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:

Flores Ramirez v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews Jose Manuel Flores Ramirez's denied asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims. He will argue that the agency failed to consider the combined harm to him and his family, or his fear of future persecution based on political opinion and sexual orientation. The government will answer that his opening brief did not adequately develop those challenges. On July 31, 2026, the panel denied his petition for that reason; Judge Gabriel Sanchez dissented and would have sent the case back. Flores Ramirez v. Blanche (No. 25-3804) — 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/2026/07/10/25-3804.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3804&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Decision — Flores Ramirez v. Blanche, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/31/25-3804.pdf Particular-social-group standard — Garcia Demetrio v. Blanche, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/20/25-991.pdf Substantial-evidence standard — Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-777_9ol1.pdf

Dickinson v. Trump — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Aug 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews a preliminary injunction—a temporary order before final judgment—restricting federal agents' use of tear gas, pepper balls, and other crowd-control munitions outside Portland's ICE building. Protesters and journalists claim DHS repeatedly used force in retaliation for protected speech. After a three-day hearing, the district court found that claim likely to succeed and provisionally certified a class. Before this argument, the same appellate panel put the injunction and district-court proceedings on hold. The government says the district court used the wrong First Amendment standard and granted overbroad relief. The plaintiffs say the record supports retaliatory intent and that the district court's factual findings deserve deference. Dickinson v. Trump (No. 26-1609) — 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/2026/07/10/26-1609.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1609&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Order staying the preliminary injunction — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/04/27/26-1609.pdf Opinion granting the preliminary injunction — District of Oregon: https://www.aclu-or.org/app/uploads/2025/11/155_Opinion-and-Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf Plaintiffs-appellees' answering brief: https://www.aclu-or.org/app/uploads/2025/11/43.1-Appellees-Answering-Brief.pdf Argument report — Courthouse News Service: https://www.courthousenews.com/feds-urge-ninth-circuit-for-continued-tear-gas-use-at-portland-ice-facility/ Matthew Borden — BraunHagey & Borden: https://www.braunhagey.com/matthew-borden Clear-error review — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/I_Definitions.pdf Clearly erroneous — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clearly_erroneous

LifeVoxel Virginia SPV, LLC v. LifeVoxel.AI, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 30, 2026) Aug 03, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether investors in LifeVoxel adequately alleged economic loss and loss causation from securities fraud. The investors bought SAFE notes, contracts that may convert into stock after a future sale, public offering, or direct listing. They allege that LifeVoxel misrepresented its finances, ownership, and planned use of their money. The district court had already found those allegations sufficient on several other elements, but it dismissed the federal claims because the investors did not plausibly connect the statements to an impossible conversion event. The appeal asks whether a measurable decline in the notes' present value can be enough even if conversion remains possible. LifeVoxel Virginia SPV, LLC v. LifeVoxel.AI, Inc. (No. 25-613) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/30/25-613.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-613&hearingDate=2026-07-30 District-court dismissal order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_22-cv-01917/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_22-cv-01917-2.pdf Order inviting amicus briefs — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/17/25-613.pdf Ninth Circuit opinions: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/ Appellate docket — Ninth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-613 Amjad M. Khan — Brown Neri Smith & Khan: https://bnsklaw.com/attorneys/amjad-m-khan/ LifeVoxel leadership: https://lifevoxel.com/about Option Pricing Method — SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1817241/000119312525101437/d863954dars.pdf PWERM — SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477815/000162828024016948/sweetgreeninc10k2023.pdf

Jose Baca-Hernandez v. Todd Blanche — 9th Cir. (Jul 30, 2026) Aug 03, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews two consolidated immigration petitions from Jose Alberto Baca-Hernandez. He challenges the denial of asylum and related protection, and the rejection of his second request to reopen the case, arguing that signs of incompetency were ignored during his original hearing without a lawyer. On August 14, 2026, the panel granted both petitions and remanded. It held that his blindness, memory problems, and statements of confusion were enough, taken together, to require the immigration judge to investigate whether he was competent to participate. Jose Baca-Hernandez v. Todd Blanche (No. 17-70944 & 19-72950) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 30, 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/2026/07/30/17-70944.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=17-70944&hearingDate=2026-07-30 Hearing calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-day/?date=2026-07-30&loc=SF Memorandum disposition — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/14/17-70944.pdf Matter of M-A-M- — Board of Immigration Appeals: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/07/25/3711.pdf Ted Durant identification — DOJ Immigration Litigation Bulletin: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2014/10/17/July_2011.pdf

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises — SCOTUS (Feb 23, 2026) Aug 02, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers when Title Three of the Helms-Burton Act permits suit over property confiscated by Cuba. Havana Docks held a time-limited concession to build and operate docks at the Port of Havana. Cuba seized control of those docks in 1960, and the concession would have expired in 2004. Four cruise lines later used the docks between 2016 and 2019. The dispute is whether the confiscated property was the physical docks or only Havana Docks' expired concession. The Court later vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment eight to one. It held that Cuba confiscated the docks by seizing control of them and left the cruise lines' other defenses for remand. Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises (No. 24-983) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued February 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-983.mp3 Argument page — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-983 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-983_9ol1.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-983.html Merits brief for Havana Docks: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-983/384887/20251117201826400_11172025%20HDC%20merits%20opening%20final.pdf Merits brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-983/385611/20251124141544143_24-983tsacUnitedStates.pdf Merits brief for the cruise lines: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-983/387708/20251217131041802_24-983%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-983_c07d.pdf

Travelers v. Ericsson — 5th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Aug 01, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether Travelers and ACE must defend Ericsson against two lawsuits arising from terrorist attacks. Those suits allege that Ericsson's protection payments aided foreign terrorist organizations and seek liability under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act. The district court ruled that the complaints alleged intentional conduct rather than an accident covered by the policies. Ericsson says references to recklessness and indifference are enough to trigger a defense under Texas law. The insurers say the complaints, read as a whole, allege deliberate support for terrorism. Travelers v. Ericsson (No. 25-40583) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-40583_07-07-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?docket=25-40583 District-court order — Eastern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-4_23-cv-01068/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-4_23-cv-01068-0.pdf Appellate docket — Fifth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-40583 Fifth Circuit opinion search — docket 25-40583: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/?docket=25-40583 Gravamen — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gravamen Heston v. Austin Independent School District — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/Opinions/unpub/19/19-50664.0.pdf Michael Qian — Haynes Boone: https://www.haynesboone.com/people/qian-michael Michael Qian — Federal Circuit counsel listing: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1684/24-1684-2026-04-10.html Courtney E. Ervin — Hicks Thomas: https://www.hicks-thomas.com/attorneys/courtney-e-ervin/ Courtney E. Ervin — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=287223 Manuel Mungia — Norton Rose Fulbright: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/people/1015853 Manuel Mungia — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=297931

People v. Coggins (Tonie) — N.Y. Ct. App. (May 20, 2026) Jul 31, 2026

Show notes

The New York Court of Appeals considers whether seven witnesses could testify about a surveillance video that no longer existed. Tonie Coggins was convicted of third-degree assault after a fight that left another woman blind in one eye; the Appellate Division upheld the conviction. The building's video was overwritten, and a police officer's cellphone copy was lost during a phone upgrade. Under New York's best evidence rule, testimony about a missing original is allowed only if the loss is adequately explained and not caused in bad faith, and if the substitute reliably and accurately portrays the original. People v. Coggins (Tonie) (No. 57) — New York Court of Appeals, argued May 20, 2026. Sources: Argument video — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0OyO3SfFMk Oral-argument archive — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/OA-Archives.htm Argument transcript — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/arguments/2026/May26/Transcripts/052026-57-Oral-Argument-Transcript.pdf May 20 argument calendar — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/calendar/2026/Daily/CAL052026.pdf Case summary — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/CTAPPs/summaries/Session/2026/May19-21.pdf Case issue statement — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/calendar/2026/monthly/May26CaseIssues.pdf Appellate Division decision: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_01881.htm Court of Appeals decision: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_03912.shtml Schozer v. William Penn Life Insurance decision: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1994/84-n-y-2d-639-0.html

Sneed v. Crown — 5th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 30, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers whether Deavrin Sneed's product-liability case against Crown Equipment should have reached a jury. Sneed alleges that a Crown stand-up forklift accelerated and failed to brake at a Target distribution center, causing a crash and a partial leg amputation. The trial court excluded Sneed's two design experts as unreliable and entered summary judgment for Crown, ending the case without a trial. The Fifth Circuit later affirmed. Sneed v. Crown (No. 25-10562) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-10562_07-07-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-07-07&to=2026-07-07 Order excluding expert testimony: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_23-cv-00743/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_23-cv-00743-1.pdf Summary-judgment recommendation: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txnd-3_23-cv-00743/pdf/USCOURTS-txnd-3_23-cv-00743-2.pdf Fifth Circuit opinion: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-10562.0.pdf Appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-10562

People v. Fernandez (Andre) — N.Y. Ct. App. (May 21, 2026) Jul 29, 2026

Show notes

The New York Court of Appeals considers People versus Fernandez. Andre Fernandez says his lawyer was ineffective for not investigating his mental-health and substance-use history before challenging his statements admitting involvement in two murders. He says the records could have supported suppression and shown that his claimed immunity deal was a delusion. The People say counsel reasonably chose the immunity-and-payment theory instead. On June 23, 2026, the court affirmed the conviction, six to one. The majority found that strategy reasonable; Judge Rivera dissented, saying counsel could not choose intelligently without investigating first. People v. Fernandez (Andre) (No. 61) — New York Court of Appeals, argued May 21, 2026. Sources: Argument recording — New York Court of Appeals official YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PL_mQWTEH0 Argument archive — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/arguments/2026/May26/Video/61.html Argument calendar — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/CTAPPs/calendar/2026/Daily/CAL052126.pdf Case summary — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/CTAPPs/summaries/Daily/2026/May21.pdf Decision — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2026/Jun26/61opn26-Decision.pdf Lower-court decision — New York State Law Reporting Bureau: https://www.nycourts.gov/REPORTER/3dseries/2025/2025_01585.htm People v. Oliveras — New York State Law Reporting Bureau: https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_04040.htm CPL 440.10 — New York State Senate Open Legislation: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CPL/440.10 People v. Huntley — New York State Law Reporting Bureau: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/p_huntley.htm Rosemary Herbert profile — Office of the Appellate Defender: https://www.oadnyc.org/oad30

Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 10, 2026) Jul 27, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether three California tribes may stop Kalshi from offering sports-event contracts to users on tribal lands while their lawsuit against Kalshi and Robinhood proceeds. The tribes say the contracts are unauthorized Class Three gaming, a federal category that includes sports betting. The companies say they are federally regulated derivatives and do not violate the tribal gaming agreements or procedures at issue. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, an order that would halt the contracts during the case, and the tribes appealed. Blue Lake Rancheria v. Kalshi, Inc. (No. 25-7504) — 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/2026/07/10/25-7504.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7504&hearingDate=2026-07-10 Order denying the preliminary injunction: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv06162/453216/71/0.pdf Reply brief for the tribes: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/reply-1.pdf Answering brief for Robinhood: https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/robinhood-answer-brief.pdf Oral-argument coverage — InGame: https://www.ingame.com/kalshi-blue-lake-rancheria-ninth-district-oral/ Lester J. Marston — attorney profile: https://www.marstonlawoffices.com/about Grant R. Mainland — Milbank: https://www.milbank.com/en/news/milbank-litigation-partner-grant-mainland-to-speak-at-2026-aba-business-law-spring-meeting.html Antony L. Ryan — Cravath: https://www.cravath.com/people/antony-l-ryan.html

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected