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:

Maura Kreitzer v. Safeco Insurance Company of America — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Fourth Circuit hears Maura Kreitzer's dispute with Safeco Insurance Company of America over underinsured motorist benefits. She sought insurance benefits, the district court ruled for the defendants, and she is appealing that ruling. Underinsured motorist coverage can pay accident damages left uncompensated by an underinsured driver's insurance, within the insured person's own policy limits. In a thirty B six deposition, an organization designates a witness to answer questions on specified topics using information known or reasonably available to the organization. Maura Kreitzer v. Safeco Insurance Company of America (No. 25-1765) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1765-20260915.mp3 Insurance claim, lower-court ruling and argument date — Fourth Circuit calendar, page 4: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Underinsured motorist coverage — West Virginia Code 33-6-31(b): https://code.wvlegislature.gov/33-6-31/ Coverage limits and uncompensated damages — Morrison v. Haynes, syllabus points 4 and 7: https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/22152.pdf Organization depositions — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Organization witness testimony — District of Nebraska order, pages 4–5: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ned-8_12-cv-00436/pdf/USCOURTS-ned-8_12-cv-00436-3.pdf

US v. Lucio Garcia — 4th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

Lucio Garcia is appealing a firearm conviction from a federal drug-trafficking trial in eastern North Carolina. Officers searching his home found drugs and a loaded firearm, and a jury convicted him of drug offenses and possessing the gun to advance drug trafficking. At trial, an expert testified that the firearm was possessed in furtherance of drug trafficking. The appeal asks whether that opinion improperly decided Garcia's intent for the jury. Rule seven-oh-four, subsection B, prohibits an expert from stating whether a criminal defendant had the mental state required for the offense or a defense. In Diaz, the Supreme Court allowed testimony about what most drug couriers know, leaving the particular defendant's knowledge for the jury to decide. A curative instruction is a judge's direction meant to correct how jurors use testimony. Harmless error is a mistake that does not affect substantial rights and therefore does not require reversing a conviction. US v. Lucio Garcia (No. 25-4023) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-4023-20260915.mp3 Appellate issue and argument date — Fourth Circuit calendar, page 3: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Underlying investigation and trial background — DEA: https://www.dea.gov/press-releases/2024/12/20/kilo-fentanyl-distributor-craven-county-sentenced-40-years Expert testimony and jury instructions — Federal Rules of Evidence, 704(b) and 105: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf Expert mental-state opinions — Diaz versus United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-14_d1o2.pdf Harmless error — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf

Javier Hernandez Ortiz v. Todd Blanche — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

Javier Hernandez Ortiz is challenging an immigration ruling that treats his North Carolina drug-paraphernalia conviction as a bar to cancellation of removal. That relief can allow an eligible person to remain in the United States despite being subject to removal. The Fourth Circuit must decide whether his conviction relates to a federally controlled substance, and whether it can consult records from his criminal case to answer that question. The categorical approach compares the legal elements of the state offense with the federal definition, rather than retrying what the person actually did. A statute is divisible if it defines separate crimes through alternative elements. For a divisible statute, the modified categorical approach permits consulting a limited set of conviction records to identify which crime was proved or admitted. Elements are legal requirements; means are different ways of satisfying the same requirement, on which jurors need not agree. Javier Hernandez Ortiz v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-1379) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1379-20260916.mp3 Case background and argument date — Fourth Circuit calendar, page 9: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Cancellation of removal — 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title8/pdf/USCODE-2024-title8-chap12-subchapII-partIV-sec1229b.pdf Cancellation of removal — UNC School of Government manual, chapter 5: https://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Chapter%205%20Immigration%202017_0.pdf Categorical approach — Fourth Circuit, Cucalon versus Barr, pages 6–8: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/181292.P.pdf Elements and means — Mathis versus United States: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-579/pdf/USREPORTS-579-500.pdf Immigration application — UNC School of Government manual, chapter 3: https://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/Chapter%203%20Immigration%202017_0.pdf

In re: US — 4th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

A lower court has accepted a defendant's partial guilty plea, and the United States is asking the Fourth Circuit to undo it. The case comes through a petition for mandamus: an extraordinary request for an order directing a lower court to act. It is not a routine appeal. The government must show that it has no other adequate way to obtain relief and that its right to relief is clear and indisputable; even then, issuing the order remains discretionary. In re: US (No. 26-1545) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Official argument audio — Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1545-20260916.mp3 Case background and argument date — Fourth Circuit calendar, page 12: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalSept142026.pdf Mandamus — Cheney versus United States District Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-542/pdf/USREPORTS-542-367.pdf Mandamus requirements — Fourth Circuit order, page 3: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/261160R1.U.pdf Armed Career Criminal Act — 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e): https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A18%20section%3A924%20edition%3Aprelim%29 Erlinger versus United States — Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/602us1r45_h31i.pdf Erlinger application — United States versus Casey, pages 2–4: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/184839.U.pdf

United States v. Abel Rizo — 11th Cir. (Sep 30, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

We hear the government's appeal after a federal judge reduced a prisoner's sentence. The reduction rested on a change in law that did not automatically apply to older sentences. Prosecutors challenged the reduction, but the appeal faces another question: is the government legally allowed to bring it? Section thirty-five eighty-two allows a sentence reduction for extraordinary and compelling reasons, subject to other requirements. Section twelve ninety-one gives appeals courts power to review final district-court decisions. Section thirty-seven forty-two lists grounds for the government to appeal a sentence, including a sentence imposed unlawfully. The lawyers will debate how those statutes fit together in this case. Two terms will recur: waiver means intentionally giving up a known right or argument. Forfeiture means failing to preserve it. Here is the argument. United States v. Abel Rizo (No. 24-11349) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued September 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-11349_09302026.mp3 Case and argument date — Eleventh Circuit: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Rizo appeal and sentence-reduction background — Tate order, page8 footnote22 and page9: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-gand-1_07-cr-00339/pdf/USCOURTS-gand-1_07-cr-00339-3.pdf Sentence reductions — 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3582 Final-decision appellate jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. §1291: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1291 Government sentencing appeals — 18 U.S.C. §3742(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3742 Waiver and forfeiture — Wood v. Milyard, Supreme Court majority, footnote4: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-9995

United States v. Brownlee — 5th Cir. (Oct 5, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

We hear a Fifth Circuit argument in an armed-robbery case. The defendant was prosecuted for a series of robberies at cash-loan stores in Texas. Surveillance images helped investigators connect a black SUV to the robberies. After a jury convicted him, he brought this appeal. The Hobbs Act is a federal law against robbery affecting commerce. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police surveillance can raise a threshold question: what counts as a search? A motion to suppress asks a court to keep evidence out of a trial. Here is the argument. United States v. Brownlee (No. 25-10855) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 5, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-10855_10-05-2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-06 Robberies, investigation and trial — U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Texas: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/armed-serial-robber-five-cash-stores-convicted-trial Robbery affecting commerce — 18 U.S.C. §1951: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1951 Hobbs Act — Taylor v. United States, Supreme Court majority: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/14-6166/ Searches and seizures — Fourth Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment Police surveillance and searches — Katz v. United States, Supreme Court majority: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/ Motions to suppress — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(h): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41 Excluding evidence — Weeks v. United States, Supreme Court majority: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/232/383/

United States v. Kritopoulos — 1st Cir. (Oct 7, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

We hear a First Circuit argument in a mortgage-fraud case. The defendant was a real-estate developer in Salem, Massachusetts, prosecuted over a scheme involving losses to mortgage lenders. He was sentenced to prison, and the judge initially left the restitution amount for later. Restitution is court-ordered repayment to victims for losses caused by a crime. The Criminal Justice Act, or CJA, allows defendants who cannot afford necessary expert services to seek public funding for those services. An ex parte request is considered without the prosecution participating. Here is the argument. United States v. Kritopoulos (No. 22-1828) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 7, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/22-1828_20261007.mp3 Case and argument date — First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case background — Salem News, Julie Manganis: https://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/case-against-salem-developer-set-for-fall-trial/article_9dbf35ce-c5c0-536b-b367-69e044b2169a.html Prosecution background — U.S. Attorney, Massachusetts: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/salem-man-found-guilty-all-counts-decade-long-mortgage-fraud-scheme Sentence and deferred restitution — U.S. Attorney, Massachusetts: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/salem-man-sentenced-four-years-prison-decade-long-mortgage-fraud-scheme Restitution — 18 U.S.C. §3663A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3663A Restitution — Lagos v. United States, Supreme Court majority: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/16-1519/ Expert funding and ex parte applications — 18 U.S.C. §3006A(e): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3006A CJA expert-funding procedure — United States v. Abreu, First Circuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/202/386/592680/

Bautel v. Bisignano — 9th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Ninth Circuit hears a Social Security disability benefits appeal. The claimant sought benefits, the agency denied the claim, and that denial is now being challenged in federal court. One part of the disability assessment is whether a person with the claimant's limitations can do other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Vocational experts provide information about the jobs a person could perform and how many such jobs exist. That helps explain why estimates of available jobs can matter to a benefits claim. Here is the argument. Bautel v. Bisignano (No. 25-2265) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/17/25-2265.mp3 Case and argument-date listing — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/case/?25-2265 Case background — Ninth Circuit argument calendar synopsis: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-search?input-search-case=25-2265 Other-work availability and vocational experts —20 C.F.R.§404.1566, SSA: https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-1566.htm Vocational-expert role —Biestek v. Berryhill, Supreme Court majority: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/587/17-1184/

United States v. Daniel Robert — 7th Cir. (Sep 18, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears United States versus Daniel Robert. He was prosecuted for a cocaine-trafficking operation, money laundering, and trying to influence a witness after his arrest. A jury convicted him of drug and money-laundering conspiracies, obstruction, and witness-tampering offenses. Those trial convictions are the background to this appeal. One principle to keep in mind is the right not to testify. Prosecutors may not ask jurors to treat a defendant's silence as evidence of guilt. Here is the argument. United States v. Daniel Robert (No. 25-2295) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 18, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2295.25-2295_09_18_2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case background and jury convictions — U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Illinois: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdil/pr/leader-major-cocaine-trafficking-organization-sentenced-life-prison Right not to testify — Griffin v. California,380 U.S.609,612–615: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/609/ No adverse presumption from declining to testify — 18 U.S.C.§3481, Congress text via Cornell LII: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3481

United States v. Luis Andres Serna — 5th Cir. (Sep 3, 2026) Oct 09, 2026

Show notes

The Fifth Circuit hears United States versus Luis Andres Serna. While in federal custody, Serna used video calls to direct a minor to perform sexually explicit acts. Investigators recovered the recordings, and he was charged with producing child pornography. Before trial, the district court rejected his requested jury instruction requiring knowledge of the girl's age. He pleaded guilty but reserved that issue for appeal. The argument asks whether prosecutors must prove knowledge of age, and whether a reasonable mistake about age can provide a defense. United States v. Luis Andres Serna (No. 25-40109) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued September 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-40109_9-3-2026.mp3 Argument date and case listing — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?docket=25-40109 Case background and preserved instruction issue — Fifth Circuit opinion, court PDF via Justia: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/25-40109/25-40109-2026-10-01.pdf?ts=1790897406 Recorded-call background — district-court report and recommendation via FindLaw: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-s-d-tex-lar-div/116120999.html

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected