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:

Quilbillies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company — 9th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Quilbillies versus First American Title Insurance Company. Neighbors claimed a right to cross the insured property. First American paid the full title-policy limits, then declined to defend a lawsuit filed later. The district court dismissed the resulting contract and bad-faith claims before trial. Kathryn Knudsen will ask to revive them; Britenae Pierce will ask the court to affirm. Quilbillies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (No. 25-501) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 4, 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/2026/08/04/25-501.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-501&hearingDate=2026-08-04 Opinions and memoranda — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/ Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-501 District court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/3%3A2024cv05246/333259 Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/3%3A2024cv05246/333259/40/0.pdf Reconsideration order — U.S. District Court: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/3%3A2024cv05246/333259/48/0.pdf

Neaman v. Washington Department of Corrections — 9th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers liability for confinement under an order a state court lacked authority to enter. Christopher Neaman received a parenting sentencing alternative: community custody, a form of supervised release, instead of prison. After that term expired, a Washington court extended it, revoked it, and sent him to prison; an appeals court reversed. A federal judge later rejected his claims against corrections officials. Neaman says their reports caused false imprisonment. The Department says they gave accurate information and had to obey court orders. Neaman v. Washington Department of Corrections (No. 25-3254) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 4, 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/2026/08/04/25-3254.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3254&hearingDate=2026-08-04 Argument video — Ninth Circuit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn95zHc-gGc Ninth Circuit appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-3254 District-court docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/3%3A2024cv05176/331982 Summary-judgment order — Western District of Washington: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/3%3A2024cv05176/331982/63/ State v. Neaman — Washington Court of Appeals: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2057316-4-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf Parenting sentencing alternative — Washington Legislature: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.94A.655 James Dixon — Dixon & Cannon: https://www.dixoncannon.com/james-dixon.html James Robert Dixon — Washington State Bar: https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/Default.aspx?TabID=1538&Usr_ID=18014 Joshua Saul Schaer — Washington State Bar: https://www.mywsba.org/PersonifyEbusiness/Default.aspx?TabID=1538&Usr_ID=31491 Published-opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/ Memorandum-disposition search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

Collard v. Bisignano — 9th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews the denial of Kristin Collard's Social Security disability claim. An administrative law judge found that she could not return to her former heavy work but could perform a reduced range of light work. The district court affirmed. The issue is whether the judge gave legally sufficient reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Collard's symptom testimony, lay statements, and medical opinions despite fibromyalgia's waxing and waning symptoms. Collard v. Bisignano (No. 25-6334) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 4, 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/2026/08/04/25-6334.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-6334&hearingDate=2026-08-04 Ninth Circuit appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-6334 SSR 12-2p: Evaluation of Fibromyalgia — Social Security Administration: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2012-02-di-01.html Revels v. Berryhill — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/26/15-16477.pdf Amy Gilbrough — Douglas Drachler McKee & Gilbrough: https://www.ddmglaw.com/about/ Amy Gilbrough — Benefits Law Center: https://benefitslawcenter.org/thank-you-to-sponsor-douglas-drachler-mckee-gilbrough-llp/ Katherine Watson — U.S. Courts opinion record at GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-6_24-cv-00091/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-6_24-cv-00091-0.pdf Katherine Watson — 2026 federal court order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/waedce/1%3A2024cv03166/109653/18/ Published-opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/ Memorandum-disposition search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

Colestock v. DeJoy — 9th Cir. (Aug 4, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews summary judgment against former Postal Service employee Laurel Colestock on her Title VII claims. Colestock says her supervisor coerced a sexual relationship and that the agency retaliated after she reported him. The appeal asks whether disputes over causation and pretext require a trial, and whether later actions by other managers make her hostile-work-environment claim timely. Colestock v. DeJoy (No. 25-2941) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 4, 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/2026/08/04/25-2941.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2941&hearingDate=2026-08-04 Oral-argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-08-04&loc=SE Summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2022cv00329/308319/97/0.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2941 Published-opinion search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/ Memorandum-disposition search — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

United States v. Pigida — 9th Cir. (Aug 3, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews Volodimyr Pigida's convictions arising from Trend Sound Promoter, which the jury found was a Ponzi scheme. Gonzaga law professor Brooks Holland will argue for Pigida that jurors were unfairly told the Securities and Exchange Commission had referred the business as a possible Ponzi scheme, that they needed clearer instructions to agree on one conspiracy, and that the Supreme Court's Thompson decision distinguishing false statements from merely misleading ones affects a bankruptcy count. Assistant U.S. Attorney Philip Kopczynski will argue that the evidence and instructions do not justify reversal and that Pigida did not merit a sentencing reduction for accepting responsibility. The court later affirmed, holding that the challenged rulings were correct or harmless, that omitting a $1.45 million withdrawal was false, and that flight before sentencing undercut Pigida's claim of responsibility. United States v. Pigida (No. 24-3223, 24-3224) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 3, 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/2026/08/03/24-3223.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-3223&hearingDate=2026-08-03 Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/12/24-3223.pdf Memorandum disposition — Leagle: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20260812095 Case and sentencing report — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/convicted-ponzi-schemer-sentenced-over-14-years-prison-11-million-fraud-and-absconding Brooks Holland profile — Gonzaga University School of Law: https://www.gonzaga.edu/school-of-law/about/faculty-staff/regular-faculty/detail?person=brooks-r-holland-jd-34df1499 Thompson v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/604us2r18_9p6b.pdf

Rayford v. Keeling — 9th Cir. (Aug 3, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears three consolidated appeals in a civil-rights suit brought by Juan Marshall Rayford and Dupree Antoine Glass. The men spent nearly seventeen years in prison after convictions arising from a 2004 shooting. A California court vacated their attempted-murder convictions in 2020, and they were later found factually innocent. They now allege that three Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies falsified evidence and failed to disclose favorable evidence. The deputies are appealing before trial after the district court denied qualified immunity, which shields officials from damages unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. The court must decide which claims, if any, can proceed against each deputy and whether the prosecutor's decision to charge breaks the chain of causation. Rayford v. Keeling (No. 26-2279, 26-2280 & 26-2283) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/08/03/26-2279.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-2279&hearingDate=2026-08-03 Appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/26-2279 District-court docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/5%3A2024cv00473/916891 District-court calendar and qualified-immunity posture: https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/9c0354b1-c48d-4c72-4b4c-08dea17f3bf4 State habeas opinion — California Court of Appeal: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B264402.PDF Los Angeles County official statement — litigation disclosure: https://ttc.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2025-26-TRANS_Official-Statement.pdf Annee Della Donna and the Rayford-Glass case — Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2023-06-30/profile-laguna-beach-attorney-never-backs-down M. Anthony Brown — Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein: https://www.adkfirm.com/tony-brown M. Anthony Brown — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/243848 Qualified immunity — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/Intro.4-3-3/ALDE_00000006/ Qualified immunity and immediate appeal — CRS: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10486 Field-interview cards — California Department of Justice: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/care-comm-briefing-slides-012125.pdf Field-interview cards — California Legislature: https://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/sb_458_cfa_20130906_214856_asm_floor.html

Reach Community Development v. United States Department of Homeland Security — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews a preliminary injunction limiting federal officers' use of tear gas and other chemical munitions near Gray's Landing, an apartment building beside Portland's immigration facility. The plaintiffs are residents and the organizations that operate the building, not protesters outside the facility. They say repeated gas deployments entered their homes and bodies. The district court found a likely Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation and granted the injunction. A divided Ninth Circuit motions panel later stayed both the injunction and the district-court case. The merits panel must decide whether the plaintiffs also need to establish a fundamental right rooted in history, and what conduct can shock the conscience. Justice Department lawyer Brenna Scully will ask the court to vacate the injunction. Stephen Wirth of Jacobson Lawyers Group will argue that conscience-shocking executive conduct is the governing test and that the injunction should stand. Reach Community Development v. United States Department of Homeland Security (No. 26-1575) — 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/2026/07/10/26-1575.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1575&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Order staying the injunction — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/27/26-1575.pdf Preliminary injunction order — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3%3A2025cv02257/190854/75/0.pdf Government motion for a stay — filed brief: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/REACH-Community-Dev-v-DHS-CA9-mot-for-stay.pdf Plaintiffs' opposition to a stay — filed brief: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/REACH-Community-Dev-v-DHS-Ninth-Circuit-Stay-Opp.pdf Stephen Wirth profile — Jacobson Lawyers Group: https://www.jacobsonlawyersgroup.com/about-us Ninth Circuit opinion search: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/ Ninth Circuit memorandum search: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/

N. M. v. Guillemin — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews a pretrial appeal arising from Vinton Miller's death after a California State Parks officer shot him. The plaintiffs claim that California Highway Patrol Officer Clayton Guillemin, who did not fire the shot, failed to ensure reasonable medical care and deprived Miller's wife of familial association. On August 7, 2026, the panel reversed. It found no clearly established law requiring Guillemin to do more after paramedics arrived and began care, and ordered the Fourth Amendment, familial-association, and related California civil-rights claims against him dismissed. N. M. v. Guillemin (No. 25-5890) — 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/2026/07/10/25-5890.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-5890&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Decision — N. M. v. Guillemin, Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/07/25-5890.pdf District-court order — N. M. v. Placer County, E.D. Cal.: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-01389/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_25-cv-01389-3.pdf Qualified-immunity standard — Polanco v. Diaz, Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/07/22-15496.pdf Medical-care standard — D'Braunstein v. CHP, Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/12/22-55237.pdf Counsel filing — N. M. v. Placer County, E.D. Cal.: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2%3A2025cv01389/465193/71/0.pdf?ts=1762850166 Lee Roistacher profile — Dean Gazzo Roistacher: https://deangazzo.com/lee-h-roistacher/ Sheila Mohsini bar record — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/326635

Munoz v. Alorica, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews class certification in an ERISA lawsuit over Alorica's 401(k) plan. Former participants say the plan offered imprudent investments and paid excessive recordkeeping fees. The defendants argue that the named plaintiffs cannot represent participants who chose other funds and that the proposed fee model would harm some class members. On July 30, 2026, the panel held that the plaintiffs had standing but vacated certification because the district court had not rigorously analyzed typicality or a possible conflict within the class. It remanded without deciding whether any class should ultimately be certified. Munoz v. Alorica, Inc. (No. 25-7359) — 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/2026/07/10/25-7359.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7359&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Memorandum disposition — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/30/25-7359.pdf Alorica defendants' opening brief — Ninth Circuit docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Ninth_Circuit/25-7359/Munoz_et_al._v._Alorica_Inc._et_al/docs/16.pdf?download=true Plaintiffs' answering brief — Ninth Circuit docket: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/US_Court_of_Appeals_Ninth_Circuit/25-7359/Munoz_et_al._v._Alorica_Inc._et_al/docs/19.pdf?download=true Counsel calendar — U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: https://apps.cacd.uscourts.gov/JpsApi/file/360d6cf5-ab06-48d7-665e-08de4e3a8f33 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Mike Prame — Groom Law Group: https://www.groom.com/attorneys-professionals/michael-prame/ Christina Humphrey — Christina Humphrey Law: https://www.chumphreylaw.com/about/christina-humphrey/ Independent case review — Your ERISA Watch: https://www.yourerisawatch.com/2026/08/ninth-circuit-reaffirms-effective-vindication-doctrine/

Klawonn v. Board of Directors for the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plans — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers cross-appeals over how the Motion Picture Industry Individual Account Plan was invested. Patricia Klawonn says the board breached its duty of prudence under ERISA, the federal pension law, and caused losses. The board says its process was reasonable and the district court correctly ended the case without a trial; it also conditionally challenges class certification. Brock Specht of Nichols Kaster will argue for Klawonn. Joshua Yount of Mayer Brown will argue for the board. The panel later vacated the judgment and sent the case back to apply its newer Anderson decision and ERISA's ‘any loss’ language. It also held that the class may continue if the district court finds a replacement representative. Klawonn v. Board of Directors for the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plans (No. 25-2874, 25-3230) — 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: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/10/25-2874.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2874&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/14/25-2874.pdf Memorandum dispositions index — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/decisions/memoranda/ Anderson v. Intel — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/05/22/22-16268.pdf 29 U.S.C. § 1109 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/29/1109 Klawonn case page — Nichols Kaster: https://www.nka.com/cases/l-p/motion-picture-industry/ Joshua D. Yount — Mayer Brown: https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/people/y/yount-joshua-d

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected