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:

Rose v. State of Oregon — 9th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers two consolidated appeals arising from Richard Rose's death in Oregon custody. Steven Rose challenges the dismissal of eight prison employees whom he did not serve within the court's deadline, and says a later verdict for Oregon did not make that dismissal harmless. He also challenges the dismissal of a second civil-rights suit as untimely. Oregon and the employees say the service failure justified dismissal, the verdict cured any error, and Rose knew enough to sue within the limitations period. Rose v. State of Oregon (No. 24-6011 & 25-2064) — 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/2026/07/08/24-6011.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-6011&hearingDate=2026-07-08 District-court order — Rose v. State of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-2_22-cv-00923/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-2_22-cv-00923-0.pdf Findings and recommendation — Rose v. Pina: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-2_24-cv-00912/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-2_24-cv-00912-0.pdf Appellate docket — No. 24-6011: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/24-6011 Appellate docket — No. 25-2064: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2064

McColloch v. Bisignano — 9th Cir. (Jul 8, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Beverly McColloch's challenge to the denial of Social Security disability benefits for a period ending in June 2015. A federal district court affirmed the agency's decision, and McColloch asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse. She says the administrative law judge wrongly discounted medical opinions and her account of pain, including her need to change positions or lie down during the workday. The Commissioner says her treatment history, inconsistent statements, and vocational evidence support the denial. McColloch v. Bisignano (No. 25-77) — 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/2026/07/08/25-77.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-77&hearingDate=2026-07-08 District-court order — McColloch v. Commissioner: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2024cv00367/332623/16/0.pdf Appellate docket — McColloch v. Colvin: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-77 Review of agency decisions — Ninth Circuit standards guide: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/IV.%20Review%20of%20Agency%20Decisions%202022.htm

Darden v. Bisignano — 9th Cir. (Jul 9, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Patrick Darden's Social Security disability appeal. A district court found that an administrative law judge improperly relied on semi-skilled jobs without finding that Darden had transferable skills. It sent the case back for more agency proceedings, but Darden asks instead for benefits or a different administrative law judge. The Commissioner says unanswered factual questions support another hearing. The Ninth Circuit later affirmed the district court's choice. Darden v. Bisignano (No. 25-3348) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 9, 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/2026/07/09/25-3348.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3348&hearingDate=2026-07-09 Memorandum disposition — Darden v. Bisignano: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/29/25-3348.pdf Decision record — Darden v. Bisignano: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/25-3348/25-3348-2026-07-29.html Residual functional capacity — 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/404.1545 Residual functional capacity — Zavalin v. Colvin: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/02/20/13-35276.pdf

Carlson, et al. v. Chavez, et al. — 9th Cir. (Jul 9, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Adams County officers Saul Chavez and Juan Garcia are entitled to qualified immunity after securing Chauna and Andrew Carlson's home and taking Chauna Carlson's phone without a warrant during a domestic-violence investigation. The district court denied immunity. The officers say possible destruction of evidence created an exigency and, at minimum, no closely similar precedent clearly barred their actions. The Carlsons say there was no emergency and the officers should have sought a warrant before securing the home or phone. Carlson, et al. v. Chavez, et al. (No. 25-3038) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/09/25-3038.mp3 Argument record — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/ District-court docket — court-record mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/waedce/2%3A2024cv00114/106633

Mitchum v. Honea — 9th Cir. (Jul 9, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Michael Mitchum's appeal after a district court dismissed his disability-discrimination complaint against Butte County and jail officials. Mitchum alleges that the jail denied accommodations for serious mobility limitations; the defendants say his complaint did not state a valid claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ninth Circuit later reversed and sent the case back, holding that Mitchum had plausibly alleged that claim and deliberate indifference. Mitchum v. Honea (No. 24-5777) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 9, 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/2026/07/09/24-5777.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-5777&hearingDate=2026-07-09 Memorandum disposition — Mitchum v. Honea: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/27/24-5777.pdf District-court order — Mitchum v. Honea: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02313/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-02313-6.pdf Case docket — Mitchum v. Honea: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/24-5777 Legal glossary — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary Pro se — Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_se Duvall v. County of Kitsap — Ninth Circuit opinion: https://openjurist.org/260/f3d/1124

Mercer Global Advisors, Inc. v. Hewitt — 9th Cir. (Jul 9, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears Mercer Global Advisors' appeal from summary judgment for former employees Ashlee and Alan Charles Hewitt and Hewitt Advisors. Mercer says they retained client contact information and used it to contact clients after leaving. Its claims include trade-secret misappropriation under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, or CUTSA, breach of contract, and breach of loyalty. Mercer will argue that the evidence creates jury questions over misappropriation, causation, damages, and its contracts. The appellees will call the messages lawful job-change announcements, say Mercer did not tie them to client losses, and argue that California law defeats the other claims. In a nonprecedential memorandum issued August 12, 2026, the panel revived the CUTSA and contract claims but left the loyalty ruling and expert exclusion in place. Mercer Global Advisors, Inc. v. Hewitt (No. 25-995) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/09/25-995.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-995&hearingDate=2026-07-09 Decision — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/08/12/25-995.pdf Final district court judgment — Justia-hosted court filing: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2%3A2023cv03659/884438/170/ Appeal docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-995 District court record — Justia-hosted court filing: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2%3A2023cv03659/884438/38 Counsel listing — U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/GW/MC/b69ce444-3e25-4727-a2b1-45f9815b7b68.pdf California Uniform Trade Secrets Act — California Legislature: https://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=4.&lawCode=CIV&part=1.&title=5. California Business and Professions Code § 16600 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=16600. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Tombstone-announcement decision — New York State Unified Court System: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2020/2020_33856.pdf

Johnson v. Adgar — 9th Cir. (Jul 9, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews a civil-rights verdict from a 2020 protest in San Jose. A jury found that Officer James Adgar fired a foam baton round that struck Kyle Johnson, who had not thrown anything at police, and awarded Johnson about one point four million dollars. After the district court preserved Johnson's Fourth Amendment and California Bane Act claims, Adgar appealed. The appeal asks whether the shot was a constitutional seizure, whether the force was unreasonable, and whether existing law gave Adgar fair notice. The court will also consider whether the Bane Act's clearly delineated standard matches qualified immunity's clearly established test. Johnson v. Adgar (No. 25-1392) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/09/25-1392.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1392&hearingDate=2026-07-09 Post-trial order — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_21-cv-01849/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_21-cv-01849-7.pdf Appeal docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-1392 Independent case report — KQED: https://www.kqed.org/news/12023815/man-hurt-by-san-jose-police-in-george-floyd-protests-awarded-1-3-million Brian Patrick Eggleston — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/289309 Brian Eggleston — federal court filing: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv10641/461205/27/0.pdf Abimael AJ Bastida — McManis Faulkner: https://www.mcmanislaw.com/people/lawyers/abimael-aj-bastida/ California Civil Code section 52.1 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=52.1.&lawCode=CIV

Edwards v. Brown — 9th Cir. (Jul 9, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Deymon Edwards filed his federal civil-rights complaint on time. Edwards alleges that Oregon prison officers failed to let him decontaminate after exposure to pepper spray. The district court dismissed the complaint under Oregon's two-year limitations period. The appeal turns on when that clock stopped and restarted while Edwards used the prison grievance process, especially whether the pause began when he submitted his first grievance or when prison staff marked a later grievance received. Edwards v. Brown (No. 25-6849) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/09/25-6849.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-6849&hearingDate=2026-07-09 District court opinion and order — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-6_25-cv-00075/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-6_25-cv-00075-0.pdf District court docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oregon/ordce/6%3A2025cv00075/184106 Opening brief for Deymon Edwards: https://www.macarthurjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2025-12-10-Opening-brief-submitted-.pdf Reply brief for Deymon Edwards: https://www.macarthurjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/2026-03-18-Reply-brief-submitted.pdf Oregon Revised Statutes, chapter 12: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors012.html Kirsten Naito — official Oregon appellate record: https://ojd.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/p17027coll3/id/11394/download

Dawson v. Target Corporation — 9th Cir. (Jul 9, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Dylan Dawson agreed to arbitrate claims against Target and its delivery subsidiary, Shipt, by using Target's mobile app. Target says Dawson necessarily encountered sign-in and checkout screens that linked to terms containing an arbitration clause. Dawson says Target did not prove which screens he saw and that the notices were too inconspicuous to create a contract. The district court denied arbitration because Target had not shown adequate notice or unambiguous assent. Dawson v. Target Corporation (No. 25-4061) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/09/25-4061.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-4061&hearingDate=2026-07-09 Order denying arbitration — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-08167/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-08167-0.pdf District court docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3%3A2024cv08167/439671 Complaint — Dylan Dawson v. Target Corporation: https://www.classaction.org/media/dawson-v-target-corporation-et-al.pdf Appellate brief and case summary — Retail Litigation Center: https://www.rila.org/retail-litigation-center/appellate-division-briefs/dawson-v-target-corporation Aileen McGrath — Morrison Foerster: https://www.mofo.com/people/aileen-mcgrath Aileen McGrath — U.S. Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-958.html Shelby Leighton — Public Justice: https://www.publicjustice.net/about/our-people/ Dawson oral-argument notice — Public Justice: https://www.linkedin.com/company/public-justice

Panabaker v. City of Hood River — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 10, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether Hood River, Oregon, violates the dormant Commerce Clause by limiting short-term rentals in residential zones to an owner's primary residence or a home occupied by a long-term tenant. The plaintiffs are out-of-state owners of second homes. The district court upheld the rules. On July 20, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a memorandum that does not set precedent. It held that the rules do not discriminate against out-of-state interests and that the owners had not shown a substantial burden on interstate commerce. Panabaker v. City of Hood River (No. 25-2638) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued July 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/07/07/25-2638.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2638&hearingDate=2026-07-07 Decision — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/20/25-2638.pdf District court order — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_24-cv-00901/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_24-cv-00901-0.pdf Appeal docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-2638 District court docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oregon/ordce/3%3A2024cv00901/180194 Argument report — Columbia Gorge News: https://www.columbiagorgenews.com/news/out-of-staters-challenge-hood-river-s-short-term-rental-policy-in-the-9th-circuit/article_f3f43745-104e-463f-9015-b40413bdf0f1.html Decision report — League of Oregon Cities: https://www.orcities.org/resources/communications/bulletin/ninth-circuit-rules-favor-hood-rivers-short-term-rental-regulation Christopher Michel — Quinn Emanuel: https://www.quinnemanuel.com/media/wbfgy0ya/qe_cmichel-release-pdf.pdf Christopher Michel — Bloomberg Law: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/quinn-emanuel-recruits-ex-doj-supreme-court-litigator-michel Matthew E. Malmsheimer — Oregon Judicial Department: https://web.courts.oregon.gov/odycodes/ArbitratorList.pdf Matthew E. Malmsheimer — U.S. District Court record: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_24-cv-01504/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_24-cv-01504-0.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected