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:

Price v. Bean — 9th Cir. (Aug 11, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Edmond Paul Price's federal habeas petition, a challenge to his state conviction, should have been dismissed as late without an evidentiary hearing. Federal law generally gave Price one year to file. He seeks equitable tolling, an extension available when an extraordinary obstacle prevents timely filing despite reasonable diligence. Price says prison officials interfered with legal mail and electronic filing, while months of mail logs are missing. The State says his descriptions of filing attempts are too vague and too late. The court must decide whether disputed facts require a hearing. Price v. Bean (No. 25-4775) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/11/25-4775.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4775&hearingDate=2026-08-11 District court dismissal order: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20250708b41 District court docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2024cv00789/168305 Appeal docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-4775 Benjamin Patrick Ramos — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/156643 Elsa Felgar — federal court filing: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2024cv00789/168305/27/0.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 2244 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28+section%3A2244+edition%3Aprelim%29

Cagle v. National Indemnity Company of the South — 11th Cir. (Aug 11, 2026) Aug 12, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit considers whether National Indemnity must pay seven hundred fifty thousand dollars toward an unpaid judgment from a 2019 tractor-trailer crash. Freddie Cagle obtained a judgment of about four point six million dollars against trucking defendants. He then sought payment under MCS-90 endorsements, federal surety obligations that protect the public when a motor carrier's policy does not cover the accident. The district court ordered National to pay. The appeal turns on whether a replacement regulatory filing ended National's obligation and whether one crash can trigger more than one responsible carrier's endorsement. Cagle v. National Indemnity Company of the South (No. 25-11778) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11778_08112026.mp3 Argument listing — Eleventh Circuit oral argument recordings: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 District court order: https://www.barclaydamon.com/webfiles/Publications/Transportation/2026/4.%20The%20MCS-90%20Endorsement/Cagle%20v_%20Nat_l%20Indem_%20Co_%20of%20the%20S__772%20F_%20Supp_%203d%201316.Pdf District court reconsideration order: https://app.midpage.ai/document/cagle-v-national-indemnity-company-1000440893551 Appeal docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-11778 Trucking Industry Defense Association amicus brief: https://tida.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/AmicusBriefs/TIDA%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20As%20of%20Right%20or%20by%20Consent%20of%20the%20Part%20-%20August%202025.pdf 49 C.F.R. § 387.15 — eCFR: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-III/subchapter-B/part-387/subpart-A/section-387.15 Laurence J. Rabinovich — Barclay Damon: https://www.barclaydamon.com/profiles/Laurence-J-Rabinovich E. Allen Page — U.S. Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-546/383626/20251107083656562_20251107-083242-00000810-00000530.pdf

In re Niznick — Fed. Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Federal Circuit hears Gerald Niznick's appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board over a patent application involving dental-implant components. The case asks whether the Board's decision should stand. Four days later, the court affirmed without a written opinion under Rule 36. In re Niznick (No. 25-1718) — 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/25-1718_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/ Rule 36 judgment — In re Niznick: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1718.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.7-14-2026_2722395.pdf Case docket — In re Niznick: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1718 Patent description — Paragon Implant Company: https://paragon-implant.com/patents/ Attorney record — Patrick F. Bright, State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/68709 Rule 36 explanation — Federal Circuit judgments guide: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/case-information/case-filings/judgments/ Decision report — Federal Circuit Blog: https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/07/14/opinions-orders-july-14-2026/

National Trust for Historic Preservation v. NPS — D.C. Cir. (Jun 5, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The D.C. Circuit hears National Trust for Historic Preservation versus National Park Service. The Trust challenged construction of a new ballroom on the White House grounds. The district court stopped above-ground work while allowing specified safety and below-ground work. The government will contest whether the Trust has standing to sue, defend its statutory authority for the project, and say national-security interests make an injunction improper. The Trust will answer that Congress has not expressly authorized the construction. After this argument, a divided panel affirmed the preliminary injunction. The government later asked the Supreme Court to stay the injunction. National Trust for Historic Preservation v. NPS (No. 26-5123) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued June 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/06/26-5123.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/6 Opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/08/26-5123-2187096.pdf Stay application docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a203.html Stay application — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A203/419029/20260813211858520_August%20Ballroom%20Application%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Laquana Alexander v. Patrick Labat — 11th Cir. (Jul 31, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Eleventh Circuit hears Laquana Alexander versus Patrick Labat. Alexander says Fulton County Sheriff Patrick Labat sought a temporary protective order to silence her criticism of his work as sheriff. A federal judge dismissed her First Amendment retaliation suit, and Alexander appealed. The court must decide whether her case may proceed. Laquana Alexander v. Patrick Labat (No. 25-11573) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued July 31, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11573_07312026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=1 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal21%28Rev.2%29_1.pdf Case background — WSB-TV Atlanta: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/fulton-county/community-advocate-takes-fulton-county-sheriff-court-over-protective-order-against-her/MXMOOE7GYFFVPGCE7JKIIBY63E/

Nick Flor v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico — 10th Cir. (Jul 31, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Nick Flor versus the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico. UNM suspended Flor, a tenured professor, for one year after finding that his communications with a graduate student violated its sexual-harassment policy. Flor will ask the court to revive his Title Nine sex-discrimination and procedural-due-process claims. He will argue that irregularities in the university's process could let a jury infer sex bias and that the process was constitutionally inadequate. The university will answer that the record shows no gender bias and that Flor received extensive process. Nick Flor v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico (No. 25-2112) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued July 31, 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/25-2112.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=07%2F31%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=07%2F31%2F2026 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/calendar/events/July_31_2026_Santa_Fe_NM_Final_Calendar.pdf Title IX summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-mexico/nmdce/1%3A2020cv00027/441025/224/0.pdf Procedural-due-process order — U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-mexico/nmdce/1%3A2020cv00027/441025/94/0.pdf

United States v. Bruce Strickland — 8th Cir. (Jun 12, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Eighth Circuit hears United States versus Bruce Strickland. After pleading guilty under an agreement, Strickland made statements at sentencing that led the judge to reject the agreement. Strickland then withdrew his plea, went to trial, and was convicted. Stevan Vowell will argue that the judge could not undo acceptance of the agreement and that Strickland's sentencing statements should not have reached the jury. Kevin Eaton will answer for the United States that Strickland invited the claimed error by moving to withdraw his plea and that any evidentiary error was harmless. United States v. Bruce Strickland (No. 25-3221) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, argued June 12, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media-oa.ca8.uscourts.gov/OAaudio/2026/6/253221.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/sessions.pl?yymm=202606&getOA=Select Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/webcal/jun26stl.pdf Appellate docket — PACER entries mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca8/25-3221 District-court charging order — authenticated GovInfo copy: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-arwd-5_23-cr-50074/pdf/USCOURTS-arwd-5_23-cr-50074-3.pdf Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-criminal-procedure Federal Rules of Evidence — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-evidence

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. John J. Tharp, Jr. — 7th Cir. (Jul 21, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Motorola Solutions' petition under the Crime Victims' Rights Act for a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary order directing a lower court to correct an alleged error. That procedure explains why the caption names District Judge John Tharp. At sentencing, Judge Tharp found about two hundred fourteen million dollars in lost profits but ordered no restitution after crediting Hytera's payments on a related civil judgment. Mark Schneider of Kirkland and Ellis will argue for Motorola that punitive damages and other civil payments cannot offset restitution for different losses, and that the judge reduced the loss figure on a mistaken record. Assistant United States Attorney Wesley Morrissette will support Motorola's position. Christopher Niewoehner of Steptoe will answer for Hytera that Motorola has already been made whole and that the judge acted within his discretion. Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. John J. Tharp, Jr. (No. 26-1541) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued July 21, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.26-1541.26-1541_07_21_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=07%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Appellate docket — PACER entries mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1541 Sentencing account — U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/chinese-telecommunications-company-fined-50-million-conspiring-steal-technology Hytera plea agreement — U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/media/1384221/dl?inline= Related civil opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2024%2FD07-02%2FC%3A22-2370%3AJ%3AHamilton%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3230787%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display Mark E. Schneider — Kirkland & Ellis: https://www.kirkland.com/lawyers/s/schneider-mark-e

Creditincome Limited v. the Swiss Confederation — 2d Cir. (Jun 25, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Creditincome Limited versus the Swiss Confederation. Bondholders lost their investments when Swiss regulators wrote Credit Suisse's additional tier one bonds down to zero during its emergency takeover by UBS. Their appeal asks whether Switzerland can be sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally protects foreign governments from lawsuits in American courts, or whether its loans, guarantees, and merger negotiations fall within the Act's commercial-activity exception. John Bash of Quinn Emanuel will ask the court to revive the suit. Anitha Reddy, then of Wachtell Lipton, will argue that Switzerland acted as a sovereign market regulator and remains immune. The court later affirmed the dismissal, holding that Switzerland acted as a government rather than a commercial market participant. Creditincome Limited v. the Swiss Confederation (No. 25-2733) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued June 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2733.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/25-2733_opn.pdf Appellate docket — PACER entries mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2733 Opinion and independent summary — Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/25-2733/25-2733-2026-07-16.html John F. Bash — Quinn Emanuel: https://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/bash-john Anitha Reddy — Gibson Dunn: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/reddy-anitha/

KPM Analytics North America Corporation v. Blue Sun Scientific, LLC — 1st Cir. (Jul 30, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The First Circuit hears KPM Analytics North America Corporation versus Blue Sun Scientific. A jury found that Blue Sun and four former KPM employees misappropriated KPM trade secrets. It also found that Blue Sun and ITG interfered with KPM contracts. The district court doubled some damages under Massachusetts Chapter 93A, the state's unfair-business-practices law. Dana Zakarian of Smith Duggan will argue for Blue Sun and ITG. He will say the Massachusetts court lacked personal jurisdiction—legal authority over the defendants—because the conduct occurred elsewhere, and that it was not primarily and substantially in Massachusetts, as Chapter 93A requires. Scott Magee of Morse will answer for KPM. He will contend that the defendants deliberately targeted trade secrets stored in Massachusetts. KPM Analytics North America Corporation v. Blue Sun Scientific, LLC (No. 25-1222) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued July 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1222_20260730.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-07 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf Final judgment — U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-4_21-cv-10572/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-4_21-cv-10572-6.pdf Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, Section 11: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXV/Chapter93A/Section11 Appellate docket — PACER entries mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/25-1222 Trial docket — PACER entries mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/4%3A2021cv10572/232545 Dana A. Zakarian — Smith Duggan: https://smithduggan.com/attorneys/dana-a-zakarian/ Scott R. Magee — Morse: https://www.morse.law/team/scott-magee/ Trial result and counsel — Morse: https://www.morse.law/news/kpm-analytics-prevails-in-trade-secret-trial/

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected