordings on which the complaint necessarily relies, but not use them to resolve factual disputes unless they conclusively contradict the complaint. The district court let the excessive-force claim proceed; the officers appeal. Handy, et al. v. Jones, et al. (No. 25-5105) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/10/25-5105.mp3 Argument calendar — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-sitting/?casenum=25-5105 District-court decision — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00178/pdf/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00178-0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-5105 J.K.J. v. City of San Diego — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/02/20-55622.pdf Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/13/16-56069.pdf Pearson v. Callahan — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-751.pdf

United Cook Inlet Drift Association, et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al. — 9th Cir. (Aug 10, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit returns to a long-running dispute over commercial salmon fishing in Alaska's Cook Inlet. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires federal plans for fisheries that need conservation and management. Amendment Sixteen creates a plan for salmon harvest in federal offshore waters, while Alaska regulates state waters. Because the salmon cross that line, two fishing groups say the Act's definition of a fishery requires the plan to account for all fishing on the stocks. They also challenge the plan's harvest-yield calculations and scientific basis. The Fisheries Service says its authority stops at federal waters and joint management was impracticable after Alaska declined to participate. The district court upheld the amendment; the groups appeal. United Cook Inlet Drift Association, et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al. (No. 25-5523) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/10/25-5523.mp3 Argument calendar — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-sitting/?casenum=25-5523 Appellants' opening brief — North Pacific Fishery Management Council: https://meetings.npfmc.org/CommentReview/DownloadFile?fileName=B3+Litigation+Report+UCIDA+v+NMFS.pdf&p=9b5e93d4-1c48-4a11-ad23-9e5b450606ab.pdf Federal appellees' brief — North Pacific Fishery Management Council: https://meetings.npfmc.org/CommentReview/DownloadFile?fileName=B3+Litigation+Report+UCIDA+v+NMFS.pdf&p=6239491b-0b0a-42fb-95a2-5b256dccee13.pdf District-court decision — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00116/pdf/USCOURTS-akd-3_24-cv-00116-0.pdf United Cook Inlet Drift Association v. NMFS (2016) — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/09/21/14-35928.pdf Amendment 16 final rule — Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/01/2024-08075/fisheries-of-the-exclusive-economic-zone-off-alaska-cook-inlet-salmon-amendment-16 16 U.S.C. § 1802 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:16%20section:1802%20edition:prelim) 16 U.S.C. § 1851 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:16%20section:1851%20edition:prelim)

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected