Oral Arguments, with Context

Oral Arguments, with Context
  • 5.0 (2)
  • Government
  • Daily

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. 2h ago

    Roberta Agyeman v. Todd Blanche, et al. — D.C. Cir. (Sep 28, 2026)

    The D.C. Circuit hears from people denied payments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The fund's administrator, called the Special Master, ruled that they were not eligible for compensation. They sued, saying she had misread the eligibility law. The district court did not decide whether they qualified. It dismissed the lawsuit because it held that Congress had barred court review of compensation decisions. The claimants will argue that deciding eligibility is different from deciding how much to pay, and that legal mistakes remain reviewable. The government will contend that the review ban covers eligibility decisions too. The lawyers also discuss mandamus: a court order directing a government official to carry out a legally required duty. One procedural dispute is whether the claimants properly requested that remedy. The threshold question is whether a court can review the denial, not what payment to award. Roberta Agyeman v. Todd Blanche, et al. (No. 25-5360) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 28, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5360.mp3 Case, counsel and argument date — official D.C. Circuit listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Background and dismissal — D.D.C. memorandum opinion, September 17, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00529/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00529-0.pdf Fund administration and judicial-review provisions — 34 U.S.C. § 20144: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20144 Mandamus jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. § 1361: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1361

  2. 3h ago

    USA v. Parias — 9th Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)

    The Ninth Circuit hears the government's appeal over the dismissal of charges against Carlitos Ricardo Parias. He was shot during an immigration arrest in Los Angeles, then charged with assaulting a federal officer. A criminal court approved his release on bail, but ICE transferred him to immigration detention in Adelanto. Permission requirements and scheduling barriers then kept his defense lawyers from consulting with him as trial approached. The district court found a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and dismissed the indictment with prejudice. With prejudice means prosecutors cannot simply refile the same charges. The government will argue that ending the prosecution was too drastic and that lesser remedies were available. Parias will contend that delay would not fix the access problems and would unfairly let prosecutors repair their troubled case. The argument also contrasts the Bail Reform Act, governing release before a criminal trial, with the Immigration and Nationality Act, which separately authorizes immigration detention. USA v. Parias (No. 25-8156) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit recording: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/30/25-8156.mp3 Case, panel and argument date — official Ninth Circuit archive: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-8156&hearingDate=2026-10-30 Counsel-access findings and dismissal — C.D. California, December 27, 2025, court order hosted by NACDL: https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/0838792a-74b1-4f98-b892-e21b4c6f0e9e/gov-uscourts-cacd-995241-76-0.pdf Original assault allegation — federal criminal complaint, October 21, 2025, hosted by NACDL: https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/9688d172-1d90-4270-a287-2059edd1649a/gov-uscourts-cacd-995241-1-0.pdf Arrest and shooting — Los Angeles Times original reporting, October 21, 2025: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-21/immigration-enforcement-hurt-operation-southla

  3. 3h ago

    Jonathan Green v. Mark Keel — 4th Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)

    The Fourth Circuit hears Jonathan Green's challenge to his placement on South Carolina's sex-offender registry. A Virginia juvenile court adjudicated him delinquent as a teenager. After his family moved to South Carolina, the local sheriff's office told him to register or face arrest. Green says that requirement was unlawful. He sued for damages and an order removing his information. South Carolina later approved his removal from registration, but the dispute continued over retained historical records. The district court dismissed the damages claims as too late, distinguishing an ongoing unlawful act from the continuing effects of an old act. Green will argue that repeated changes to his registry status and failure to correct it amounted to continuing violations, not merely lasting harm. The defendants will contend that the damages claims came too late and that the remaining records do not justify an order to erase them. An injunction is a court order telling someone to do or stop doing something. Jonathan Green v. Mark Keel (No. 25-6781) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit recording: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-6781-20261030.mp3 Case and argument date — official Fourth Circuit audio listing: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Argument calendar and case synopsis — Fourth Circuit, October 30, 2026: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct272026.pdf Registration background, removal approval, retained records and earlier dismissal — D. South Carolina, August 21, 2023, actual court order reproduced by CounselStack: https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-dorchester-county-sheriff-office-scd-2023

  4. 4h ago

    Justin Bartz v. Columbia County, Wisconsin — 7th Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)

    The Seventh Circuit considers how far police could go after a traffic stop in Wisconsin. After roadside searches found no drugs, deputies handcuffed Justin Bartz, took him to the county jail, and used a body scanner to look for concealed contraband. The scan found no drugs, and he was released. He sued the county and its officers for what he says were unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The district court ruled for the defendants, finding that officers already had probable cause to arrest him and that the additional searches were reasonable. Bartz's lawyer will argue that the detention was used to gather the evidence needed to justify an arrest, rather than to secure a prompt check by a judge. The defendants will argue that the officers could gather more evidence after an arrest that was already justified. The judges also ask about qualified immunity, which can protect individual officers from damages when existing law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful. Justin Bartz v. Columbia County, Wisconsin (No. 26-1525) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.26-1525.26-1525_10_30_2026.mp3 Recording listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, October 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Background and summary judgment — Western District of Wisconsin, March 2, 2026, Doc. 49 (public court-file mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/wisconsin/wiwdc/3%3A2024cv00671/53306/49/0.pdf Qualified immunity — Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Court opinion at 457 U.S. 818–819: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/

  5. 4h ago

    Frederick Stuhr v. United States Army Corps of Engineers Charleston — 4th Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)

    The Fourth Circuit hears a challenge to the Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the Point Farm Mitigation Bank in coastal South Carolina. Mitigation banks provide credits developers can use to compensate for permitted wetland damage elsewhere. The plaintiffs say this bank generates credits by preserving marsh that already had legal protection. So, in their view, the credits do not provide a real environmental offset. The government disputes that premise. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, treating construction-related harms as over and future development harms as too speculative. Standing requires a concrete personal injury connected to the challenged approval that a court can remedy. The plaintiffs will argue that ongoing credit sales still threaten wetlands they use and enjoy. The government will argue that those concerns depend on hypothetical projects, and that reversing this approval would not remedy the claimed harm. The appeal is about who can bring suit, not yet whether the bank was lawfully approved. Frederick Stuhr v. United States Army Corps of Engineers Charleston (No. 25-1843) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-1843-20261030.mp3 Recording listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Argument calendar and case synopsis — Fourth Circuit, October 30, 2026: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct272026.pdf Background and standing dismissal — District of South Carolina, May 1, 2025, Doc. 57 (public court-file mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2023cv03357/282115/57/0.pdf Standing and reconsideration — District of South Carolina, June 24, 2025, Doc. 65 (public court-file mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2023cv03357/282115/65/0.pdf

  6. 5h ago

    In re: Timothy Guess — 4th Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)

    The Fourth Circuit considers whether Timothy Guess can bring another challenge to his federal sentence after receiving a sentence reduction. A judge shortened his prison term but did not give him the full reduction he requested. The order he received did not explain the judge's reasons, a problem noted in the earlier appeal of that reduction. Section twenty-two fifty-five allows federal prisoners to challenge the legality of their convictions or sentences. But strict rules limit second or successive motions. The judges will explore two different ideas: whether a later reduction creates a new judgment, and whether a newly arising claim should count as a repeat challenge. Guess seeks to have his proposed motion treated as a first motion. This hearing concerns whether the motion can proceed, not whether its underlying challenge should win. In re: Timothy Guess (No. 26-0110) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-0110-20261030.mp3 Recording listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Argument calendar and case synopsis — Fourth Circuit, October 30, 2026: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct272026.pdf Earlier sentence-reduction appeal — United States v. Guess, June 23, 2025, No. 25-6095: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/256095.U.pdf Federal postconviction motions — 28 U.S.C. § 2255: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2255 Sentence modifications and reductions — 18 U.S.C. § 3582: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3582 Later-arising claims — Panetti v. Quarterman, Court opinion, Section II: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/930/

  7. 5h ago

    Simms v. Edwards, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)

    The Ninth Circuit hears a prisoner's appeal concerning his return to prison after surgery at an outside hospital. He says he had trouble breathing and was coughing up blood, but the transport officers refused his requests for more medical care. His attempts to complain then ran into two different grievance systems. The health care process rejected his complaint as belonging in the custody process; that process rejected his later grievance and appeal as late. The trial court ended the lawsuit without deciding the medical-care allegations, finding he had not exhausted administrative remedies. Exhaustion means completing the required internal grievance and appeals process before going to court. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, only remedies that are actually available must be exhausted. The prisoner will argue that rejections and confusing directions left him without an available path to follow. The officer will argue he could still have used custody review and timely appealed, but did not complete its steps. Simms v. Edwards, et al. (No. 24-6240) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/30/24-6240.mp3 Recording listing — Ninth Circuit, October 30, 2026: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-6240&hearingDate=2026-10-30 Dated hearing calendar and case synopsis — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/calendar/calendar-sitting/?casenum=24-6240 Background and exhaustion ruling — Eastern District of California, September 20, 2024, Doc. 49 (public court-file mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/1%3A2022cv00028/405279/49/0.pdf?ts=1727160623 Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion requirement — 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1997e

  8. 5h ago

    Michael Taylor v. US — 4th Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)

    The Fourth Circuit considers a damages claim arising from a mistaken arrest in a federal drug investigation. DEA agents traced a vehicle they were watching to the plaintiff through its registration, then wrongly identified him as the person they had seen. His lawsuit says he spent about three weeks in jail, lost two jobs, and the charges were later dismissed. He sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law allowing certain damages claims for federal employees' negligence. The district court dismissed his remaining claim under the discretionary-function exception. That exception protects certain government policy judgments, even when officials abuse their discretion. The plaintiff will argue that the misidentification reflected careless inattention, not a protected policy choice. The government will argue that the claim challenges the kind of investigative judgment the exception protects. The judges also ask what the district judge had to address after the plaintiff objected to a magistrate judge's recommendation of dismissal. Michael Taylor v. US (No. 25-2259) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/25-2259-20261030.mp3 Recording listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files Argument calendar and case synopsis — Fourth Circuit, October 30, 2026: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct272026.pdf Background and dismissal — District of South Carolina, September 13, 2025, Doc. 104 (public court-file mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/south-carolina/scdce/2%3A2023cv04671/284195/104/0.pdf Federal tort claims — 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346 Discretionary-function exception — 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680

See All (1.1K)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
2 Ratings

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

You Might Also Like