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:

Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel — SCOTUS (Feb 24, 2026) Jul 27, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether a federal court may excuse a defendant who misses the thirty-day deadline for moving a civil case from state court to federal court. Michigan sued Enbridge in state court over the Line 5 pipeline. Enbridge waited eight hundred eighty-seven days after receiving the complaint before seeking removal. The Court later ruled unanimously that the deadline cannot be extended through equitable tolling, which can excuse a missed deadline in limited circumstances. The case therefore had to return to Michigan state court. Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued February 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-783.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-783_h315.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-783.html Brief for Enbridge Energy: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-783/373220/20250829124313186_24-783_Petitioners%20Brief.pdf Brief for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-783/379565/20251014144257159_24-783%20Enbridge%20Brief%20of%20Respondent%20Final%20A.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-783_bqm2.pdf Decision coverage — SCOTUSblog: https://preview.scotusblog.com/2026/04/court-holds-that-30-day-deadline-for-removing-cases-to-federal-court-is-mandatory/

Pung v. Isabella County — SCOTUS (Feb 25, 2026) Jul 26, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers how to value a home taken and sold to collect a disputed property-tax debt of about twenty-two hundred dollars. Isabella County sold the Pung family home for seventy-six thousand eight dollars, although it had been assessed at one hundred ninety-four thousand four hundred dollars. The Court later ruled unanimously that a fairly conducted tax sale is measured by its auction price, not hypothetical fair-market value, and that the Excessive Fines Clause requires no more. It nevertheless sent the case back so the Sixth Circuit could consider any preserved challenge to whether this sale was fair. Pung v. Isabella County (No. 25-95) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued February 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-95.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-95_32q3.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-95.html Brief for Michael Pung: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-95/385968/20251201104412403_25-95%20Merits%20Brief%20efiling.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-95/386784/20251208191320751_25-95_Pung_FINAL.pdf Brief for Isabella County: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-95/391408/20260112132632586_Pung%20v%20Isabella%20County%20-%20Respondent%20Brief.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-95_dc8e.pdf Decision coverage — SCOTUSblog: https://preview.scotusblog.com/2026/06/justices-send-compensation-dispute-over-seized-home-back-to-lower-court/ Philip L. Ellison — Outside Legal Counsel: https://www.olcplc.com/public/profile-ellison Matthew T. Nelson — Warner Norcross + Judd: https://www.wnj.com/people/matthew-t-nelson/

United States v. Hemani — SCOTUS (Mar 2, 2026) Jul 25, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether federal law may bar Ali Hemani from possessing a gun solely because he used marijuana a few times a week. The Fifth Circuit dismissed his indictment under the Second Amendment. The Court later unanimously affirmed. It held that historical laws aimed at severely impaired habitual drunkards did not justify automatically disarming Hemani without regard to how much marijuana he used, what effect it had on him, or whether his use made him dangerous. United States v. Hemani (No. 24-1234) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 2, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-1234.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1234_h31i.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1234.html Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1234/387312/20251212200434452_24-1234_Hemani_Opening_Brief_and%20Appendix.pdf Brief for Ali Danial Hemani: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1234/392632/20260123152824381_24-1234%20Brief%20for%20Respondent.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_new_6k47.pdf Decision coverage — SCOTUSblog: https://preview.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-sides-with-challenger-to-law-banning-drug-users-from-possessing-guns/ Erin E. Murphy — Clement & Murphy: https://www.clementmurphy.com/who-we-are/erin-murphy/

Hunter v. United States — SCOTUS (Mar 3, 2026) Jul 24, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers when a federal defendant may appeal a sentence despite promising not to appeal in a plea agreement. Munson Hunter challenged a supervised-release condition requiring him to take any mental-health medication prescribed, but the Fifth Circuit enforced his appeal waiver. The Court later ruled eight to one that a waiver is unenforceable when it would leave in place an obvious, egregious sentencing error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. It returned Hunter's case to the Fifth Circuit without deciding whether this condition meets that demanding standard. Hunter v. United States (No. 24-1063) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-1063.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1063_5h26.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1063.html Brief for Munson P. Hunter III: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1063/386367/20251204101952422_Hunter%20Petitioners%20Brief.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1063/391775/20260114182144958_24-1063bsUnitedStates.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1063new_l5gm.pdf Decision coverage — SCOTUSblog: https://preview.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-determines-federal-defendants-appellate-waivers-unenforceable-if-a-miscarriage-of-justice-/ Lisa S. Blatt — Williams & Connolly: https://www.wc.com/Attorneys/Lisa-S-Blatt

Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC — SCOTUS (Mar 4, 2026) Jul 23, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act blocks Shawn Montgomery's Illinois claim that freight broker C. H. Robinson negligently selected an unsafe carrier. Montgomery was seriously injured when a Caribe Transport truck struck his tractor-trailer, which was stopped on a highway shoulder. The Seventh Circuit held the claim preempted. The Court later unanimously reversed, ruling only that the claim falls within the Act's motor-vehicle-safety exception and may proceed. Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (No. 24-1238) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-1238.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1238_2cp3.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1238.html Brief for Shawn Montgomery: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1238/386022/20251201145245920_24-1238_Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf Brief for the respondents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1238/391718/20260114133856784_Montgomery%20-%20Respondents%20Br..pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1238/392379/20260121162222044_24-1238bsacUSA_final.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1238_1b7d.pdf Decision coverage — SCOTUSblog: https://preview.scotusblog.com/2026/05/court-rules-freight-brokers-can-face-negligent-hiring-suits-under-state-law/ Paul D. Clement — Clement & Murphy: https://www.clementmurphy.com/who-we-are/paul-clement/ Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. — Gibson Dunn: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/boutrous-jr-theodore-j/

Watson v. Republican National Committee — SCOTUS (Mar 23, 2026) Jul 22, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers a Republican National Committee challenge to Mississippi's rule for mailed ballots. Mississippi counts absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day if officials receive them within five business days; the Fifth Circuit held that federal Election Day statutes require receipt by Election Day. The Court later ruled five to four for Mississippi, holding that federal law sets a casting deadline, not a receipt deadline. Watson v. Republican National Committee (No. 24-1260) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-1260.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1260_6k47.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1260.html Brief for Secretary Watson: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1260/390664/20260102121935930_No.%2024-1260%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf Brief for the Libertarian Party of Mississippi: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1260/395807/20260209143028565_No%2024%201260%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1260/396427/20260217134927549_24-1260bsacUnitedStates.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf Decision coverage — Associated Press: https://apnews.com/article/2f78265a72442a57d98de69cb1e2ab25 Decision coverage — CBS News: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-mail-ballots-mississippi-law-watson-v-rnc/ Scott G. Stewart — Mississippi Attorney General's Office: https://www.ago.state.ms.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf Paul D. Clement — Clement & Murphy: https://www.clementmurphy.com/who-we-are/paul-clement/ D. John Sauer — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/osg/staff-profile/solicitor-general-john-sauer UOCAVA — U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title52-section20302 UOCAVA voter guide — Federal Voting Assistance Program: https://www.fvap.gov/guide/appendix/faq Purcell principle — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/ Merrill v. Milligan — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf Acheson Hotels v. Laufer — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-429_h315.pdf Vacatur — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vacatur

Noem v. Al Otro Lado — SCOTUS (Mar 24, 2026) Jul 22, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether asylum seekers stopped just outside the U.S.-Mexico border have arrived in the United States under federal immigration law. Under a practice called metering, border officers turned people away from ports of entry before they crossed the boundary. Al Otro Lado says federal law requires inspection and asylum processing at the threshold; the government says those duties begin only after entry. The Court later ruled six to three for the government: a person standing in Mexico has not arrived in the United States. Noem v. Al Otro Lado (No. 25-5) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-5.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-5_d1o2.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5.html Brief for the federal officials: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5/390940/20260106152523401_25-5AlOtroLadoPetBr.pdf Brief for Al Otro Lado: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5/395932/20260210135039024_No%2025-5%20Noem%20v%20Al%20Otro%20Lado%20Respondents%20Merits%20Brief%20to%20Printer.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5_86qd.pdf Vivek Suri — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-pamela-bondi-announces-award-recipients-us-department-justice-73rd-annual Kelsi Brown Corkran — Georgetown Law: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-team/kelsi-brown-corkran/ United States v. Munsingwear — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep340/usrep340036/usrep340036.pdf Mootness — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-8-4/ALDE_00000725/

Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. — SCOTUS (Mar 24, 2026) Jul 21, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers when judicial estoppel may block a lawsuit left out of bankruptcy filings. Thomas Keathley did not list a personal injury claim while his Chapter 13 case was pending, and the Fifth Circuit barred him from pursuing it. The Court later vacated unanimously, holding that courts must consider all the circumstances before deciding whether an omission was inadvertent or mistaken. Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. (No. 25-6) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-6.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-6_6jfl.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-6.html Brief for Thomas Keathley: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-6/387284/20251212162114343_SCT%20No.%2025-6%20Keathley%20Merits%20Brief.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-6/389995/20251219135643827_Keathley_brief_final.pdf Brief for Buddy Ayers Construction: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-6/392834/20260127173104149_25-6%20-%20Keathley%20v.%20Buddy%20Ayers%20-%20Brief%20for%20Respondent.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-6_d1o2.pdf Gregory G. Garre — Latham & Watkins: https://www.lw.com/people/gregory-garre William M. Jay — Goodwin: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/people/j/jay-william

Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock — SCOTUS (Mar 25, 2026) Jul 18, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether a local delivery driver can fall within the Federal Arbitration Act's exemption for transportation workers without crossing state lines or interacting with a vehicle that does. Angelo Brock delivered Flowers Foods products from a Colorado warehouse to Colorado stores and sued over alleged underpayment. The district court refused to compel arbitration, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Flowers Foods will ask for a bright-line rule requiring either a border crossing or contact with a border-crossing vehicle. Brock will answer that his deliveries completed an interstate journey. On May twenty-eighth, the Court unanimously affirmed the Tenth Circuit. Justice Gorsuch wrote that a delivery leg entirely within one state can qualify without either condition, while leaving other possible limits unresolved. Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock (No. 24-935) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 25, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-935.mp3 Argument page — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-935 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-935_1qm2.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-935.html Opinion — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-935_k53m.pdf Lower-court opinions — Supreme Court docket appendix: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-935/342888/20250214161920501_Brock%20-%20Cert%20Petition%20Appendix.pdf Merits brief — Flowers Foods: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-935/386465/20251204160956834_24-935%20ts.pdf Merits brief — Angelo Brock: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-935/391896/20260115211204412_Brock.Respondent%20Brief.pdf Traci Lovitt — Jones Day: https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/l/traci-lovitt Jennifer Bennett — Gupta Wessler: https://www.guptawessler.com/about/ Circuit City Stores v. Adams — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-532/USREPORTS-532-105 Federal Employers' Liability Act — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title45/chapter2&edition=prelim

Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties — SCOTUS (Mar 30, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether a federal court that pauses a lawsuit for arbitration keeps jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award. Adrian Jules filed a federal discrimination suit against people and companies connected to a Los Angeles hotel. The district court stayed the case under Section Three of the Federal Arbitration Act. After the arbitrator rejected his claims, the court confirmed the award, and the Second Circuit affirmed. Jules will argue that Sections Nine and Ten require an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. The respondents will argue that the original federal claims remained pending and supplied jurisdiction over later motions. After this argument, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. Justice Sotomayor wrote that the stay kept the federal case open, allowing the same court to decide the dispute over the arbitration award. Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties (No. 25-83) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-83.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-83_c0n2.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-83.html Opinion — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-83_3e04.pdf Merits brief — Adrian Jules: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-83/391951/20260116122533610_25-83%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf Merits brief — Andre Balazs Properties, et al.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-83/396498/20260217162302726_25-83%20bs.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected