Supreme Court Oral Arguments

View Top 200 Chart

Back to Rankings Page

Government
**Supreme Court Oral Arguments**

A podcast feed of the audio recordings of the oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court.
* Podcast adds new arguments automatically and immediately after they become available on supremecourt.gov
* Detailed episode descriptions with facts about the case from oyez.org and links to docket and other information.
* Convenient chapters to skip to any exchange between a justice and an advocate (available when an aligned transcript is ready).
Also available in video form at https://www.youtube.com/@SCOTUSOralArgument

Latest Episodes:

[24-724] Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist Nov 04, 2025

Show notes

Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Nov 4, 2025.

Petitioner: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., et al.
Respondent: Sarah Palmquist, Individually and as Next Friend of E.P., a Minor.

Advocates:

Sarah E. Harrington (for the Petitioners)
Russell S. Post (for the Respondents)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Grant and Sarah Palmquist’s son Ethan developed normally until about 30 months of age, when he experienced sudden and severe developmental regression, including cognitive, behavioral, and physical impairments. He was later diagnosed with a range of conditions—some physical, like seizures and hypotonia, and others mental, like autism and neurocognitive disorders. Tests also revealed high levels of toxic heavy metals in Ethan’s system, which some physicians attributed to heavy-metal poisoning. The Palmquists linked his symptoms to his nearly exclusive consumption of Earth’s Best Organic baby food—manufactured by Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and sold by Whole Foods Market, Inc.—from infancy through toddlerhood. In 2021, a U.S. House Oversight Committee report revealed that Hain’s baby foods contained high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury and that Hain had not tested final products for such contaminants until 2019.

In 2021, the Palmquists sued Hain and Whole Foods in Texas state court, raising various state-law claims. Hain removed the case to federal court, alleging that Whole Foods had been improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed, dismissed Whole Foods, and denied the Palmquists’ motion to remand. It later granted judgment as a matter of law for Hain during trial. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the Palmquists had adequately stated claims against Whole Foods, defeating diversity jurisdiction. It vacated the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to return it to state court.

Question

Must a federal court’s final judgment be set aside if the case did not have complete diversity when it was removed from state court, and can a plaintiff block diversity jurisdiction by updating the complaint after removal to include a valid claim against a nondiverse defendant?

[24-808] Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton Nov 04, 2025

Show notes

Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Nov 4, 2025.

Petitioner: Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc.
Respondent: Jeanne Ann Burton.

Advocates:

Daniel Ginzburg (for the Petitioner)
Lisa S. Blatt (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In November 2014, Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC, a Nashville-based auto-parts corporation, entered bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In 2015, Vista-Pro—later represented by its Chapter 7 trustee—filed an adversary proceeding against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc., a New York corporation, to recover about $50,000 in unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro mailed the summons and complaint to Coney Island’s Brooklyn address addressed only to the corporate entity, not to any officer, agent, or individual as required for proper service under the rules governing service on corporations. Coney Island did not respond to the complaint, leading the bankruptcy court in May 2015 to enter a default judgment against it.

Following reconversion of the case to a Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee repeatedly attempted to collect the judgment. Coney Island received notice of the judgment at least as early as April 2016 when its CEO was sent a demand letter. Years later, after the trustee sought to enforce the judgment by freezing Coney Island’s bank assets in New York, Coney Island sought to vacate the default judgment, arguing that it was void due to improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction.

The bankruptcy court and later the district court denied Coney Island’s motion to vacate the judgment as untimely. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that under its precedents interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), motions to vacate void judgments must be filed within a reasonable time.

Question

Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) impose any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction?

[24-924] Hencely v. Fluor Corporation Nov 03, 2025

Show notes

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Nov 3, 2025.

Petitioner: Winston Tyler Hencely.
Respondent: Fluor Corporation.

Advocates:

Frank H. Chang (for the Petitioner)
Mark W. Mosier (for the Respondents)
Curtis E. Gannon (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2016, U.S. Army Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely was stationed at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel. Fluor Corporation held a Department of Defense contract to provide base life support services at Bagram, including vehicle maintenance and hazardous materials management. Under the military’s “Afghan First” counterinsurgency program, which aimed to develop the Afghan economy by employing local nationals, Fluor’s subcontractor hired Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan national. The Army sponsored Nayeb’s employment despite knowing he was a former Taliban member, viewing his hiring as a reintegration effort. Nayeb worked the night shift at the hazardous materials section of the non-tactical vehicle yard with limited supervision.

During his employment, Nayeb likely smuggled explosives onto the base and constructed an explosive vest while working alone, using base tools including a multimeter he had checked out despite not needing it for his assigned duties. On the morning of November 12, 2016, at the end of his shift, Nayeb was supposed to board a bus to be escorted off base. Instead, he lied about needing to attend a hazardous materials class and walked undetected for 53 minutes to an area near the starting line of a Veterans Day 5K race. When Hencely and others confronted him, Nayeb detonated his vest, killing himself and five others while severely wounding seventeen more, including Hencely. The Taliban claimed credit for the attack.

Hencely sued Fluor in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging negligent supervision, entrustment, and retention under South Carolina law, as well as breach of the government contract. The district court granted judgment to Fluor on all claims, holding that federal law preempted the state tort claims and that Hencely was not a third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the government contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Question

Does Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, extend to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders?

[24-1056] Rico v. United States Nov 03, 2025

Show notes

Rico v. United States

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Nov 3, 2025.

Petitioner: Isabel Rico.
Respondent: United States of America.

Advocates:

Adam G. Unikowsky (for the Petitioner)
Joshua K. Handell (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In May 2018, Isabel Rico absconded from supervised release after serving only five months of her 42-month term. Rico had originally been convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and was serving supervised release as part of her sentence. She remained a fugitive until January 2023, when authorities located her. In February 2023, the probation office filed violations based on her absconding and other conduct during her supervised release term.

The district court revoked Rico’s supervised release and sentenced her to 16 months in prison followed by a new two-year term of supervised release. Rico appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the district court lacked authority to revoke her supervised release because her original 42-month term would have expired during the time she was a fugitive, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Question

Does the fugitive-tolling doctrine apply in the context of supervised release?

[24-624] Case v. Montana Oct 15, 2025

Show notes

Case v. Montana

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Oct 15, 2025.

Petitioner: William Trevor Case.
Respondent: State of Montana.

Advocates:

Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (for the Petitioner)
Christian B. Corrigan (for the Respondent)
Zoe A. Jacoby (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In September 2021, Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend J.H. called police to report that Case had threatened suicide during their phone conversation. J.H. believed Case was intoxicated due to his erratic behavior, and she became alarmed when he mentioned getting “a note or something like that” before committing suicide. During the call, J.H. heard clicking sounds resembling a cocking pistol, prompting her to tell Case she would call police. Case responded by threatening to harm any officers who came to his home. The call ended when J.H. heard a “pop” that she believed was a gunshot, followed by dead air, though the line remained connected. Unable to get Case to respond, J.H. contacted police and drove to his residence.

Law enforcement officers arrived at Case’s home and attempted to make contact by knocking on doors and calling through an open window, but received no response. Through the windows, officers observed empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad they believed contained a suicide note. The officers knew of Case’s history of alcohol abuse, mental health issues, and previous suicide threats, including an incident where he brought a weapon to the school where he taught. After approximately forty minutes on scene, officers made the decision to enter the home without a warrant to conduct a welfare check. They entered with weapons drawn due to J.H.’s report of Case's threats against officers. While clearing the home, Sergeant Pasha encountered Case in an upstairs bedroom closet. When Case suddenly opened the closet curtain, Pasha observed what he believed was a dark object at Case’s waist and shot him in the abdomen. A handgun was subsequently found in a laundry hamper next to where Case fell.

Case was charged with Assault on a Peace Officer and filed pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry. The district court denied the motion to suppress. Following a jury trial in December 2022, Case was convicted of the felony charge. Case appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, which affirmed.

Question

May law enforcement enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring?

[24-109] Reargument: Louisiana v. Callais Oct 15, 2025

Show notes

Louisiana v. Callais (Reargument)

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Oct 15, 2025.

Appellant: Louisiana.
Appellee: Phillip Callais, et al.

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

This case involves a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map, specifically focusing on District 6, alleging that the map is an impermissible racial gerrymander. The map was created in response to a previous lawsuit, Robinson v. Ardoin, where plaintiffs argued that the prior map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes. To address these issues, the Louisiana Legislature adopted a new map (Senate Bill 8) that included a second majority-Black district. However, the plaintiffs in this case claimed that this new map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by prioritizing race in its creation. A three-judge panel concluded that District 6 of the new map did indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause, leading the court to issue an injunction against using this map in future elections.

Question

Does Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?

[24-482] Ellingburg v. United States Oct 14, 2025

Show notes

Ellingburg v. United States

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Oct 14, 2025.

Petitioner: Holsey Ellingburg, Jr.
Respondent: United States of America.

Advocates:

Amy M. Saharia (for the Petitioner)
Ashley Robertson (for the Respondent, supporting vacatur)
John F. Bash (Court-appointed amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In December 1995, Holsey Ellingburg, Jr. robbed a bank and was indicted in April 1996. He was convicted in August 1996 and sentenced to prison, along with an order to pay over $7,500 in restitution under the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). Following his release from prison in June 2022, having paid only about one-quarter of the original restitution amount, Mr. Ellingburg filed a motion arguing that enforcement of his restitution order was unlawful. He claimed that the applicable 20-year payment period under the VWPA had expired and that applying a longer restitution term and mandatory interest provision under the later-enacted Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) violated the Ex Post Facto Clause.

The district court rejected Mr. Ellingburg’s arguments and upheld the restitution order. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

Question

Is criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause?

[24-5438] Bowe v. United States Oct 14, 2025

Show notes

Bowe v. United States

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Oct 14, 2025.

Petitioner: Michael Bowe.
Respondent: United States of America.

Advocates:

Andrew L. Adler (for the Petitioner)
Anthony A. Yang (for the Respondent)
Kasdin M. Mitchell (Court-appointed amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below as to Question 1)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In 2008, Michael Bowe was charged with conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. He pleaded guilty in 2009 and received a 288-month sentence, which included a mandatory consecutive 120-month term for the firearm conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Starting in 2016, Bowe made multiple attempts to challenge his § 924(c) conviction through a series of motions and applications, arguing that changes in Supreme Court precedent (particularly Johnson v. United States and United States v. Davis) meant that his underlying crimes no longer qualified as “crimes of violence” that could support the firearm conviction.

The district court initially denied Bowe’s first § 2255 motion in 2016, finding that attempted Hobbs Act robbery still qualified as a crime of violence. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit then denied several subsequent applications from Bowe to file additional challenges, ultimately concluding in that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his latest application because he was attempting to raise the same claim he had already presented in previous applications.

Question

1. Does a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state prisoner habeas petitions also apply to repeat claims in federal prisoner motions to vacate their sentences?

2. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review lower court decisions allowing or denying federal prisoners permission to file repeat challenges to their sentences?

[24-568] Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections Oct 08, 2025

Show notes

Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Oct 8, 2025.

Petitioner: Michael J. Bost.
Respondent: Illinois State Board of Elections.

Advocates:

Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioners)
Michael Talent (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners)
Jane E. Notz (for the Respondents)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Michael Bost, a multi-term U.S. Representative from Illinois’s 12th District, along with Laura Pollastrini and Susan Sweeney, political activists who served as presidential electors in 2020, challenged Illinois’s mail-in ballot receipt procedure. Under Illinois law, election officials can receive and count mail-in ballots for up to fourteen days after Election Day if the ballots are postmarked or certified by Election Day. Plaintiffs argued this procedure violates federal election statutes by impermissibly extending Election Day beyond the federally mandated date. They claimed the counting of these “untimely” ballots dilutes their votes and forces them to expend additional campaign resources to monitor ballot counting for two weeks after Election Day.

Plaintiffs filed suit in May 2022 against the Illinois State Board of Elections and its Executive Director. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, finding that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. The court also rejected their claims on the merits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

Question

Do federal candidates have Article III standing to challenge state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be received and counted for two weeks after Election Day based on claims that such laws dilute their votes and force them to incur additional campaign expenses for extended ballot monitoring?

[24-351] United States Postal Service v. Konan Oct 08, 2025

Show notes

United States Postal Service v. Konan

Justia · Docket · oyez.org · YouTube

Argued on Oct 8, 2025.

Petitioner: United States Postal Service.
Respondent: Lebene Konan.

Advocates:

Frederick Liu (for the Petitioners)
Easha Anand (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

Lebene Konan, a Black property owner, leased two rental residences in Euless, Texas, and retrieved business and tenant mail from a central mailbox daily. In May 2020, United States Postal Service (USPS) employee Jason Rojas changed the lock on the mailbox at one of Konan's properties without her approval, halted mail delivery, and demanded ownership verification. Even after USPS’s Inspector General confirmed Konan’s ownership, Rojas and another USPS employee, Raymond Drake, allegedly continued marking mail addressed to Konan and her tenants as undeliverable. Konan claims this refusal of service extended to her second property and was racially motivated, causing loss of rental income and disruption of essential communications.

Konan sued USPS, Rojas, Drake, and the United States, raising claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and alleging violations of the equal protection guarantees of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. The district court dismissed her FTCA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the postal-matter exception, and her equal protection claims for failure to state a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection claims but reversed on the FTCA claim, holding that sovereign immunity did not bar claims based on intentional acts of mail non-delivery.

Question

Does a claim that Postal Service employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to a designated address arise out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal-matter exception?

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected