Oral Arguments, with Context

Oral Arguments, with Context
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Government
  • Updated 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. 21h ago

    National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser — 10th Cir. (argued August 18, 2026)

    The full Tenth Circuit considers how far Colorado's opt-out from a federal banking law lets it enforce state interest-rate caps. A federal district court blocked Colorado from applying those caps to certain loans by out-of-state, state-chartered banks. A divided Tenth Circuit panel reversed, but the full court vacated that decision for rehearing. Colorado says the law covers a loan to a Colorado borrower even when the bank is elsewhere. Three banking trade groups say the loan is made where the bank is located, so Colorado's opt-out cannot reach their members' out-of-state banks. National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser (No. 24-1293) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued August 18, 2026. Sources Argument audio — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/24-1293_enbanc.mp3 Argument record — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F19%2F2026 Panel opinion — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/24-1293 En banc rehearing order — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/24-1293-0 Colorado's en banc brief — filed court brief:https://afsaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/CO-DIDMCA-Weiser-DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-EN-BANC-SUPPLEMENTAL-RESPONSE-BRIEF.pdf Banking groups' en banc brief — filed court brief:https://www.consumerfinancemonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2026/06/Plaintiffs-Brief.pdf DIDMCA Section 521 — U.S. House:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title12-section1831d DIDMCA Section 525 — Statutes at Large:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-94/pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg132.pdf Colorado opt-out law — Colorado General Assembly:https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1229 Russell D. Johnson — official court filing:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-170/417894/20260803123613654_2026.08.03%20Suncor%20v.%20County%20Commissioners%2025-170%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Colorado%20and%2018%20Other%20States.pdf David M. Gossett — Davis Wright Tremaine:https://www.dwt.com/people/g/gossett-david Opinion search — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/search?combine=24-1293

  2. 1d ago

    Mukantagara, et al. v. Mullin, et al. — 10th Cir. (argued August 17, 2026)

    The Tenth Circuit reconsiders whether Agnes Mukantagara and her son, Ebenezer Shyaka, may obtain court review of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services finding that they were not refugees when admitted. The agency based that finding on its conclusion that Mukantagara had participated in the Rwandan genocide; she denies it. A January panel decision allowed their suit to proceed, but the court vacated that decision after the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe. The panel will now consider whether review is barred and whether another route remains. Mukantagara, et al. v. Mullin, et al. (No. 24-4071) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued August 17, 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/24-4071_rehearing.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=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F18%2F2026 Order granting panel rehearing — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111468891.pdf Vacated January 2026 panel opinion — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111366275.pdf Earlier jurisdiction opinion — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110860407.pdf Mullin v. Doe — Supreme Court opinion:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-1083_f204.pdf Statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1157 (refugee admission and termination):https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1157&num=0&edition=prelim Statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (judicial review):https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1252&num=0&edition=prelim Statute — 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (refugee definition):https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1101&num=0&edition=prelim Attorney biography — Daniel R. Black, Stowell Crayk:https://stowellcrayk.com/team-member/daniel-r-black/

  3. 1d ago

    United States v. Ruiz and United States v. Hebert — 10th Cir. (argued August 17, 2026)

    The full Tenth Circuit hears United States versus Ruiz and United States versus Hebert together. Separate juries convicted Joel Ruiz and Dennis Hebert of federal sexual-abuse offenses in Indian country. Separate appellate panels later held that prosecutors had not proved either defendant was a non-Indian, as circuit precedent required. The full court vacated those judgments. It will reconsider whether non-Indian status is an element the government must prove or an affirmative defense the defendant must raise, who bears the ultimate burden, and whether the cases may be retried if the rule changes. United States v. Ruiz and United States v. Hebert (No. 24-2128 & 24-7030) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued August 17, 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/24-7030_enbanc.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=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F18%2F2026 Panel opinion — United States v. Hebert:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111338503.pdf Revised panel opinion — United States v. Ruiz:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111377175.pdf Order granting rehearing en banc — Tenth Circuit:https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111430408.pdf Filed brief (copy) — United States' supplemental en banc brief:https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/us-en-banc-brief.pdf Filed brief (copy) — Joel Ruiz's response to rehearing petition:https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/response.pdf Filed brief (copy) — Dennis Hebert's response to rehearing petition:https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/response-1.pdf Statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1152 (General Crimes Act):https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:1152%20edition:prelim) Statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (Indian country defined):https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section1151&num=0&edition=prelim McGirt v. Oklahoma — Supreme Court opinion:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf

  4. 2d ago

    Mark Freund, et al. v. Douglas A. Collins — CAVC (argued August 13, 2026)

    The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reviews a proposed class settlement in Freund v. Collins. The case concerns files automatically closed in the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System, or VACOLS, because the system treated them as missing a timely substantive appeal—the filing used to carry an old-system benefits dispute to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The class covers files closed from December 12, 1990, through February 6, 2025, and still closed. Under the proposal, VA would manually review 28,258 files flagged as likely to contain timely appeals, reactivate qualifying appeals, and let other class members request review. Up to 64,599 additional files would receive individual notice. The court will decide whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Mark Freund, et al. v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 21-4168) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued August 13, 2026. Sources Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Freund(Rule%2023(e)(2)%20Hearing).MP3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims:https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Public docket — Freund v. Collins, No. 21-4168:https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=21-4168&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Class-certification and fairness-hearing order — Veterans Court:https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/FreundM_21-4168.pdf Proposed settlement agreement — Veterans Court docket:https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012108535 Proposed-settlement notice — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:https://news.va.gov/146172/notice-proposed-settlement-substantive-appeals/ Fairness-hearing notice — U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs:https://news.va.gov/147326/freund-v-collins-fairness-hearing-scheduled/

  5. 3d ago

    Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. — SCOTUS (argued February 23, 2026)

    The Supreme Court considers whether Exxon can sue Cuban state-owned companies over oil assets Cuba confiscated in 1960. The Helms-Burton Act lets a United States claimant sue for trafficking in confiscated property, a term that includes knowingly using or benefiting from it. The Act defines a person to include a foreign state's agencies and instrumentalities. Sovereign immunity ordinarily shields those entities from lawsuits. Abrogating that immunity means Congress removes it by statute. Exxon says Helms-Burton does that on its own. The Cuban companies say Exxon must also satisfy an exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the companies. The Supreme Court later reversed, six to three, holding that Helms-Burton itself removes the immunity of Cuban agencies and instrumentalities. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. (No. 24-699) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued February 23, 2026. Sources Argument audio — Supreme Court of the United States:https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-699 Argument transcript — Supreme Court of the United States:https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-699_6khn.pdf Case docket and counsel record — Supreme Court of the United States:https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-699.html Opinion and judgment — Supreme Court of the United States:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-699_f204.pdf Opinion below — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/07/21-7127-2067294.pdf Helms-Burton Act definitions — 22 U.S.C. § 6023:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A22+section%3A6023+edition%3Aprelim%29 Helms-Burton civil remedy — 22 U.S.C. § 6082:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A22+section%3A6082+edition%3Aprelim%29 Foreign-state jurisdictional immunity — 28 U.S.C. § 1604:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28+section%3A1604+edition%3Aprelim%29 Foreign-state execution immunity — 28 U.S.C. § 1611:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28+section%3A1611+edition%3Aprelim%29 Department of Agriculture Rural Development v. Kirtz — Supreme Court opinion:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-846_2co3.pdf Merits brief — Exxon Mobil Corporation:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-699/385940/20251128123944417_24-699_Merits%20Brief_to%20e-file.pdf Merits brief — United States as amicus curiae:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-699/386574/20251205145704706_24-699tsacUnitedStates.pdf Merits brief — Cuban state-owned respondents:https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-699/391287/20260109133437554_24-699%20Respondents%20Brief.pdf Counsel profile — Morgan Ratner, Sullivan & Cromwell:https://www.sullcrom.com/SullivanCromwell/_Assets/PDFs/Memos/Supreme-Court-Business-Review-October-Term-2023.pdf Counsel profile — Curtis E. Gannon, U.S. Department of Justice:https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-honors-justice-department-employees-and-partners-72nd Counsel profile — Jules Lobel, Center for Constitutional Rights:https://ccrjustice.org/home/blog/2016/05/05/ccr-president-jules-lobel-social-justice-lawyering-success-without-victory-and

  6. 4d ago

    United States v. Carla Jackson and Teldrin Foster — 11th Cir. (argued August 14, 2026)

    The Eleventh Circuit hears Carla Jackson and Teldrin Foster's appeals from jury convictions arising from a Paycheck Protection Program fraud case. Foster was convicted on fraud, conspiracy, false-statement, and money-laundering counts involving fourteen loan applications. Jackson was convicted on two money-laundering counts. Jackson will challenge whether the government proved she knew the funds came from crime or intended to conceal their source. Foster will challenge the trial court's decision allowing co-defendant Ricky Dixon, who had pleaded guilty and been sentenced, to invoke the Fifth Amendment instead of testifying. The United States will ask the court to affirm. United States v. Carla Jackson and Teldrin Foster (No. 24-11785) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 14, 2026. Sources Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/24-11785_08142026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit:https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit:https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal22%28panelrelease%29.pdf Appellate order and case posture — Eleventh Circuit:https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202411785.pdf Conviction record — U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia:https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/paycheck-protection-program-fraud-defendants-convicted-following-jury-trial Sentencing record — U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia:https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/three-more-paycheck-protection-program-fraudsters-sentenced-prison Teldrin Foster district-court order — Northern District of Georgia:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-gand-1_20-cr-00296/pdf/USCOURTS-gand-1_20-cr-00296-5.pdf Ricky Dixon plea and Section 2255 order — Northern District of Georgia:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-gand-1_20-cr-00296/pdf/USCOURTS-gand-1_20-cr-00296-9.pdf Fifth Amendment privilege after a guilty plea — Eleventh Circuit:https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/200914059.pdf 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — U.S. House of Representatives:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2255 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 — U.S. Courts:https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-criminal-procedure.pdf Rule 29 snapshot rule — Eleventh Circuit:https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/202013973.pdf Appellate docket and David D. Marshall appointment — USA v. Carla Jackson:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/24-11785

  7. 4d ago

    Napear v. Bonneville International Corporation — 9th Cir. (argued August 14, 2026)

    The Ninth Circuit hears Grant Napear's appeal from summary judgment for Bonneville International. Napear hosted a daily KHTK sports show and announced Sacramento Kings games. After former Kings player DeMarcus Cousins asked his view of Black Lives Matter, Napear replied, ‘All lives matter, every single one.’ Bonneville fired him two days later. Napear invokes California laws protecting employees' political activity. The district court held that applying those laws here would violate Bonneville's First Amendment right to choose its on-air voice. The panel asks whether it can reach that constitutional issue without first deciding whether the state laws cover the firing. Napear v. Bonneville International Corporation (No. 25-2818) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued August 14, 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/2026/08/14/25-2818.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-2818&hearingDate=2026-08-14 District court record and summary-judgment order — GovInfo:https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01956 Counsel filing — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01956/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01956-3.pdf Independent case report — Sacramento Bee:https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article303678436.html Independent case report — Courthouse News Service:https://www.courthousenews.com/ex-radio-host-for-sacramento-kings-loses-all-lives-matter-discrimination-lawsuit/ Counsel profile — Matthew Ruggles, Ruggles Law Firm:https://ruggleslawfirm.com/about/our-team/ Counsel profile — David J. Jordan, Foley & Lardner:https://www.foley.com/people/jordan-david-j/

  8. 4d ago

    Alejandro Roche, Appellant v. TECO Energy, Inc., et al. — 11th Cir. (argued August 14, 2026)

    The Eleventh Circuit considers whether TECO Energy had to warn retirement-plan participants that rising interest rates could sharply reduce pension lump sums. Alejandro Roche worked for TECO for about thirty-three years. He planned to retire in December 2022, but the plan's ninety-day notice rule moved his payment into January, cutting his estimate from about four hundred eighty-three thousand dollars to about three hundred ninety-seven thousand. Roche says ERISA, the federal law governing employee benefit plans, imposed duties of loyalty and care that required a warning. TECO says it followed the law's specific disclosure rules and had no duty to offer unsolicited financial advice. The district court dismissed Roche's proposed class action with prejudice. Alejandro Roche, Appellant v. TECO Energy, Inc., et al. (No. 25-12050) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued August 14, 2026. Sources Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105):https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-12050_08142026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit:https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Final district-court dismissal order — Justia mirror:https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8%3A2023cv01571/416242/82/0.pdf Prior district-court order and pension calculations — Justia mirror:https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/florida/flmdce/8%3A2023cv01571/416242/62/0.pdf Appellate docket and counsel record — Justia:https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/25-12050 ERISA fiduciary duties — 29 U.S.C. § 1104:https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title29-section1104&num=0&edition=prelim Counsel profile — Eva T. Cantarella, Hertz Schram:https://www.hertzschram.com/attorney/eva-cantarella/ Counsel record — Eva T. Cantarella, Hertz Schram:https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0068p-06.pdf Counsel profile — René E. Thorne, Jackson Lewis:https://www.jacksonlewis.com/people/rene-e-thorne Federal counsel record — René E. Thorne, Jackson Lewis:https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/addrbook.cgi?LT=T

See All (209)

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