Oral Arguments, with Context

Oral Arguments, with Context
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Government
  • Updated Daily

Real U.S. court oral arguments, made followable: each episode plays the official courtroom audio with brief context woven in at natural pauses — what the case is about, who is arguing and what they stand for, and plain-English explanations of the legal concepts right when they come up. Audio comes from the courts' official recordings; Supreme Court timing data courtesy of Oyez.

  1. 9m ago

    Bowa Estates Ltd v. Association of Apartment Owners of Wailea Point Village — 9th Cir. (argued June 25, 2026)

    Bowa Estates Ltd v. Association of Apartment Owners of Wailea Point Village (No. 25-6258) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued June 25, 2026.

    40 min

  2. 21h ago

    Wages and White Lion Invest v. FDA — 5th Cir. (argued June 09, 2026)

    Wages and White Lion Invest v. FDA (No. 21-60766) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued June 09, 2026.

    55 min

  3. 21h ago

    Martinez-Hernandez v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (argued June 26, 2026)

    Martinez-Hernandez v. Blanche (No. 24-2966) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued June 26, 2026.

    32 min

  4. 22h ago

    Sripetch v. SEC — SCOTUS (argued April 20, 2026)

    Sripetch v. SEC (No. 25-466) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 20, 2026. Question presented: This case presents a clear and acknowledged conflict over an exceptionally important question regarding the SEC's civil-enforcement power. In Liu v. SEC, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), this Court held the SEC may seek equitable "disgorgement" in civil-enforcement actions if an award "does not exceed a wrongdoer's net profits" and "is awarded for victims." 591 U.S. at 74- 75 (emphasis added). In the proceedings below, the Ninth Circuit held that investors can be ''victims" for disgorgement purposes despite not suffering pecuniary harm. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit recognized a direct "split" on this question, "reject[ed] the reasoning of the Second Circuit," and "joined the First Circuit in holding that a finding of pecuniary harm is not required." This statutory holding was the sole basis of the Ninth Circuit's decision, and it leaves the SEC's enforcement power in disarray: disgorgement requests are ubiquitous in SEC actions, and there are now conflicting rules in the two main circuits (the Second and Ninth) where enforcement actions are most prominent. There are millions (if not billions) of dollars at stake. The question presented is: Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026

    1h 21m

  5. 22h ago

    Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. — SCOTUS (argued April 21, 2026)

    Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. (No. 25-406) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 21, 2026. Question presented: The Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq., empowers the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess monetary forfeiture penalties for certain violations of the Act or the FCC's regulations by issuing a notice of apparent liability, giving the regulated party an opportunity to respond in writing, and then issuing a final decision. If the regulated party declines to pay and the government sues to collect the penalties, the regulated party is entitled to a de novo jury trial in a federal district court. Alternatively, the subject of an FCC forfeiture order may pay the monetary penalty and file a petition for review in a court of appeals, thereby triggering a judicial-review proceeding in which no jury is available. The question presented is as follows: Whether the Communications Act provisions that govern the FCC's assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. CONSOLIDATED WITH 25-567 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026

    1h 33m

  6. 1d ago

    Blanche v. Lau — SCOTUS (argued April 22, 2026)

    Blanche v. Lau (No. 25-429) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 22, 2026. Question presented: Under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), various categories of aliens, including those who have committed or been convicted of certain crimes, are "ineligible to be admitted to the United States" and subject to removal. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2); see 8 U.S.C. 1229a. Under 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(13)(C), a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who is returning to the United States after a trip abroad is generally not "regarded as seeking an admission into the United States" and is therefore not typically subject to the inadmissibility grounds in Section 1182(a). But that general rule does not apply to an LPR who "has committed an offense identified in section 1182 (a)(2)"­ i.e., an offense that would render him inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The question presented is: Whether, to remove an LPR who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the LPR's last reentry into the United States. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026

    1h 39m

  7. 1d ago

    Monsanto Company v. Durnell — SCOTUS (argued April 27, 2026)

    Monsanto Company v. Durnell (No. 24-1068) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 27, 2026. Question presented: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA'') creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing the use, sale, and labeling of pesticides. The Act preempts any state "requirement[] for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under" FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. §136v(b). For decades, EPA has exercised its authority under FIFRA to find that Monsanto's Roundup product line and its active ingredient, glyphosate, do not cause cancer in humans. Consistent with that understanding, EPA has repeatedly approved Roundup's label without a cancer warning. FIFRA prohibits Monsanto from making any substantive change to an EPA-approved label unless it first obtains EPA's permission. Respondent is one of more than 100,000 plaintiffs across the country that nonetheless seek to hold Monsanto liable for not warning users that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes cancer. The federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts are divided over whether FIFRA preempts such claims. The Third Circuit has held that it does. In the decision below, the Missouri Court of Appeals joined the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits and state appellate courts in California and Oregon in holding that it does not. The question presented is: Whether FIFRA preempts a state-law failure-to- warn claim where EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT PREEMPTS A LABELBASED FAILURE-TO-WARN CLAIM WHERE EPA HAS NOT REQUIRED THE WARNING. CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026

    1h 23m

  8. 2d ago

    Volokh v. James — N.Y. Ct. App. (argued May 26, 2026)

    Volokh v. James (No. 58) — New York Court of Appeals, argued May 26, 2026.

    54 min
See All (17)

About

Real U.S. court oral arguments, made followable: each episode plays the official courtroom audio with brief context woven in at natural pauses — what the case is about, who is arguing and what they stand for, and plain-English explanations of the legal concepts right when they come up. Audio comes from the courts' official recordings; Supreme Court timing data courtesy of Oyez.

Information