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:

Trump v. Barbara — SCOTUS (Apr 1, 2026) Jul 14, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court hears Trump versus Barbara, a challenge to President Trump's Executive Order 14,160. The order directed federal agencies not to recognize citizenship at birth for children born in the United States when their mother was unlawfully or only temporarily here and their father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. A federal district court blocked the order nationwide, and the Supreme Court took the case before the First Circuit ruled. The question is whether the Fourteenth Amendment and the federal citizenship statute protect those children. The Court later affirmed the injunction, six to three. Five Justices held the order unconstitutional; Justice Kavanaugh supplied the sixth vote under the statute. Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 1, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-365.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-365_l6gn.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html Executive Order 14,160 — Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/full_text/html/2025/01/29/2025-02007.html Fourteenth Amendment — Constitution Annotated: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ 8 U.S.C. § 1401 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1401&num=0&edition=prelim Brief for the government: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392236/20260120203524283_25-365BarbaraGovtBr.pdf Brief for the respondents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/396806/20260219162058285_25-365%20Trump%20v%20Barbara%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-365_new_5if6.pdf D. John Sauer — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/osg/staff-profile/solicitor-general-john-sauer Cecillia Wang — American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/bios/cecillia-wang Cecillia Wang appointment — American Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-names-cecillia-wang-as-new-national-legal-director “A fortiori” — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/a_fortiori “A fortiori” — Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20fortiori

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation — SCOTUS (Apr 20, 2026) Jul 13, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies before state appeals are over. The doctrine prevents federal trial courts from acting as appellate courts over state judgments. T.M. challenged a Maryland consent order that conditioned her release from involuntary psychiatric care, while her state appeal remained pending. She then asked a federal court to declare the order unconstitutional and void. The Court later affirmed, holding five to four that Rooker-Feldman also applies to state judgments still subject to appeal. T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (No. 25-197) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 20, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-197.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-197_6j37.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-197.html Brief for T.M.: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-197/391713/20260114130929641_25-197_petbr.pdf Brief for the medical system: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-197/396216/20260213112320341_TM%20v.%20UMM%20Merits%20Brief.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-197_new_4g15.pdf Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Cooley: https://www.cooley.com/people/elizabeth-prelogar Elizabeth B. Prelogar — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/osg/bio/solicitor-general-elizabeth-b-prelogar Lisa S. Blatt — Williams & Connolly: https://www.wc.com/Attorneys/Lisa-S-Blatt Ab initio — Third Circuit: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/213307np.pdf Ab initio — Cornell Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ab_initio

United States v. Madrid — 5th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Madrid. Anthony Madrid pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and to discharging a firearm during that crime, adding a mandatory ten-year consecutive sentence under Section 924(c). Through Section 2255, the federal procedure for challenging a conviction or sentence, he says that firearm conviction violates the Second Amendment because he fired to defend his home and family from masked men collecting a drug debt. The court must also decide whether the claim came too late or was waived in his plea agreement. Damonta Morgan of Forman Watkins represents Madrid. He will ask the court to reach the claim and vacate the firearm conviction. Assistant United States Attorney Bradley Visosky represents the government. He will contend that the procedural bars control and that the Second Amendment does not protect a firearm used during drug trafficking. United States v. Madrid (No. 25-40161) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 8, 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/25/25-40161_07-08-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-07-08&to=2026-07-08 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-07-08 Section 2255 order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/1%3A2021cv00507/210126/19/0.pdf?ts=1741973843 Prior direct appeal — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/20/20-40031.0.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2255 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section924%28c%29 Hunter v. United States — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1063new_l5gm.pdf Initial shooting report — The Dallas Morning News: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/01/30/cocaine-dealer-with-ak-47-shot-pregnant-girlfriend-son-while-fending-off-robbers-feds-say/ Damonta Morgan profile — Forman Watkins: https://www.formanwatkins.com/people/damonta-morgan/ Bradley Visosky profile — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=208332 Bradley Visosky — U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Texas: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edtx/pr/deputy-attorney-general-recognizes-plano-federal-prosecutor

United States v. Gibson — 5th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Gibson. A jury convicted Cody Gibson of joining a conspiracy involving five grams or more of methamphetamine. Gibson will accept that the evidence showed a drug conspiracy but contend that the government did not prove his transactions involved methamphetamine. The United States will answer that intercepted calls and surveillance allowed that inference. The court must decide whether the circumstantial proof was sufficient and, if not, what that means for Gibson's conviction and sentence. United States v. Gibson (No. 25-30445) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 8, 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/25/25-30445_07-08-2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-07-08&to=2026-07-08 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/sitting?d=2026-07-08 Trial background — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdla/pr/two-men-found-guilty-federal-jury-drug-trafficking-charges-organized-crime-drug Presentence reports — Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/probation-and-pretrial-services/presentence-investigations Presentence reports and Rule 32 — U.S. Probation Office: https://www.nvp.uscourts.gov/presentence-investigation/understanding-presentence-process/

United States v. Enclade — 5th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Travis Enclade and Terence Wilson's appeals from federal drug-conspiracy and firearm convictions arising from a New Orleans stash-house investigation. The argument focuses on whether the evidence was sufficient and whether the lead investigator improperly interpreted surveillance and a recorded jail call for the jury. On August 18, the court affirmed, finding no reversible error. United States v. Enclade (No. 24-30684) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/24/24-30684_07-08-2026.mp3 Argument record — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-07-08&to=2026-08-19&page=2 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/month/2026/7 Decision — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-30684-CR0.pdf Trial result — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edla/pr/federal-trial-jury-convicts-new-orleans-men-using-stash-house-methamphetamine-heroin District-court record — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cr-00238/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_22-cr-00238-0.pdf

Sanchez v. Rubio — 5th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears Carlos and Claudia Sanchez's immigration appeal from the Southern District of Texas. The question is whether the five-year deadline in Section 1503(a), for certain actions seeking a declaration of United States nationality, may be equitably tolled—meaning paused when a person diligently pursued a claim but an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. Sanchez v. Rubio (No. 25-40241) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued July 8, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-40241_07-08-2026.mp3 Argument record — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-07-08&to=2026-08-19&page=3 Argument calendar — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/court-calendars/month/2026/7 8 U.S.C. § 1503 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1503 Equitable tolling — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/572bv.pdf

Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, AS — 9th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Doe versus WebGroup Czech Republic. Doe asks to revive claims against operators of adult websites that she says carried videos of her abuse as a minor and shared advertising revenue with uploaders. The central question is whether Section 230 shields the companies despite federal trafficking law. After this argument, a divided panel affirmed the dismissal; Judge Fitzwater dissented on the trafficking claim. Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic, AS (No. 25-2424) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 8, 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/2026/07/08/25-2424.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2424&hearingDate=2026-07-08 Memorandum disposition — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/12/25-2424.pdf Prior opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/02/14/22-55315.pdf Appellate docket — Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2424 Section 230 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title47-section230&num=0&edition=prelim Federal sex-trafficking statute — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1591&num=0&edition=prelim Child sexual abuse material — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/programs/project-safe-childhood-psc

Amaya v. Menzies Aviation USA, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Menzies Aviation gave up its right to arbitration by litigating a wage-and-hour class action for twenty-eight months before moving to compel. The district court excused the delay because Menzies was awaiting another case about its airport workers. After this argument, the Ninth Circuit held that Menzies had waived arbitration and sent the case back. Amaya v. Menzies Aviation USA, Inc. (No. 25-2041) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 8, 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/2026/07/08/25-2041.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2041&hearingDate=2026-07-08 Memorandum disposition — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/28/25-2041.pdf Appellate docket — Amaya v. Menzies Aviation: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2041 District docket — Amaya v. Menzies Aviation: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2%3A2022cv05915/860677 Federal Arbitration Act, Section 1 — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A9+section%3A1+edition%3Aprelim%29 Southwest Airlines v. Saxon — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-309_o758.pdf United States v. Tillman — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/06/30/13-10131.pdf

Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether a federal judge went too far in monitoring Six Flags' compliance with an injunction protecting a deaf patron. After a bench trial, the judge found that Six Flags had violated federal and California disability-access laws. The appeal concerns three monitoring provisions: quarterly reports, three years of court oversight, and access to specified records. After this argument, the Ninth Circuit upheld those provisions in an unpublished memorandum. Patterson v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. (No. 25-2070) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 8, 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/2026/07/08/25-2070.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2070&hearingDate=2026-07-08 Memorandum disposition — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/24/25-2070.pdf Appellate docket — Patterson v. Six Flags: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2070 District-court order — Patterson v. Six Flags: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2%3A2021cv02398/404736/112/0.pdf Attorney record — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/273944 Attorney profile — Sanaz Cherazaie: https://profiles.superlawyers.com/california/long-beach/lawyer/sanaz-cherazaie/0afe60b6-9a78-4dc3-b8aa-74cfb6e756a4.html Attorney profile — Andrew Rozynski: https://www.eandblaw.com/attorney/rozynski-andrew-esq/ Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure Horne v. Flores — U.S. Supreme Court: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/433/

United States v. LeBeaux — 9th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews Adriano LeBeaux's federal conviction for aggravated sexual abuse. The government used testimony alleging that LeBeaux had committed a separate sexual assault, although the related charge was later dismissed. LeBeaux will argue that the judge should have held a reliability hearing, should have allowed the jury to hear about the dismissal, and that the evidence was insufficient. The United States will argue that credibility belonged to the jury and that admitting the dismissal would have confused the issues. After this argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction in an unpublished memorandum. United States v. LeBeaux (No. 25-3088) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 8, 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/2026/07/08/25-3088.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3088&hearingDate=2026-07-08 Memorandum disposition — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/05/25-3088.pdf Appellate docket — United States v. LeBeaux: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-3088 Sentencing release — U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Montana: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mt/pr/lame-deer-man-sentenced-over-15-years-prison-rape-northern-cheyenne-indian-reservation

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected