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:

Martinez-Hernandez v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (Jun 26, 2026) Jul 05, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit reviews Martinez-Hernandez's challenge to an order removing him to Guatemala. The immigration courts found his Idaho conviction for felony injury to a child to be a particularly serious crime, which barred withholding of removal, and also denied asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Martinez-Hernandez will argue that signs of mental incompetence required procedural safeguards, and that the immigration judge unfairly relied on a probable-cause affidavit without allowing cross-examination. The government will argue that the cross-examination claim was not properly raised before the agency and that the record otherwise supported its decisions. After this argument, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition. It found no indication that Martinez-Hernandez was incompetent, upheld the particularly-serious-crime ruling, held that he had not first presented the cross-examination claim to the agency, and found insufficient evidence that he was likely to be tortured in Guatemala. Martinez-Hernandez v. Blanche (No. 24-2966) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued June 26, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/06/26/24-2966.mp3 Argument archive — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-2966&hearingDate=2026-06-26 Decision — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/09/24-2966.pdf 8 U.S.C. § 1231 — withholding of removal: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1231 Competency in immigration proceedings — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1553251/dl Lydia Dal Nogare — University of Wisconsin Law School: https://law.wisc.edu/newsletter/Students/Hirami_24_and_Dal_Nogare_24_Name_2024-05-24 Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips — U.S. Department of Justice immigration litigation bulletin: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2014/10/17/August_2013.pdf

Sripetch v. SEC — SCOTUS (Apr 20, 2026) Jul 05, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether the SEC must prove investors lost money before it can make a securities-law violator surrender illegal profits. Sripetch participated in fraudulent penny-stock schemes and consented to judgment. The district court ordered him to disgorge about three point three million dollars. Disgorgement measures the wrongdoer's gain; damages measure the victim's loss. Sripetch says disgorgement is equitable relief for victims, so without measurable financial harm it becomes a penalty that requires a jury. The SEC says Congress expressly authorized courts to strip unjust enrichment, whether or not investors lost money. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the SEC. After this argument, a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. It held that investors can be victims when their legal rights were violated even without measurable financial loss, and disgorgement may strip the wrongdoer's gains. Justice Thomas agreed with the result but said Congress made the remedy legal, so the Seventh Amendment should require a jury in a future case. Sripetch v. SEC (No. 25-466) — 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/25-466.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-466_ec8f.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-466.html Brief for Ongkaruck Sripetch: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-466/397105/20260223230227953_25-466%20ts.pdf Brief for the SEC: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-466/403099/20260327170542544_25-466_Sripetch_bs.pdf SEC brief page — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/sripetch-v-securities-and-exchange-commn Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-466_5i26.pdf Daniel L. Geyser — Haynes Boone: https://www.haynesboone.com/people/daniel-geyser

FCC v. AT&T — SCOTUS (Apr 21, 2026) Jul 05, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether the FCC may issue large forfeiture orders without a jury. The FCC found that AT&T and Verizon failed to safeguard customers' location data and assessed about fifty-seven million dollars against AT&T and forty-seven million against Verizon. The carriers paid and sought review. The Fifth Circuit vacated AT&T's order, while the Second Circuit upheld Verizon's. Under the Communications Act, a carrier may instead refuse to pay; the government must then sue, and liability is tried from scratch before a jury. The carriers say the agency orders themselves conclusively impose penalties, making this scheme unconstitutional under SEC versus Jarkesy. The government says the orders merely permit a later collection suit and have no binding effect. After this argument, the Court ruled eight to one for the FCC. It held that the orders do not create an obligation to pay or bind a later jury, so issuing them without a jury does not violate the Seventh Amendment. FCC v. AT&T (No. 25-406) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 21, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-406.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-406_9ok0.pdf FCC v. AT&T docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-406.html Verizon v. FCC docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-567.html Brief for AT&T and Verizon: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-406/396609/20260218142818402_25-406%20and%2025-567%20Brief.pdf Brief for the federal parties: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-406/401499/20260320171418501_25-406GovtBr.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-406_nmip.pdf Jeffrey B. Wall — Gibson Dunn firm announcement: https://www.gibsondunn.com/four-partner-litigation-team-led-by-former-acting-solicitor-general-jeffrey-wall-set-to-join-gibson-dunns-appellate-practice/

Chatrie v. United States — SCOTUS (Apr 27, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers a geofence warrant, which asks a technology company to identify devices recorded near a specified place and time. After a twenty nineteen credit-union robbery in Midlothian, Virginia, police asked Google for devices within one hundred fifty meters during a one-hour window. A three-step process ultimately identified Okello Chatrie. A government action is a Fourth Amendment search when it intrudes on a reasonable expectation of privacy. A warrant generally must rest on probable cause and particularly describe what may be searched. The Court later vacated and remanded. Five Justices held that accessing Location History was a search; Justice Gorsuch agreed on a property theory. The Court left this warrant's probable cause and particularity to the Fourth Circuit. Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 27, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-112.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-112_7k47.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-112.html Brief for Okello Chatrie: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/397074/20260223160717593_25-112%20-%20Opening%20Brief.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-112/401871/20260325184404433_25-112bsUnitedStates.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf Adam G. Unikowsky — Jenner & Block: https://www.jenner.com/en/people/adam-g-unikowsky

Fischer v. United States — SCOTUS (Apr 16, 2024) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court interprets a federal obstruction law used against some January 6 defendants. Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits corruptly destroying or altering evidence for an official proceeding. The next clause punishes anyone who otherwise corruptly obstructs the proceeding. Joseph Fischer says otherwise limits that clause to comparable evidence-related conduct. The United States says it covers every other form of obstruction, including forcing Congress to halt the electoral-vote count. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the government. The Supreme Court later vacated that judgment, six to three, holding that the second clause requires impairing records, documents, objects, or other things used in the proceeding. Fischer v. United States (No. 23-5572) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 16, 2024. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-5572.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-5572_l537.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5572.html 18 U.S.C. § 1512 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1512&num=0&edition=prelim D.C. Circuit decision: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2023/04/22-3038-1993753.pdf Brief for Joseph Fischer: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/299098/20240129162026723_Fischer%20Opening%20Merits%20Brief.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-5572/301794/20240228194101353_23-5572bsUnitedStates.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf

Cisco Systems v. Doe I — SCOTUS (Apr 28, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether people may sue a company accused of helping foreign officials commit torture and other violations of international law. Falun Gong practitioners allege that Cisco designed surveillance tools in the United States that helped Chinese authorities identify practitioners for detention and torture. The Alien Tort Statute gives federal courts jurisdiction over suits by noncitizens for violations of the law of nations, but creates no express cause of action. In Sosa, the Court left a narrow path for judges to recognize an international-law claim if its rule was definite and widely accepted and if creating the claim was prudent. The Torture Victim Protection Act expressly permits suits for torture and extrajudicial killing, but does not mention aiding and abetting. Cisco and the United States say Congress must expressly authorize that secondary liability. The plaintiffs say aiding and abetting is part of international law and that the word subjects reaches those who substantially assist torture. The Ninth Circuit allowed both theories. After this argument, the Supreme Court reversed. By six to three, it closed Sosa's door to new Alien Tort Statute claims. By eight to one, it held that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not cover aiding and abetting. Cisco Systems v. Doe I (No. 24-856) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-856.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-856_3e04.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-856.html Ninth Circuit decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/07/15-16909.pdf Brief for Cisco Systems: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/396570/20260218115211423_24-856%20-%20Cisco%20Br%20for%20Petrs.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/397322/20260225165613681_24-856tsacUnitedStates.pdf Brief for the respondents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-856/401497/20260320163800247_24-856%20Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf United States brief page — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/cisco-systems-v-doe-i Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-856_kjfm.pdf Kannon K. Shanmugam — Davis Polk: https://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/kannon-shanmugam Paul L. Hoffman — Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes: https://www.sshhzlaw.com/attorney/hoffman-paul-l/ Customary international law — Congressional Research Service: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL32528

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. — SCOTUS (Apr 29, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers when selling a generic drug becomes active inducement of patent infringement. Amarin sells Vascepa for severe high triglycerides and for reducing cardiovascular risk. After patents on the first use were invalidated, Hikma received approval to sell the same active ingredient only for that unpatented use. It used a skinny label, which omits instructions for the patented use. Amarin sued, saying Hikma nevertheless encouraged doctors to infringe by calling its product generic Vascepa, listing a broad therapeutic category, and citing Vascepa's total sales. The district court dismissed the complaint; the Federal Circuit revived it. After this argument, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed. It held that Amarin had not plausibly alleged affirmative steps designed to encourage infringement: the label followed federal law, generic equivalent was ordinary industry language, and Hikma's other statements were too vague. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (No. 24-889) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 29, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-889.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-889_2024.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-889.html Brief for Hikma Pharmaceuticals: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/396643/20260218155808148_Brief%20for%20Petitioners%2024-889.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/397318/20260225162016293_24-889_Hikma_Merits_Amicus.pdf Brief for Amarin Pharma: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-889/401523/20260320195333332_2026.03.20%20Amarin%20-%20Merits%20Response%20Brief.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-889_5i36.pdf Charles B. Klein — Winston Taylor: https://www.winstontaylor.com/people/charles-b-klein Michael R. Huston — Perkins Coie: https://perkinscoie.com/professionals/michael-r-huston

Monsanto Co. v. Durnell — SCOTUS (Apr 27, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether federal pesticide law blocks a Missouri failure-to-warn verdict over Roundup. John Durnell said about twenty years of using the herbicide caused his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and a jury found Monsanto should have added a cancer warning. The EPA had approved Roundup's label without one. FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, treats a pesticide as misbranded if its label is false, misleading, or omits a necessary health warning. Preemption means federal law displaces conflicting state law. Monsanto says FIFRA bars Missouri from imposing an extra warning and federal rules prevented it from adding one without EPA approval. Durnell says registration is only rebuttable evidence of compliance, so a parallel state claim may proceed. The Court later reversed, seven to two, holding FIFRA expressly preempted Durnell's claim. Monsanto Co. v. Durnell (No. 24-1068) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 27, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/24-1068.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1068_fcgj.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-1068.html 7 U.S.C. § 136a — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title7-section136a&num=0&edition=prelim 7 U.S.C. § 136q — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title7-section136q&num=0&edition=prelim 7 U.S.C. § 136v — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title7-section136v&num=0&edition=prelim Brief for Monsanto: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/397048/20260223143047764_24-1068%20Final%20Monsanto%20Co.%20v%20Durnell%20merits%20opening%20brief.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/399785/20260302183259184_24-1068%20Monsanto%20tsac.pdf Brief for John Durnell: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1068/401848/20260325162306480_24-1068%20Brief.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf Paul D. Clement — Clement & Murphy: https://www.clementmurphy.com/who-we-are/paul-clement/ Ashley C. Keller — Keller Postman: https://www.kellerpostman.com/our-team/ashley-keller/

United States v. Rahimi — SCOTUS (Nov 7, 2023) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether Congress may bar a person under a domestic-violence restraining order from possessing firearms. A Texas court found that Zackey Rahimi posed a credible threat and issued such an order. After police found guns in his home, he was charged under Section 922(g)(8). The Fifth Circuit held the law unconstitutional under Bruen's history-and-tradition test. The Supreme Court later reversed, eight to one, holding that a court may temporarily disarm a person it finds poses a credible threat. United States v. Rahimi (No. 22-915) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued November 7, 2023. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/22-915.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-915_6khn.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-915.html Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-915/275295/20230814194714856_22-915%20U.S.%20v.%20Rahimi.pdf Brief for Zackey Rahimi: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-915/280662/20230927174948653_Rahimi%20-%2022-915%20-%20Respondent%20Brief%20-%20FINAL.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

Blanche v. Lau — SCOTUS (Apr 22, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court asks what proof the government needs when a green-card holder returns from abroad with a pending criminal charge. Muk Choi Lau faced a trademark-counterfeiting charge when he briefly traveled abroad. Border officers paroled him, allowing physical entry without legally admitting him, and later sought removal after his conviction. A returning lawful permanent resident is ordinarily admitted unless one of six exceptions applies. One covers a crime involving moral turpitude, a category usually involving fraud or seriously wrongful conduct. The Court assumed without deciding that Lau's offense qualified. The government says it may prove the exception later at a removal hearing. Lau says it must do so at the border. The Second Circuit agreed with Lau. The Supreme Court later vacated, six to three, holding that clear and convincing evidence was not required at the border. Blanche v. Lau (No. 25-429) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-429.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-429_3ea4.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-429.html Relevant statute — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1101&num=0&edition=prelim Second Circuit decision: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2632cb1e-7c11-40be-8fd1-f8f4d502dc1e/2/doc/21-6623_opn.pdf Brief for the government: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-429/396658/20260218161708389_25-429ts_Bondi_v_Lau_FILE.pdf Brief for Muk Choi Lau: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-429/401489/20260320163324393_Bondi%20v.%20Lau%20-%20Merits%20Response%20Brief%20FILE.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-429_h3ci.pdf Shay Dvoretzky — Skadden: https://www.skadden.com/professionals/d/dvoretzky-shay

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected