Oral Arguments, with Context

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.

  1. 19 mins ago

    Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. — Fed. Cir. (argued September 14, 2026)

    The Federal Circuit hears a dispute that grew out of a patent suit over Simon-branded gift cards. AlexSam accused Simon Property Group and Blackhawk Network of infringing its multifunction-card patent; Blackhawk supplied and activated some of the accused cards. Simon, in turn, said its contract with Blackhawk required Blackhawk to defend and indemnify it. The district court found no infringement, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The district court later said Simon's indemnity claim had been dismissed as moot, without deciding it on the merits. Simon now asks the Federal Circuit to reject that mootness ruling and clarify whether the state-law contract claim was instead dismissed without prejudice after the federal patent claims ended. Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Property Group, L.P. (No. 25-1138) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1138_09142026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf 2024 noninfringement opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1598.OPINION.4-1-2024_2293967.pdf 2025 procedural order — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-1137.ORDER.3-3-2025_2475541.pdf 2022 noninfringement order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-1.pdf 2024 report and recommendation — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-2.pdf September 2024 order — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-2_19-cv-00331-3.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 1367 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:28%20section:1367%20edition:prelim) Artis v. District of Columbia — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-583/pdf/USREPORTS-583-71.pdf Kemp v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-5726_5iel.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1138

  2. 1 hr ago

    Center for Gestalt Development v. Charles Bowman — 7th Cir. (argued September 16, 2026)

    The Seventh Circuit hears a copyright dispute over an unpublished manuscript by Frederick Perls, a founder of Gestalt therapy. The Center for Gestalt Development claims an exclusive right to publish it. Charles Bowman and Jean-Marie Robine coedited a book, published in France under the Institut Français de Gestalt-Thérapie, that contained the manuscript alongside commentaries by other therapists. After a Pennsylvania court dismissed the case against Bowman for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Center refiled in Indiana. The district court granted summary judgment against the Center. The appeal asks whether publication of the book infringed the Center's claimed exclusive publication right. Center for Gestalt Development v. Charles Bowman (No. 25-3336) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/cm.25-3336.25-3336_09_16_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/oralArgCal/getOralArgCalendar.pl Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3336 Prior federal memorandum — E.D. Pennsylvania: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_22-cv-02058/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_22-cv-02058-0.pdf Indiana federal order — S.D. Indiana: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_22-cv-02185/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_22-cv-02185-0.pdf Related opinion — Court of Appeals of Indiana: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=FRtGMkbqc6bk7b0XzZRKZ-aKyQrK64hSdF54Xl-Mh1VvwfnAGjt-vfCbfz0L8YBL0 Book information — L'Exprimerie / Matrana: https://www.matrana.fr/matrana/parutions-2020/psychopathologie-de-l-awareness.html John J. Powell — Montgomery McCracken: https://www.mmwr.com/attorney/john-j-powell/ Paul B. Overhauser — official USPTO filing: https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91293939-OPP-7.pdf

  3. 1 hr ago

    Anton Fertikh v. Todd Blanche — 9th Cir. (argued September 16, 2026)

    The Ninth Circuit hears Anton Fertikh's challenge to the denial of asylum. Fertikh, a Russian asylum seeker, says antiwar and anti-corruption activity put him at risk of persecution. He prepared for the hearing from immigration custody and appeared pro se. He expected a master-calendar hearing, but says the immigration judge instead held the merits hearing and refused more time to gather evidence. The judge denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. A master-calendar hearing normally handles pleadings and scheduling; a merits hearing takes evidence and decides whether relief should be granted. Fertikh argues that inadequate notice and the denied continuance kept him from fully presenting his case. The court will consider abuse of discretion and due process: the first examines the circumstances behind the continuance ruling, while due process also requires prejudice, meaning the alleged error may have affected the outcome. Anton Fertikh v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-7834) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 16, 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/2026/09/16/25-7834.mp3 Argument page — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-7834&hearingDate=2026-09-16 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-week/?date=2026-09-16&loc=PAS Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-7834 Case background — Ernest Goodman Law Firm: https://ernestgoodmanlawfirm.com/oral-argument-considered-by-ninth-circuit-in-our-clients-case-fertikh-v-blancheylum-cases-are-still-being-denied-early-2/ Case background — Russian America for Democracy in Russia: https://t.me/democracy4russia/864 Master-calendar hearings — Executive Office for Immigration Review: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-II/icpm/chapter-3-14 Individual-calendar hearings — Executive Office for Immigration Review: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/policy-manual-eoir/part-II/icpm/chapter-3-15 Ahmed v. Holder — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/24/06-71631.pdf Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/07/21-298.pdf Ernest Goodman — UCLA Extension instructor profile: https://www.uclaextension.edu/instructors/ernest-goodman

  4. 2 hrs ago

    Susan Hogarth v. Sam Hayes — 4th Cir. (argued September 15, 2026)

    The Fourth Circuit hears Susan Hogarth’s First Amendment challenge to North Carolina’s ballot-selfie restrictions. In March 2024, Hogarth photographed herself with her marked primary ballot inside a Wake County voting booth and posted the image on X to promote her candidates and criticize the photo ban. A State Board investigator’s letter dated eight days later said taking and sharing the photo was unlawful, warned of possible prosecution, and told her to remove it. Hogarth refused and sued over five state-law provisions. The district court ruled for the election officials, applying the reasonableness standard for speech restrictions in a nonpublic forum. Hogarth says several provisions also ban photographing absentee ballots and sharing ballot photos outside a polling place. The appeal therefore asks how broadly her challenge reaches and which First Amendment test applies: strict scrutiny demands a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, while polling-place and election-law doctrines can be more deferential. Susan Hogarth v. Sam Hayes (No. 26-1328) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1328-20260915.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Opening brief — Susan Hogarth: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/ballot-selfie-4th-24-050126.pdf Response brief — North Carolina election officials: https://www.carolinajournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/ballot-selfie-4th-27-060126.pdf N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-166.3 — North Carolina General Assembly: https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-166.3.html Election Day voting FAQ — North Carolina State Board of Elections: https://www.ncsbe.gov/voting/vote-person-election-day/faq-election-day-voting District-court filing describing the March 2024 events — Democracy Docket: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/11-2024-08-27-Plaintiffs-memorandum-in-support-of-motion-for-preliminary-injunction.pdf Case and district-court background — Carolina Journal: https://www.carolinajournal.com/ballot-selfie-backer-makes-case-at-4th-circuit-against-nc-ban/ Oral-argument report — Carolina Journal: https://www.carolinajournal.com/4th-circuit-hears-libertarians-challenge-to-nc-ballot-selfie-ban/

  5. 7 hrs ago

    State of Rhode Island v. Trump — 1st Cir. (argued September 16, 2026)

    The First Circuit hears the Trump administration’s appeal in State of Rhode Island v. Trump. Executive Order 14238 told congressionally created entities to end nonstatutory work and reduce statutory functions and staff to the legal minimum. Twenty-one states sued after the agencies placed nearly all employees on leave or reassigned them, canceled grants and services, and curtailed congressionally funded work. This appeal concerns three: the Minority Business Development Agency, supporting minority-owned businesses; the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, mediating labor disputes; and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, coordinating homelessness policy. The district court held the implementation arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and unconstitutional. It vacated the challenged actions and permanently barred future implementation of the order for the affected agencies. The government says the court lacked jurisdiction over some relief, there was no discrete final agency action to review, and the injunction is overbroad. The states say the coordinated shutdowns were reviewable and the remedy still permits lawful streamlining. State of Rhode Island v. Trump (No. 26-1070) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/26-1070_20260916.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-09 Executive Order 14238 — Federal Register: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-04868.pdf Final summary-judgment order — U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island: https://ecf.rid.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0128-99 Prior First Circuit opinion — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1477P-01A.pdf Current appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca1/26-1070 About USICH — U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness: https://usich.gov/about/usich Ester Murdukhayeva — New York Attorney General filing: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/amicus-curiae/danco-laboratories-llc-v-lousiana-et-al-amicus-brief-2026.pdf

  6. 8 hrs ago

    United States v. Ndubuisi Okafor — D.C. Cir. (argued September 14, 2026)

    The D.C. Circuit hears Dr. Ndubuisi Okafor’s appeal from convictions arising from his Northwest Washington medical practice. Prosecutors said Okafor wrote cash-paid prescriptions for oxycodone and promethazine with codeine after minimal examinations and sent other prescriptions, sometimes in false names, across the country. A jury convicted him of conspiracy, maintaining a drug-involved premises, and twenty-two unlawful distributions; he received eighteen years. At trial, defense physician Dr. Joe Ybarra reviewed recordings of four undercover patient visits and concluded that Okafor acted within legitimate medical practice. The judge allowed that testimony but barred Ybarra from extending the same conclusion to seventeen other prescriptions for which he had no patient-interaction evidence. Okafor says that restriction left him unable to answer the government’s expert, and that the jury instructions diluted Ruan’s requirement that prosecutors prove he knowingly or intentionally prescribed without authorization. The government says the opinion was unsupported speculation, the instructions required subjective intent, and the sentence should stand. United States v. Ndubuisi Okafor (No. 25-3073) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-3073.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Pretrial evidentiary opinion — U.S. District Court via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116-0.pdf Expert-testimony opinion — U.S. District Court via GovInfo: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cr-00116-1.pdf Case and conviction record — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-vns/case/united-states-v-ndubuisi-joseph-okafor Sentencing record — U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/physician-sentenced-18-years-prison-operating-pill-mill-his-northwest-dc-medical Federal-program exclusion decision — U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/dab/decisions/alj-decisions/2026/alj-cr6910/index.html Ruan v. United States — U.S. Supreme Court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-3073 Jerome Madden — The Madden Law Group: https://themaddenlawgroup.com/sitemap/

  7. 9 hrs ago

    Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC — 2d Cir. (argued September 16, 2026)

    The Second Circuit considers Nielsen's request to pause a district-court order enforcing an antitrust injunction in favor of Cumulus. Cumulus uses Nielsen audience data to price and sell radio advertising. It sued after Nielsen conditioned access to its Nationwide report—the only national report of its kind—on buying Nielsen's local ratings in every market where Cumulus operates. The district court preliminarily barred that policy and commercially unreasonable standalone pricing; the Second Circuit affirmed in July. When the parties' contract neared expiration, Cumulus moved to enforce the injunction, and the district court granted the motion. Nielsen will contend that the resulting order went beyond the injunction and became an unlawful forced sale. Cumulus will answer that the court merely enforced its existing order and that losing Nationwide costs it customers and goodwill. The panel must first decide whether the enforcement order modified the injunction enough to permit an immediate appeal, then whether it should remain paused. Cumulus Media New Holdings Inc. v. The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (No. 26-2516) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-2516%20mtn.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Preliminary-injunction opinion — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv08581/651286/141/ Cumulus v. Nielsen, No. 26-88 — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/26-88/26-88-2026-07-13.html Enforcement-hearing order — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv08581/651286/226 Current appellate docket — Second Circuit docket mirror: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-2516 28 U.S.C. § 1292 — U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section1292&num=0&edition=prelim JLM Couture v. Gutman — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/21-2535_opn.pdf Cumulus quarterly report — U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1058623/000105862326000042/cmls-20260630.htm Thomas H. Dupree Jr. — Gibson Dunn: https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/dupree-jr-thomas-h/ Katherine Wellington — Hogan Lovells: https://pdf.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/us-supreme-court-invalidates-ieepa-tariffs-reshaping-the-administrations-trade-toolkit

  8. 12 hrs ago

    Blum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue — 10th Cir. (argued September 15, 2026)

    Scott and Audrey Blum challenge nearly sixteen million dollars in taxes tied to a 1999 BLIPS tax shelter. The Tax Court found that Blum used the DSIF partnership to inflate his tax basis and report a seventy-eight point five million dollar artificial loss, offsetting about seventy-four point eight million dollars from an unrelated sale. A district court upheld the partnership adjustments, and the IRS later issued personal deficiency notices. The Tax Court held them timely because DSIF's tax matters partner had extended the deadline and any challenge belonged in the earlier partnership case. The Blums say the Form 872-P in the record bears the partner's signature but not the IRS's, and that a limitations period is not a partnership item under TEFRA. The Commissioner says the consent was fully executed and TEFRA confined the defense to the partnership case. The Tenth Circuit must decide whether the Blums lost that defense and, if not, whether the deadline was validly extended. Blum v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (No. 25-9001) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-9001.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F15%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026 Blum v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-18 — U.S. Tax Court docket: https://dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/case-detail/5313-16 Blum Tax Court docket data — U.S. Tax Court: https://public-api-blue.dawson.ustaxcourt.gov/public-api/cases/5313-16 Shasta Strategic Investment Fund v. United States — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2004cv04264/24524/247/ IRS Publication 5522 — TEFRA partnership examination forms: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5522.pdf William M. Sharp — Holland & Knight: https://www.hklaw.com/en/professionals/s/sharp-william-m Clint Carpenter — U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/19-1463.opinion.5-21-2020_1591643.pdf Expressio unius discussion — Supreme Court of the United States: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/514bv.pdf Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-9001

See All (391)

About

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.

Information