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:

Ford v. St. Charles Health System, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers whether a proposed class action by Oregon nurse Anna Ford belongs in federal court or arbitration. Ford alleges that St. Charles Health System failed to provide nurses with uninterrupted meal periods required by Oregon law. St. Charles says the nurses' collective bargaining agreement, their union contract, governs the dispute. The district court held that Ford's claims arise under state law and fall outside the contract's arbitration clause. St. Charles will argue that deciding the claims requires interpreting the union contract, so federal labor law preempts, or displaces, the state claims and sends the dispute to arbitration. Ford will argue that Oregon law controls. Both sides agree that without federal preemption, the federal courts lack jurisdiction and the case must return to state court. Ford v. St. Charles Health System, Inc. (No. 25-855) — 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/2026/07/07/25-855.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-855&hearingDate=2026-07-07 Preemption order — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00871/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00871-0.pdf Arbitration order — U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00871/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00871-1.pdf Appeal docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-855 29 U.S.C. § 185 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A29+section%3A185+edition%3Aprelim%29 ORS 653.261 — Oregon State Legislature: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors653.html?ID=18162 Meal and break rules — Oregon BOLI: https://www.oregon.gov/boli/workers/Pages/meals-and-breaks.aspx Kevin H. Kono — Davis Wright Tremaine: https://www.dwt.com/people/k/kono-kevin-h Kevin Kono — Oregon State Bar Bulletin: https://www.osbar.org/bulletin/issues/2024/2024December/offline/download.pdf

United States v. Tiedemann — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews the revocation of Kenneth Tiedemann's supervised release after he refused to give probation the password to his smartphone, and several conditions on his supervision. Supervised release means living in the community under court supervision after prison. Tiedemann will contend that revocation based on his refusal violated the Fifth Amendment, and that internet, computer-monitoring, polygraph, and technology restrictions were unlawful or too broad. The United States will defend both the revocation and the conditions. Nine days later, the court affirmed in a memorandum that does not set precedent. It held that neither the exclusionary rule nor the Fifth Amendment barred the revocation; upheld the conditions; limited computer monitoring to internet-related activity; and read the technology restrictions to require knowing use. United States v. Tiedemann (No. 25-1409) — 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/2026/07/07/25-1409.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1409&hearingDate=2026-07-07 Decision — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/16/25-1409.pdf Appeal docket — Justia Dockets: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-1409 18 U.S.C. § 3583 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A18+section%3A3583%28a%29+edition%3Aprelim%29 Post-conviction supervision — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/probation-and-pretrial-services/post-conviction-supervision Daniel Joseph Yadron Jr. — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/336765 Nicholas William Pilchak — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/331711 Nicholas Pilchak — U.S. Attorney's Office: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/calexico-city-officials-charged-corruption

Mendoza v. First Unum Life Insurance Company — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews First Unum's denial of long-term disability benefits under ERISA, the federal employee-benefits law, to Siam Mendoza, a former AIG senior underwriter who says long COVID left him with fatigue and cognitive and psychiatric symptoms. The district court independently reviewed the administrative record and ruled for First Unum. Mendoza will argue that First Unum and the court used reasons for discounting his evidence that were not disclosed during his administrative appeal, leaving him no chance to respond. First Unum will argue that it consistently found his reported limits unsupported by the medical record and that the court merely weighed that same record. The question is whether those explanations were a forbidden new rationale or support for the original denial. Mendoza v. First Unum Life Insurance Company (No. 25-3080) — 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/2026/07/07/25-3080.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3080&hearingDate=2026-07-07 District court decision — reproduced by Saul Ewing: https://www.saul.com/documents/2025/07/siam-mendoza-plaintiff-v-first-unum-life-insurance-company-defendant Appeal docket — Ninth Circuit: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-3080 District court docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/casdce/3%3A2024cv00834/784686 Case summary — Saul Ewing: https://www.saul.com/insights/alert/erisa-litigation-july-2025 Russell G. Petti — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/137160 Law Offices of Russell G. Petti: https://petti-legal.com/about.php

Madero v. McLane Foodservice, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers overtime claims by former McLane truck drivers Jordan Madero and Esteban Orosco. Most routes ran from McLane's Riverside warehouse to California restaurants, though the goods came from other states and the drivers sometimes crossed state lines. The district court held that the Motor Carrier Act exemption barred their federal overtime claim. The drivers will argue that the goods entered McLane's inventory without customer-specific orders, ending the interstate journey at the warehouse. McLane will argue that chain-specific contracts, forecasting, brief storage, and segregated products made each local delivery part of a continuous interstate movement. McLane also cross-appeals the dismissal of the remaining California claims, arguing that ordinary diversity jurisdiction or the Class Action Fairness Act kept them in federal court. The drivers will argue dismissal was correct. Madero v. McLane Foodservice, Inc. (No. 25-1341) — 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/2026/07/07/25-1341.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-1341&hearingDate=2026-07-07 District court summary-judgment order: https://app.midpage.ai/document/jordan-orozco-madero-v-mclane-1000416347569 Appeal docket — No. 25-1341: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-1341 Cross-appeal docket — No. 25-1798: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-1798 FLSA overtime rule — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section207&num=0&edition=prelim Motor Carrier Act exemption — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section213&num=0&edition=prelim Diversity and CAFA jurisdiction — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1332&num=0&edition=prelim Flowers Foods v. Brock — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-935_k53m.pdf Royal Canin v. Wullschleger — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-677_6jgm.pdf Fritsch v. Swift Transportation — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/08/18-55746.pdf Glenn A. Danas — Clarkson: https://clarksonlawfirm.com/people/glenn-danas/ Richard B. Raile — BakerHostetler: https://www.bakerlaw.com/professionals/richard-b-raile/

Linhart v. New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers a California life insurance dispute involving James Linhart. His 2007 policy lapsed four days before he died and predated a 2013 law that, among other safeguards, requires insurers to give applicants a form to name someone else to receive lapse warnings and to remind policy owners annually of that right. His beneficiary, Barbara Linhart, says New York Life never sent the form and that the California Supreme Court's McHugh decision makes all the safeguards apply to policies already in force. The district court ruled for New York Life and denied class certification. Linhart will argue that the statutes work as a package, cover existing policy owners, and at least present a question for the California Supreme Court. New York Life will argue that the form requirement expressly applies only before a new policy is issued, that it sent nine annual notices, and that Linhart did not preserve a challenge to those notices. It will also defend the denial of class certification. Linhart v. New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation (No. 25-490) — 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/2026/07/07/25-490.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-490&hearingDate=2026-07-07 District court order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/5%3A2021cv01640/832721/147/0.pdf Appeal docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-490 California Insurance Code § 10113.71 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=10113.71. California Insurance Code § 10113.72 — California Legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=INS&sectionNum=10113.72. McHugh v. Protective Life — California Supreme Court opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2021/s259215.html Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf California Rule of Court 8.548 — Judicial Branch of California: https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/eight/rule8_548 District court hearing calendar — Central District of California: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/JWH/MC/a8c21934-f495-47ca-8c3f-600a8a398ccc.pdf Christopher R. Pitoun — Hagens Berman: https://www.hbsslaw.com/attorneys/christopher-pitoun Caleb C. Wolanek — Maynard Nexsen: https://www.maynardnexsen.com/professionals-caleb-c-wolanek

Hoch v. Figs, Inc. — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 08, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews the dismissal of investor claims arising from Figs's 2021 initial and secondary stock offerings. The offering documents said the medical-apparel company used real-time customer data to reliably predict buying patterns and improve inventory decisions. The investors say former employees showed that Figs instead relied on basic, ad hoc systems that could not do what the company claimed. They sue under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, which cover material falsehoods in registration statements and prospectuses without requiring proof of intent to defraud. The investors will argue that ordinary Rule 8 pleading applies and that their witnesses supplied enough detail. Figs and the other defendants will argue that the complaint reused the same facts as separate fraud claims, so Rule 9(b)'s stricter standard applies, and that the witnesses lacked timely, firsthand support. Tulco will separately argue that large ownership and one board seat do not make it liable for others' statements. Hoch v. Figs, Inc. (No. 25-902) — 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/2026/07/07/25-902.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-902&hearingDate=2026-07-07 District court dismissal order: https://business.cch.com/srd/Ryan-v-FIGSInc.pdf Appeal docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-902 Figs initial-offering prospectus — SEC: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1846576/000119312521176051/d29047d424b4.htm Figs secondary-offering prospectus — SEC: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1846576/000119312521275396/d213818d424b4.htm Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Securities Act Section 11 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section77k&num=0&edition=prelim Securities Act Section 12 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section77l&num=0&edition=prelim Steven Francis Hubachek — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/147703 Koji Fukumura — Cooley: https://www.cooley.com/people/koji-fukumura Koji Fukumura — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/189719 Raza Rasheed — Skadden: https://www.skadden.com/professionals/r/rasheed-raza Raza Rasheed — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/306722

United States v. Gessen — 9th Cir. (Jul 7, 2026) Jul 07, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews Allen Gessen's murder-for-hire conviction under 18 U.S.C. Section 1958. Gessen will argue that the recorded conversations showed at most a plan to abduct or remove his estranged wife from the country, not an agreement that she be killed for payment. He will also challenge an undercover agent's testimony interpreting their coded language and argue that Northern California was not a proper place to prosecute the case. Gessen also challenges evidence of earlier parental abductions. The United States will answer that the recordings, planning, payment, and Gessen's own testimony supported the verdict; that the agent described his own understanding as a participant; that the earlier acts showed motive and intent; and that messages and money received in San Francisco made venue proper. United States v. Gessen (No. 24-2979) — 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/2026/07/07/24-2979.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-2979&hearingDate=2026-07-07 District court order denying post-trial motions — GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_22-cr-00276/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_22-cr-00276-2.pdf 18 U.S.C. § 1958 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1958&num=0&edition=prelim Federal Rule of Evidence 701 — U.S. Courts: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf James Scott Thomson — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/79658 Elizabeth Berenguer — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/362903

United States v. State of Texas — 5th Cir. (Jun 4, 2026) Jul 07, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit reviews attempts by students, advocacy groups, and a community college to join a lawsuit and defend two Texas in-state-tuition provisions. In June 2025, the United States sued Texas under Section 1623, which bars a state from giving a residence-based higher-education benefit to a person not lawfully present unless United States citizens can receive the same benefit regardless of residence. Texas agreed that day to a judgment blocking the provisions. The would-be intervenors will argue that the original parties had no real dispute, the rushed judgment denied affected students a fair chance to be heard, and their defenses were strong enough to proceed. The United States and Texas will argue that federal law displaces the provisions and that intervention was futile because the proposed defenses could not succeed. After this argument, a divided panel affirmed the denial of intervention and dismissed the other claims because the appellants never became parties. The majority held that Section 1623 preempts the provisions and rejected the Tenth Amendment defense. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented, concluding that the federal law unconstitutionally commands the state and that intervention was not futile. United States v. State of Texas (No. 25-10898) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued June 4, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-10898_06-04-2026.mp3 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1959/ Argument recordings — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings Decision — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10898-CV0.pdf 8 U.S.C. § 1623 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1623 LUPE appellants' brief — National Immigration Law Center: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/2025.09.29_5CA-Appeals-Brief.pdf Students for Affordable Tuition brief — MALDEF: https://www.maldef.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/118-SAT-Appeal-Brief-10.29.25.pdf Joshua Salzman — Democracy Forward: https://democracyforward.org/team/josh-salzman/ Thomas A. Saenz — MALDEF: https://www.maldef.org/about/thomas-a-saenz/ Nathaniel Anson Plemons — State Bar of Texas: https://www.texasbar.com/attorneys/member.cfm?id=366199 Decision report — Spectrum News: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2026/07/09/federal-appeals-court-denies-reopening-lawsuit-that-ended-texas-dream-act-in-2025

Bowa Estates Ltd v. Association of Apartment Owners of Wailea Point Village — 9th Cir. (Jun 25, 2026) Jul 06, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers Bowa Estates Limited versus the Association of Apartment Owners of Wailea Point Village. The association amended the property declaration to raise the minimum lease term from thirty days to three hundred sixty-five days, with approval from more than seventy percent of owners. The district court upheld the amendment. The owners say Section Ten required unanimous consent because the amendment changed a restriction on apartment use. The association says the declaration's sixty-seven-percent rule applied because the change did not alter a fundamental purpose or use. After this argument, the Ninth Circuit reversed. It read Section Ten to require unanimous consent for any change to a restriction on apartment use. Bowa Estates Ltd v. Association of Apartment Owners of Wailea Point Village (No. 25-6258) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued June 25, 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/2026/06/25/25-6258.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-6258&hearingDate=2026-06-25 Decision — Ninth Circuit memorandum: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/15/25-6258.pdf District court order — summary judgment: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00582/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_23-cv-00582-1.pdf

Wages and White Lion Investments v. FDA — 5th Cir. (Jun 9, 2026) Jul 05, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit returns to consolidated challenges by Triton Distribution and Vapetasia after the FDA denied permission to market their flavored e-cigarette liquids. In 2025, the Supreme Court rejected their claim that the FDA unfairly changed its evidentiary requirements, but left another question for the Fifth Circuit: did the agency have to adopt its comparative-efficacy test through public notice and comment? Under that test, a non-tobacco flavor must show greater benefit to adult smokers than a tobacco flavor to offset its added appeal to young users. The manufacturers say this is a binding tobacco product standard, which Congress required the FDA to create by rulemaking. The FDA says it is only applying Congress's public-health test to each application. The panel must decide whether the agency permissibly adjudicated the applications or imposed a rule without the required process. Wages and White Lion Investments v. FDA (No. 21-60766) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued June 9, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/21/21-60766_06-09-2026.mp3 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-information/court-calendars/Details/1962/ Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1038_2d93.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-1038.html Earlier en banc decision — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60766-CV3.pdf Brief for Wages and White Lion Investments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/327672/20241007153644875_23-1038%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf Brief for R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1038/328209/20241015115004909_RJRV%20Wages%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf 21 U.S.C. § 387g — tobacco product standards: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section387g&num=0&edition=prelim 21 U.S.C. § 387j — premarket review: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section387j&num=0&edition=prelim Eric N. Heyer — Thompson Hine: https://www.thompsonhine.com/professionals/eric-n-heyer/ Christian G. Vergonis — Jones Day: https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/v/christian-vergonis Joshua Koppel — U.S. Department of Justice counsel listing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A421/289415/20231113142554346_Magellan%20-%20SCOTUS%20Certificate%20of%20Service%204859-9345-9344%20v.1.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected