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:

Yaquinto v. CNA Insurance — 5th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Yaquinto versus CNA Insurance. ActiTech settled a Texas lawsuit accusing it of charging unlawfully high interest and assigned its insurance claims to Robert Yaquinto, the bankruptcy trustee for the suing company's parent. The bankruptcy court held that Continental Casualty's liability policy for directors and officers did not cover the settlement, and the district court affirmed. Mazin Sbaiti of Sbaiti and Company will argue for Yaquinto that the policy excludes only penalties payable to the government and that a negotiated settlement was not a penalty imposed on ActiTech. David Timmins of Spencer Fane will answer for Continental that the Texas statute calls the requested recovery a civil penalty, which the policy expressly excludes. Yaquinto v. CNA Insurance (No. 25-11280) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-11280_08-04-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-21&page=2 Coverage decision — U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas: https://www.txnb.uscourts.gov/sites/txnb/files/opinions/176049645373.pdf Appellate decision — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/3%3A2024cv02728/396370/11/0.pdf Mazin A. Sbaiti — Sbaiti & Company: https://www.sbaitilaw.com/attorneys/ Mazin A. Sbaiti appearance — federal court filing on GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-4_26-cv-00003/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-4_26-cv-00003-8.pdf David H. Timmins — Spencer Fane: https://www.spencerfane.com/professionals/david-timmins/ David H. Timmins — U.S. District Court attorney directory: https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/addrbook.cgi?LT=T

United States v. Senegal — 5th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit again hears United States versus Senegal. Two of Mr. Senegal's sentences for possessing a firearm as a felon were enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act based on earlier Texas robbery convictions. The district court denied his challenge. In 2022, this court found that the sentencing judge probably relied on the law's residual clause, a catch-all for crimes posing a serious risk of injury. The Supreme Court had invalidated that clause, but the panel held the error harmless under then-current Texas robbery law. Later decisions displaced that reasoning, while two unchallenged consecutive life sentences remain. Kathryn Shephard represents Senegal. She is with the Federal Public Defender's Office. She will contend that the two enhanced sentences cannot stand. Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Sand will respond that Senegal lost the claim by not raising it earlier. United States v. Senegal (No. 19-40930) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/19/19-40930_08-04-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-21 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-04 Direct-appeal opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca5-08-40406/pdf/USCOURTS-ca5-08-40406-0.pdf 2022 opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40930/pdf/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40930-0.pdf United States v. Rose — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-10571-CV0.pdf Johnson v. United States — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/576US2PP_Web.pdf Kathryn Shephard — Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Texas: https://fpdsdot.org/en/offices-2/locations/houston.html Kathryn Shephard — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-7339.html Andrew Sand — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/ambassadors Andrew Sand — U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/valentines-day-gas-station-robber-who-tried-plead-insanity-found-guilty

United States v. Prejean — 5th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Prejean, an appeal from the Southern District of Texas. Jarrod Prejean is challenging the revocation of his supervised release. The judges and lawyers will focus on whether the evidence supports findings that he participated in an aggravated robbery and possessed a criminal instrument, and whether a common car charger and window breaker, or the rental car itself, fits the Texas statute. Joshua Lake, director of the University of Houston Law Center's Criminal Justice Clinic, represents Prejean. Assistant U.S. Attorney Renata Gowie represents the United States. United States v. Prejean (No. 25-20364) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20364_8-4-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-11&page=2 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-04 18 U.S.C. § 3583 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/pdf/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap227-subchapD-sec3583.pdf Texas Penal Code § 16.01 — Texas Legislature: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.16.htm#16.01 Joshua Lake — University of Houston Law Center: https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/main.asp?PID=8703 Joshua Bradley Lake — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=373649 Renata Gowie — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/legal-careers/ambassadors Renata Ann Gowie — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=219809

United States v. Taylor — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Taylor. A non-unanimous Louisiana jury convicted Blair Taylor on murder charges in 2017. Those convictions were vacated, and a second state jury acquitted him. A federal jury later convicted him over the same shooting. The judges and lawyers will examine what limits the Constitution places on a federal prosecution after a state acquittal. Alysson Mills, a New Orleans appellate lawyer in private practice, represents Taylor. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Boitmann represents the United States. United States v. Taylor (No. 24-30668) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/24/24-30668_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-11 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-05 Pretrial order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cr-00184/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cr-00184-1.pdf Federal conviction — U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Louisiana: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/blair-taylor-found-guilty-murdering-two-people Federal sentencing — U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Louisiana: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/blair-taylor-sentenced-life-imprisonment-murder-two-people Alysson Mills — attorney website: https://www.alyssonmills.com/ Alysson Leigh Mills — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5410.html Kevin G. Boitmann — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/chase-m-robichaux-pleads-guilty-trafficking-methamphetamine Advocate records — Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5556/373085/20250828144946323_2025.8.28%20final%20wilson%20cert%20w%20appx%20aign.pdf

Stramaski v. Lawley — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Stramaski versus Lawley. Eva Stramaski alleges that Mark Lawley fired her after she insisted on being paid on time, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's ban on retaliation. The question is whether qualified immunity is available as a defense to her claim against Lawley personally. Qualified immunity generally shields public officials from civil liability unless they violate clearly established law. Dimitri Rocha represents Lawley and will argue that the defense applies and requires dismissal. Adam Greenfield represents Stramaski and will argue that the Act's text and history do not support adding that defense. Stramaski v. Lawley (No. 25-20348) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20348_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?from=2026-08-04&to=2026-08-11 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-05 Prior opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-20607-CV0.pdf Report and recommendation — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_20-cv-00156/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_20-cv-00156-2.pdf Order adopting report and recommendation — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_20-cv-00156/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_20-cv-00156-3.pdf 29 U.S.C. § 215 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title29/pdf/USCODE-2024-title29-chap8-sec215.pdf

Quadvest v. San Jacinto River Authority — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Quadvest versus San Jacinto River Authority. To comply with groundwater limits in Montgomery County, Texas, the Authority signed contracts with about eighty utilities. Quadvest says the contracts unlawfully equalized water costs and allocated customers; the Authority says they financed a lawful shift to surface water. Kurt Kuhn of Kuhn Law represents Quadvest and will argue that the agreements are horizontal price fixing and market allocation. Constance Pfeiffer and Luke Schamel of Yetter Coleman represent the Authority and will argue that Quadvest suffered no antitrust injury and that the contracts are vertical and lawful. After this argument, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the contract was vertical, not price fixing or market allocation, and that Quadvest failed to define the relevant market for its rule-of-reason claim. Quadvest v. San Jacinto River Authority (No. 25-20415) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20415_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-05 Opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=25-20415 Opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-20415-CV0.pdf Kurt Kuhn — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContactID=197076&template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm Kurt Kuhn — Chambers: https://chambers.com/lawyer/kurt-kuhn-usa-5%3A26584058 Connie H. Pfeiffer — Yetter Coleman: https://www.yettercoleman.com/our-people/connie-h-pfeiffer/ Luke A. Schamel — Yetter Coleman: https://www.yettercoleman.com/our-people/luke-a-schamel/ Filing identifying Luke Schamel and Yetter Coleman — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-61/322735/20240819103500218_24-61_Amici%20Brief.pdf

Plaquemines Parish v. Chevron USA — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Plaquemines Parish versus Chevron USA. Plaquemines Parish and Louisiana sued oil companies under Louisiana's coastal-resources law over historic oil operations in coastal wetlands. A federal district court sent this case back to state court, where a jury later returned a roughly seven hundred forty-five million dollar verdict against Chevron. While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held in a related case that Chevron's wartime oil production was sufficiently connected to its federal contract to refine aviation gasoline, but expressly left unresolved whether this related case belongs in federal court. Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy represents the oil-company appellants and will ask the court to vacate the remand and restore federal jurisdiction. Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga represents the appellees and will ask the court to return the unresolved issues to the district court while preserving the intervening state proceedings. Plaquemines Parish v. Chevron USA (No. 23-30336) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-30336_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-05 Opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=23-30336 Related-case opinion — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-813_3e04.pdf Brief for Chevron and other petitioners — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-813/373666/20250904122406188_24-813_Brief%20for%20Petitioners.pdf Brief for Louisiana — Louisiana Department of Justice: https://ag.louisiana.gov/Files/Article/408/Documents/20251113163904899_24-813_Brief.pdf Related-case assignment order — U.S. District Court, E.D. Louisiana: https://www.laed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/general-orders/Assignment%20of%20cases%20re%20Chevron%20v%20Plaquemines%20Parish.signed.pdf State-court verdict report — Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/e02e2bdd56095e79c4d2bce60bf957c9 Paul Clement — Clement & Murphy: https://www.clementmurphy.com/who-we-are/paul-clement/ Benjamin Aguiñaga — Louisiana Solicitor General's Office: https://ag.louisiana.gov/Division/Federalism

Gaither v. Carter — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Gaither versus Carter. Charles Gaither says Bank of America employees discriminated against him because of race when he tried to pay off his mortgage in 2020; the bank says the complaint describes mistakes, not discrimination. The district court dismissed his claims under Section 1981, the federal ban on race discrimination in contracts, and Texas law. James Close of Clouthier Law represents Gaither and will ask to amend the complaint, contending that the filing deadline should be tolled because Gaither learned the alleged motive later. Dylan Bensinger of McGuireWoods represents Bank of America and Jessica Carter and will defend the dismissal as late and inadequately pleaded. On August 18, 2026, the court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. It held that Gaither missed the four-year deadline and had not alleged reasonable diligence or an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing. The court did not decide whether the alleged conduct showed race discrimination. Gaither v. Carter (No. 25-10983) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-10983_8-5-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-12 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-05 Opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=25-10983 Opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-10983.0.pdf James R. Close — Clouthier Law: https://www.clouthierlaw.com/lawyers/james-r-close/ Dylan M. Bensinger — McGuireWoods: https://www.mcguirewoods.com/people/b/dylan-m-bensinger/

Faulk Company v. Kennedy — 5th Cir. (Aug 5, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Faulk Company versus Kennedy. Faulk stopped offering qualifying health coverage to employees in 2019 and paid a $205,621 Affordable Care Act employer penalty. The district court ordered a refund and set aside an HHS regulation. It held that HHS, not the IRS, had to complete the Act's employer notice and appeal process before the payment could be assessed. Geoffrey Klimas represents the government and will argue that the IRS has the information and authority to make the required certification. He will also argue that the Declaratory Judgment Act's tax exception, which limits courts' power to declare rights concerning federal taxes, bars Faulk's challenge to the regulation. David LeFevre represents Faulk and will argue that Congress assigned certification to HHS and that invalidating an HHS rule is an administrative-law remedy, not an action against a tax. Faulk Company v. Kennedy (No. 25-10773) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-10773_08-05-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-05 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-05 Opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=25-10773 District court opinion — Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14685097885802271417 District court fee order — Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16812095802814908803 26 U.S.C. § 4980H — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section4980H&num=0&edition=prelim 42 U.S.C. § 18081 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section18081&num=0&edition=prelim 28 U.S.C. § 2201 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section2201&num=0&edition=prelim

United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Ramirez-Ramirez. This criminal appeal comes from a cocaine case. Federico Reynal represents Antonio Ramirez-Ramirez. He will challenge English transcripts of Spanish calls because the Drug Enforcement Administration translator did not testify, and two sentence increases: one involving conduct underlying acquitted charges, and one for possessing a gun in connection with drug trafficking. Kristian Amundsen represents the United States. He will argue that a Spanish-speaking informant who joined the calls verified the transcripts and was cross-examined. The government concedes a translated text message was admitted in error but will call it harmless and defend the sentence. Under the Sixth Amendment, the accused can question the witnesses against him. A 2024 guideline amendment generally excludes acquitted conduct from the guideline calculation unless it also establishes the offense of conviction. United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez (No. 25-20155) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-20155_08-06-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-06&to=2026-08-06 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-06 Opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=25-20155 Pretrial detention order — U.S. District Court (GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_23-cr-00565/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_23-cr-00565-0.pdf Sixth Amendment — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 826 — U.S. Sentencing Commission: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/826

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected