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:

Randel v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Randel versus Travelers Lloyds of Texas. After a house fire, Travelers paid an appraisal award, but Randy and Debra Randel continued a claim under Texas's Prompt Payment Act. That law generally gives an insurer sixty days to pay after it receives the documents needed to resolve a claim. On remand from an earlier appeal, the district court struck the Randels' late response and entered judgment for Travelers without a trial. John Riley Friesell represents the Randels. He will argue that Travelers did not establish a policy exclusion and will ask the court to revive bad-faith claims or send a state-law question to the Texas Supreme Court. Charles Frazier represents Travelers. He will argue that the Randels forfeited their challenge by failing to address the grounds for judgment. After this argument, on August 17, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed and declined certification. Randel v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas (No. 25-20231) — 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/25/25-20231_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 First appellate opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-20567-CV0.pdf Current appellate opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-20231.0.pdf Opinion index — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=25-20231 Opinion release feed — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/feeds/opinions District court order — U.S. District Court (GovInfo): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_19-cv-02883/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_19-cv-02883-1.pdf Texas Insurance Code Chapter 542 — Texas Legislature: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/IN/pdf/IN.542.pdf

Johnson v. Miller — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Johnson versus Miller. Mark Johnson, the former general manager of Clarksdale Public Utilities, says its five-member commission suspended and fired him because he threatened to report alleged misconduct to Mississippi's state auditor. He sued under the Mississippi Whistleblower Protection Act and the First Amendment. Both claims turn largely on causation: did his threatened report lead to the firing, or would the commission have fired him anyway? The district court granted summary judgment to the commission, ruling that no factual dispute required a trial. Joel Dillard of Joel F. Dillard, P.A., represents Johnson. He will argue that the timing, commission records, and testimony could let a jury find retaliation. LaToya Merritt of Phelps Dunbar represents the commission and commissioners George Miller and Donald Mitchell. She will argue that an independent investigation found legitimate reasons for firing Johnson, and that he did not show retaliatory motive by a majority of the five-member commission. Johnson v. Miller (No. 25-60576) — 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/25/25-60576_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 Prior appellate opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60199-CV1.pdf District court memorandum opinion — N.D. Mississippi: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/mississippi/msndce/4%3A2021cv00120/45455/150/0.pdf Counsel appearances — N.D. Mississippi opinion reproduction: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20251023h04 Joel Dillard affiliation — Mississippi Bar: https://www.msbar.org/inside-the-bar/sections/labor-employment-law/ Joel Dillard firm website: https://www.joeldillard.com/ LaToya Merritt profile — Phelps Dunbar: https://www.phelps.com/professionals/latoya-c-merritt.html

Hutchings v. Direct Digital Holdings — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026) Aug 11, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Hutchings versus Direct Digital Holdings. Donald Hutchings appeals the dismissal of a securities-fraud complaint. He says Direct Digital explained a revenue miss by citing softer demand and its move away from browser cookies, but left out an eight-point-eight-million-dollar short payment from a major customer. The appeal asks whether those explanations were misleading half-truths, meaning statements made deceptive by what they omit, and whether the complaint adequately pleads scienter, meaning intent to deceive or severe recklessness. Kristen O'Connor of Johnson Fistel represents Hutchings. She will argue that the omitted customer dispute went to the heart of the business and made the company's explanations misleading. Tony Lucisano of Baker Botts represents Direct Digital and its executives. He will argue that the company identified the primary causes of the miss, had no duty to disclose the disputed payment, and that the complaint does not support an inference of fraud. Hutchings v. Direct Digital Holdings (No. 25-20379) — 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/25/25-20379_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 Direct Digital Holdings 2025 Form 10-K — SEC: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1880613/000188061326000032/drct-20251231.htm Macquarie Infrastructure v. Moab Partners — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1165_10n2.pdf Oklahoma Firefighters v. Six Flags — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-10865-CV0.pdf 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A15+section%3A78u-4+edition%3Aprelim%29 Kristen O'Connor profile — Johnson Fistel: https://www.johnsonfistel.com/team/kristen-oconnor/ Kristen O'Connor attorney record — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/305113 Tony Lucisano profile — Baker Botts: https://www.bakerbotts.com/people/l/lucisano-anthony

Corr Flight S. v. Department of Labor — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026) Aug 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Corr Flight versus the Department of Labor. The Labor Department's Administrative Review Board upheld an award to pilot Colin DeBuse under AIR 21, the federal law protecting airline workers who report safety violations. The board found that DeBuse's refusal to train with a captain he considered unsafe was protected activity and contributed to his unpaid suspension. Corr Flight asks the court to set that ruling aside. The case also asks whether protections against removing the administrative law judge who heard the claim were unconstitutional and, if so, what remedy follows. Sterling Kidd of Baker Donelson represents Corr Flight. He will argue that the refusal was not protected, the board lacked substantial evidence, and the removal defect requires a new hearing. Karla Jackson Edwards represents the Secretary of Labor. She will argue that Corr Flight raised its constitutional challenge too late and that substantial evidence supports the board. Substantial evidence means enough relevant evidence for a reasonable person to accept the agency's conclusion. Corr Flight S. v. Department of Labor (No. 25-60286) — 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/25/25-60286_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 DeBuse v. Corr Flight S. case record — U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/PUBLIC/WHISTLEBLOWER/REFERENCES/CASELISTS/AIRLIST2 DeBuse v. Corr Flight S. decision — U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OALJ/PUBLIC/ARB/DECISIONS/ARB_DECISIONS/AIR/2023-0036-AIRP.pdf Order denying reconsideration — U.S. Department of Labor: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OALJ/PUBLIC/ARB/DECISIONS/ARB_DECISIONS/AIR/2023-0036A-AIRP.pdf 49 U.S.C. § 42121 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A49+section%3A42121+edition%3Aprelim%29 AIR21 substantial-evidence standard — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60061-CV0.pdf SpaceX v. NLRB — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50627-CV0.pdf Sterling Kidd profile — Baker Donelson: https://www.bakerdonelson.com/sterling-kidd Sterling Kidd — Lawyers for Civil Justice: https://www.lfcj.com/fellows

John Doe #1 v. William Lee — 6th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 10, 2026

Show notes

The Sixth Circuit returns to a challenge by eight anonymous men to Tennessee's sex-offender registry law. Sentenced between 1982 and 1994, they contend that later classification and geographic restrictions impose retroactive punishment barred by the Ex Post Facto Clause. In an earlier appeal, the court rejected a blanket injunction and ordered a provision-by-provision analysis tied to each official's enforcement authority. On remand, the district court issued a narrower injunction against Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Director David Rausch. The court must now decide whether that ruling followed its mandate, whether the challenged provisions are punitive, and whether Rausch is sufficiently connected to their enforcement for relief under Ex parte Young, the doctrine allowing federal courts to stop ongoing federal violations by state officials. John Doe #1 v. William Lee (No. 25-6122) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued August 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/audio/08-04-2026%20-%20Tuesday/25-6122%20John%20Doe%201%20v%20William%20Lee.mp3 Argument audio archive — Sixth Circuit: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/court_audio/audSearch.php Oral argument calendar — Sixth Circuit: https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/sites/ca6/files/documents/oral_argument_calendars/08.04.26_arg.pdf Appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca6/25-6122 Prior Sixth Circuit opinion — Doe v. Lee: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0111p-06.pdf District-court remand order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/tennessee/tnmdce/3%3A2021cv00590/87237/170/ Ex Post Facto Clause — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S10-C1-5/ALDE_00001101/ Ex parte Young — U.S. Reports: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-209/pdf/USREPORTS-209-123.pdf Gabriel Krimm — Tennessee Attorney General's Office: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-575/384091/20251110160405622_25-%20Affidavit.pdf W. Justin Adams — Spencer Fane: https://www.spencerfane.com/professionals/justin-adams/

Chavez Law v. Depositors Insurance — 5th Cir. (Aug 6, 2026) Aug 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether a discharged personal-injury law firm can recover a claimed contingency-fee interest directly from the opposing party’s insurer. Chavez Law says Depositors paid its former client, Alejandro Soto, the entire settlement despite notice that the firm claimed forty percent. The district court dismissed the suit, holding that under Texas law the firm’s remedy ordinarily lies against its former client unless it pleads a conspiracy. Kurt Howard Kuhn of Kuhn Law will argue for Chavez Law that its assigned fee was a property interest Depositors could not ignore after notice. Patrick M. Kemp of Segal McCambridge will argue for Depositors that Texas law allows no direct claim against the insurer and the dismissal should stand. Chavez Law v. Depositors Insurance (No. 25-50900) — 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: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-50900_08-06-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-05&to=2026-08-12 District-court memorandum opinion and order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txwdce/3%3A2024cv00158/1172786977/61/ Current appellate docket — PACER entries mirrored by Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-50900 Texas insurance-law case summary — Cox PLLC: https://coxpllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/COX-Q4-2025-Newsletter.pdf Kurt Kuhn — Kuhn Appeals: https://kuhnappeals.com/ Kurt Kuhn — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?ContactID=197076&template=%2FCustomsource%2FMemberDirectory%2FMemberDirectoryDetail.cfm Patrick M. Kemp — Segal McCambridge: https://www.segalmccambridge.com/attorneys-Patrick-Kemp.html Attorney directory — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas: https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/addrbook.cgi?LT=K Decision search — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=25-50900

Sherrod Brown v. FCC — 4th Cir. (Aug 7, 2026) Aug 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears four federal candidates challenge FCC guidance on the lowest unit charge—the lowest rate a broadcaster offers for comparable airtime during an election period. The guidance says that rate covers qualifying candidate-party coordinated ads and certain joint-fundraising committee ads. The candidates say Section 315 reserves it for candidate use; the FCC and two Republican campaign committees disagree. First, the court must decide whether it may review the Media Bureau notice while the candidates' application remains before the full Commission. If so, it will decide what counts as candidate use. Sherrod Brown v. FCC (No. 26-1785) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued August 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1785-20260807.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Argument calendar — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalAug72026.pdf Case filings — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/DataBriefs.aspx?CASENUM=26-1785 Petition for review — filed Fourth Circuit record: https://elias.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/06.22.2026-Petition-for-Review.pdf Order granting expedited schedule — Fourth Circuit: https://elias.law/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026-06-30-Court-Order-dckt-.pdf Lowest-unit-charge guidance — FCC Media Bureau: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-300A1.pdf Brief for the FCC and United States — FCC: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-423259A1.pdf 47 U.S.C. § 315 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title47-section315 47 U.S.C. § 155 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title47-section155 28 U.S.C. § 2342 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2342 David Fox — Elias Law Group: https://elias.law/bio/david-fox/ Thomas McCarthy — Consovoy McCarthy: https://consovoymccarthy.com/team-member/thomas-r-mccarthy/ Thomas McCarthy counsel listing — U.S. Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-568.html Opinion search — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/search-opinions

Rudon v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews Rudon's application to defer his removal to Belize under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed an immigration judge's denial, concluding that Rudon had not suffered past torture and that his fear of future torture was speculative. Rudon will argue that the agency overlooked news reports about the men he fears, an expert report documenting post-traumatic stress, and evidence bearing on whether Belizean authorities could protect him. The government will ask the court to uphold the agency's assessment. The Ninth Circuit later granted Rudon's petition, vacated the Board's decision, and sent the case back because the agency did not adequately address highly probative evidence. Rudon v. Blanche (No. 24-544) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/10/24-544.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-544&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/29/24-544.pdf Memorandum index — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/ Memorandum disposition — Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-544/24-544-2026-07-29.html

United States v. Padilla — 5th Cir. (Aug 3, 2026) Aug 09, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act authorized three thousand five hundred dollars in restitution after former police chief Luis Padilla pleaded guilty to misdemeanor deprivation of civil rights. The appeal asks whether his Section 242 offense is categorically a crime of violence and whether the record supports payment for future psychological treatment. Because the first argument was not raised in district court, the panel reviews it only for plain error. United States v. Padilla (No. 25-30500) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-30500_08-03-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?docket=25-30500 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-03 Brief for the United States — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1436246/dl Opinion search — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions?docket=25-30500 Aaron Adams — Federal Public Defender: https://lam.fd.org/contact.php Aaron Adams — Avvo directory: https://www.avvo.com/all-lawyers/la/lafayette.html?page=58 Katherine McCallister — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/tennessee-man-pleads-guilty-arson-and-attempting-provide-material-support-foreign-terrorist

United States v. Moses — 5th Cir. (Aug 3, 2026) Aug 08, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Moses. The direct criminal appeal follows a supervised-release revocation in the Northern District of Texas and concerns how Texas's no-duty-to-retreat rule applies to the district court's rejection of self-defense. Quincy Hope Ferrill will argue for Moses; Lauren Murphree will respond for the United States. United States v. Moses (No. 25-11030) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued August 3, 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/25/25-11030_8-3-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?docket=25-11030 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-08-03 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-11030 Texas Penal Code § 9.31 — Texas Legislature: https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.31 Lozano v. State — Texas Court of Criminal Appeals: https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=988905e6-bb41-4cce-a55f-c459dd4808a2&coa=coscca&DT=OPINION&MediaID=0362d161-97bc-42db-bdfd-c2c6d43807c9

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected