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:

George v. Barbers Hill Independent School District — 5th Cir. (Jun 3, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit considers a Texas school district's rule limiting boys', but not girls', hair length. Darryl George wore locs tied up but longer than the rule allowed when let down. He says the sex-specific rule violates equal protection and the Texas CROWN Act, which protects hair texture and race-associated styles such as locs. The district court granted Barbers Hill summary judgment after applying intermediate scrutiny. The appeal asks whether Karr versus Schmidt, a nineteen seventy-two Fifth Circuit school-hair case applying rational-basis review, still controls, or whether later Supreme Court cases require intermediate scrutiny. That standard requires an important objective and a substantial connection to the rule. George says the evidence is weak. The district says the rule reflects community expectations, promotes discipline, and prepares students for workplaces with sex-specific grooming rules. George v. Barbers Hill Independent School District (No. 25-40544) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued June 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-40544_06-03-2026.mp3 Argument listing — Fifth Circuit oral argument recordings: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-06-03&to=2026-06-03 District court memorandum opinion and order: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/george-v-abbott-school-hair-length-policy-not-unconstitutional-sex-discrimination.pdf Texas CROWN Act — enrolled House Bill 567: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB00567F.htm Craig v. Boren — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep429/usrep429190/usrep429190.pdf United States v. Virginia — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep518/usrep518515/usrep518515.pdf Report on the Fifth Circuit argument: https://www.courthousenews.com/texas-high-schooler-fights-punishment-over-hair-length-at-fifth-circuit/

Garcia Garcia v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (Jun 26, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit considers when a family qualifies as a particular social group under asylum law. Abel Ricardo Garcia Garcia sought asylum and withholding of removal based on his nuclear family and his close resemblance to a murdered brother. A particular social group must share an immutable characteristic, have clear boundaries, and be recognized as distinct in the relevant society. Garcia says Ninth Circuit precedent treats family as the quintessential example. The government says he still must prove that Mexican society recognizes his family as distinct. After this argument, the court granted his petition in part. It held that the Board of Immigration Appeals wrongly relied on Matter of L-E-A to reject his family group, upheld the rejection of his resemblance group, and denied his Convention Against Torture claim because he had not raised it before the Board. Garcia Garcia v. Blanche (No. 25-7464) — 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/2026/06/26/25-7464.mp3 Argument listing — Ninth Circuit media archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7464&hearingDate=2026-06-26 Decision — Ninth Circuit memorandum: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2026/07/21/25-7464.pdf Matter of M-E-V-G- — Board of Immigration Appeals: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol26/3795.pdf Matter of L-E-A- — U.S. Attorney General (2019): https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1187856/dl Matter of R-E-R-M- & J-D-R-M- — U.S. Attorney General (2025): https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1412686/dl?inline Flores-Rios v. Lynch — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/12/01/12-72551.pdf Robert Francis Jacobs — State Bar of California: https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/195344

Mullin v. Doe — SCOTUS (Apr 29, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers whether courts may review how the Secretary of Homeland Security ended Temporary Protected Status for Syria and Haiti. TPS lets eligible nationals of countries facing war, disaster, or other extraordinary conditions live and work temporarily in the United States. After former Secretary Kristi Noem terminated both designations, Syrian and Haitian TPS holders won orders keeping the protections in place during litigation. They say the Secretary failed required consultation, used improper criteria, and, in the Haiti case, acted with racial animus. The government says the statute bars review of any determination concerning designation, extension, or termination, including every step leading to the decision. The Syrian respondents say the bar protects only the substantive country-conditions judgment, not mandatory procedures. The Haitian respondents add that their constitutional claim remains reviewable. After this argument, the Supreme Court reversed by six to three. It held that the review bar forecloses all nonconstitutional claims and that the Haitian plaintiffs were unlikely, at this stage, to show that race motivated the termination. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Mullin v. Doe (No. 25-1083) — 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/25-1083.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/25-1083_0pl1.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1083.html Brief for the petitioners: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/403273/20260330193346837_25-1083tsUnitedStates.pdf Brief for the Syria respondents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/404319/20260413153027211_25-1083%20Brief.pdf Brief for the Haiti respondents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1083/404638/20260416131303542_Miot%2025-1084%20SCOTUS%20merits%20brief%20-%20FINAL.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf D. John Sauer — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/osg/staff-profile/solicitor-general-john-sauer Ahilan T. Arulanantham — UCLA Law: https://law.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/ahilan-arulanantham Geoffrey M. Pipoly — BCLP: https://www.bclplaw.com/en-US/people/geoffrey-m-pipoly.html Arlington Heights — U.S. Reports: https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep429252/ 5 U.S.C. § 705 — Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title5-section705

Volokh v. James — N.Y. Ct. App. (May 21, 2026) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The New York Court of Appeals interprets the state's Hateful Conduct Law. The law requires for-profit social media networks to provide a way to report hateful conduct and publish a policy explaining how they handle reports. Eugene Volokh, Rumble, and Locals obtained a federal injunction, arguing that the law compels speech. The Second Circuit then asked New York's highest court three state-law questions: can a general reporting tool comply without mentioning the statute's definition; can a general policy do the same; and must a network respond to a report? New York says generic tools and policies are enough, and no response is required. The plaintiffs say that reading erases most of the statute and rewrites it to avoid a First Amendment problem. After this argument, the court adopted New York's reading: it answered the first two questions yes and the third no. Volokh v. James (No. 58) — New York Court of Appeals, argued May 21, 2026. Sources: Argument archive — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctappS/arguments/2026/May26/May26_OA.html Argument webcast — New York Court of Appeals official channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_NKE_x4p4 Argument transcript — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctappS/arguments/2026/May26/Transcripts/052126-58-Oral-Argument-Transcript.pdf Argument calendar — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/CTAPPs/calendar/2026/Daily/CAL052126.pdf Case summary — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/CTAPPs/summaries/Daily/2026/May21.pdf Decision — New York Court of Appeals: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_03913.shtml New York General Business Law § 394-ccc: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/GBS/394-CCC Second Circuit certification opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-356/23-356-2025-08-01.html Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel — U.S. Reports: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep471/usrep471626/usrep471626.pdf Report on the New York Court of Appeals decision: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/new-york-online-hate-speech-law-clears-first-amendment-hurdle Sarah Coco — New York Attorney General brief: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/amicus-curiae/moody-v.-netchoice-and-netchoice-v.-paxton-amicus-brief.pdf Robert Corn-Revere — FIRE: https://www.fire.org/about-us/our-team/robert-corn-revere

Pulsifer v. United States — SCOTUS (Oct 2, 2023) Jul 04, 2026

Show notes

The Supreme Court considers how the word and works in a federal sentencing law. The law's safety valve lets a qualifying drug defendant receive a sentence below an otherwise mandatory minimum. Mark Pulsifer says its three criminal-history conditions form a package, so a defendant is barred only if all three apply. The United States says each condition is a separate barrier. The Eighth Circuit adopted the government's reading. The Supreme Court later affirmed that reading, six to three. Pulsifer v. United States (No. 22-340) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 2, 2023. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/22-340.mp3 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/22-340_hhdp.pdf Case docket — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-340.html Brief for Mark Pulsifer: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-340/267269/20230519142156758_Pulsifer%20v.%20United%20States%20Merits%20Brief%20FILE.pdf Brief for the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-340/272805/20230724211315733_22-340bsUnitedStates.pdf Decision — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_p86a.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected