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:

In re Williams — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit hears In re Williams. Section 523 identifies debts that bankruptcy does not discharge. Laches is an equitable defense based on a claimant's lack of diligence and prejudice caused by that delay. For a Section 523(a)(3)(B) claim, Ninth Circuit law requires extraordinary circumstances and demonstrable prejudice. In re Williams (No. 25-1214) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/25-1214.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1214&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Hearing calendar — Ninth Circuit BAP: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16+Pas+CR+2.pdf 11 U.S.C. § 523 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title11-section523 In re Beaty — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2002/09/25/0156576.pdf In re Staffer — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2002/09/26/0156093.pdf In re Irigoyen — Ninth Circuit BAP: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2024/05/03/23-1181.pdf In re Gray — Ninth Circuit BAP: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2013/10/07/Gray%20Memo%2010-1304.pdf

In re Stone — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considers Barbara Stone's appeal over student loans in her 1994 Chapter 7 case. The bankruptcy court found the loans met the seven-year discharge test then in force, but ruled Stone needed a separate lawsuit to enforce the discharge injunction. It also declined to hold the Department of Education in contempt, finding an objectively reasonable basis to doubt that collection was barred. Stone will challenge both rulings; the Department will ask the panel to affirm. The panel later held that the 1994 order discharged the loans without a separate lawsuit, but affirmed the denial of contempt. In re Stone (No. 26-1009) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/26-1009.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1009&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Oral argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16%20Pas%20CR%202.pdf Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/07/28/26-1009.pdf Opinions index — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/opinions 1994 U.S. Code, Title 11 — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-1994-title11/pdf/USCODE-1994-title11.pdf Taggart v. Lorenzen — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-489_p8k0.pdf

In re Scheuplein, IV — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considers Copy Solutions' appeal in former employee John Scheuplein's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Copy Solutions alleged Scheuplein used confidential customer information after leaving the company. It tried to prevent the debt he owed it from being discharged, relying on a 2018 agreement with an attorney's-fee clause. Copy Solutions lost at trial and appealed only the $28,192.50 fee award to Scheuplein. It will argue the bankruptcy litigation was not an action on the contract, so California Civil Code Section 1717 did not authorize fees. The panel later affirmed, holding Copy Solutions made the agreement central to its nondischargeability claims. In re Scheuplein, IV (No. 25-1259) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/25-1259.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1259&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Oral argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16%20Pas%20CR%201.pdf Judgment after trial — Central District of California Bankruptcy Court: https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/sites/cacb/files/documents/opinions/SV-23-01042-GM-JohnWScheupleinIV.pdf Attorney-fee ruling — Central District of California Bankruptcy Court: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/GM_121625.pdf Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/08/05/25-1259.pdf Opinions index — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/opinions 11 U.S.C. § 523 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section523&num=0&edition=prelim California Civil Code § 1717 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1717.

In re Pearlman — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considers creditor Peter Kleidman's appeal from an order partially overruling his objections to exemptions claimed by Chapter 7 debtor Jordan Pearlman, including an Apple Watch. The bankruptcy estate is the property administered in the case. Kleidman, representing himself, will contend that Section 362(h) removed the property from the estate after Pearlman filed a blank statement of intention, so the bankruptcy court could not exempt it. The panel later affirmed. It held that Section 362(h) did not apply because Pearlman scheduled no secured debt, and that the Apple Watch could qualify as exempt jewelry under California law. In re Pearlman (No. 26-1051) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/26-1051.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1051&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Oral argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16%20Pas%20CR%201.pdf Bankruptcy court ruling — Central District of California: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/VK_020426.pdf Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/08/11/26-1051.pdf Opinions index — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/opinions Chapter 7 bankruptcy basics — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-7-bankruptcy-basics 11 U.S.C. § 362 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section362&num=0&edition=prelim 11 U.S.C. § 521 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section521&num=0&edition=prelim California Code of Civil Procedure § 703.140 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=703.140

In re Miles — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considers Michael Miles's appeal from the dismissal of his Chapter 13 case. Chapter 13 lets an individual repay debts under a court-supervised plan. Miles represents himself. His notice of appeal identified the dismissal order, but his brief challenged a separate order rejecting his objection to his wife's $85,733.84 domestic-support claim. The panel later affirmed: it could not review the claim order because Miles had not appealed it, and he developed no argument against the dismissal order itself. In re Miles (No. 26-1014) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/26-1014.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1014&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Oral argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16%20Pas%20CR%202.pdf Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/08/06/26-1014.pdf Opinions index — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/opinions Chapter 13 bankruptcy basics — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-13-bankruptcy-basics Title 11, Chapter 13 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title11/chapter13&edition=prelim Bankruptcy appeal process — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/appeal-process/ Alan X. Yang and Jason Wilson-Aguilar — Chapter 13 trustee's office: https://seattlech13.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/USTP-Best-Practices-2024-08.pdf

In re Koehler — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considers Robert Koehler's appeal after the bankruptcy court rejected his homestead exemption. In 2022, during Koehler's Chapter 13 case, his lawyer agreed that the court would sustain a creditor's objection to every homestead exemption asserted or that could be asserted against Koehler's home. After the case was converted to Chapter 7, Koehler claimed a different California homestead exemption, and trustee Geoffrey Richards objected. Koehler says he never authorized the earlier agreement. The panel later affirmed: Koehler remained bound by the final 2022 order and could not attack it through this later appeal. In re Koehler (No. 25-1110) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/25-1110.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1110&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Oral argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16%20Pas%20CR%202.pdf Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/08/06/25-1110.pdf Opinions index — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/opinions Exemption-objection calendar — U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0528_1000_454S_2025.pdf Settlement calendar — U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/1120_1000_454S_2024.pdf 11 U.S.C. § 522 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section522&num=0&edition=prelim Chapter 7 bankruptcy basics — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-7-bankruptcy-basics California Code of Civil Procedure § 704.730 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=704.730. Gabriel P. Herrera — Kronick: https://kmtg.com/attorneys/gabriel-p-herrera/ Gabriel P. Herrera — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/287093

In re Gavrieli — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hears three related appeals from Kfir Gavrieli's Chapter 11 case. The confirmed plan created a trust, administered after the plan took effect by J. Michael Issa. After a promised funding backstop failed and plan payments defaulted, creditors Dikla Gavrieli Unatin and Dean Unatin asked the bankruptcy court to limit new borrowing and Gavrieli's role in estate litigation, and to require faster liquidation. The court denied most of that relief but ordered Issa to pursue funds in Hong Kong. The appellate panel later affirmed, concluding that the plan left the challenged decisions to Issa's discretion and business judgment. In re Gavrieli (No. 26-1000) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/26-1000.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1000&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Oral argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16%20Pas%20CR%201.pdf Memorandum disposition — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2026/08/07/26-1000.pdf Opinions index — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/opinions Bankruptcy court calendar — Central District of California: https://ecf-ciao.cacb.uscourts.gov/kioskPDF/BB_080426.pdf Christopher E. Prince — Lesnick Prince: https://lesnickprince.com/christopher-e-prince/ Christopher E. Prince — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/183553 Edward McNeilly — Hogan Lovells: https://www.hlc.com/en/mcneilly-edward Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-bankruptcy-procedure Bankruptcy Rule 2004 — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_2004

In re Catron — 9th Cir. BAP (Jul 16, 2026) Jul 17, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considers Linda Catron's appeal from an order dismissing her Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. Chapter 13 lets an individual propose a court-supervised plan to repay debts. The order also barred discharge in future cases of debts that could have been discharged here, meaning Catron could not later use bankruptcy to end her personal liability for those debts. She represents herself. In re Catron (No. 25-1137) — United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, argued July 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/16/25-1137.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1137&hearingDate=2026-07-16 Oral argument calendar — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/bap/hearings/2026.07.16%20Pas%20CR%202.pdf Dismissal hearing record — U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0722_1115_454S_2025.pdf Later case record describing the dismissal terms — U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/1125_1100_454S_2025.pdf Post-appeal ruling identifying BAP No. 25-1137 — U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California: https://www.caeb.uscourts.gov/documents/Judges/PreHearingDispositions/0113_1100_454S_2026.pdf Chapter 13 bankruptcy basics — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-13-bankruptcy-basics Title 11, Chapter 13 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title11/chapter13&edition=prelim Bankruptcy discharge basics — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/discharge-bankruptcy-bankruptcy-basics 11 U.S.C. § 524 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section524&num=0&edition=prelim Opinions — Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel: https://www.bap9.uscourts.gov/opinions

Abouammo v. United States — SCOTUS (Mar 30, 2026) Jul 16, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court decides where a prosecution for falsifying a record to obstruct a federal investigation may be tried. Ahmad Abouammo created a false invoice at his Seattle home and emailed it to FBI agents who were there interviewing him. The investigation was based in San Francisco, and he was tried there under Section 1519. Abouammo says venue belongs only in Seattle, where he created the document. The United States says his email and its intended effects also connected the crime to San Francisco. The Court later reversed unanimously, holding that the charge had to be tried where the falsification occurred. Abouammo v. United States (No. 25-5146) — 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/25-5146.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-5146_6468.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-5146.html Brief for Ahmad Abouammo: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5146/392101/20260120114700674_No.%2025-5146%20-%20Abouammo%20v.%20US%20-%20Petitioners%20Brief.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-5146/396818/20260219192622991_25-5146bsUnitedStates.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-5146_new_kifl.pdf Tobias S. Loss-Eaton — Sidley Austin: https://www.sidley.com/en/people/l/losseaton-tobias-s

Pitchford v. Cain — SCOTUS (Mar 31, 2026) Jul 15, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether Mississippi unreasonably treated Terry Pitchford as having given up his Batson argument. At his capital-murder trial, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges—strikes that normally require no stated cause—to remove four of five Black prospective jurors. Batson bars race-based jury strikes: once the prosecutor gives race-neutral reasons, the defense may show that those reasons are a pretext for discrimination before the judge decides whether discrimination occurred. The trial judge accepted the stated reasons without giving Pitchford's lawyer a sufficient chance to complete that third step. The Mississippi Supreme Court found the argument waived. A federal district court granted relief, but the Fifth Circuit reversed under AEDPA. That statute sharply limits federal review of state convictions. The Supreme Court later reversed five to four, holding that Mississippi unreasonably found waiver. It did not decide whether the strikes themselves were discriminatory. Pitchford v. Cain (No. 24-7351) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued March 31, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-7351.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-7351_h315.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-7351.html Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-7351_jiel.pdf Fifth Circuit decision: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-70009-CV1.pdf Brief for Terry Pitchford: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-7351/392924/20260128173638234_Pitchford%20-%20Opening%20Brief%20-%20Final.pdf Brief for the respondents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-7351/399510/20260227133031362_No.%2024-7351%20Brief%20for%20Respondents%20and%20Appendix.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-7351/400280/20260306173651885_24-7351bsacUnitedStates.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 2254: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2254 Jury panel and peremptory challenges — Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_panel Joseph J. Perkovich — Phillips Black: https://www.phillipsblack.org/advocates Decision coverage — The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/28/supreme-court-mississippi-death-row-racial-bias

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected