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. 5h ago

    United States of America v. Jabar (Bowers) — 2d Cir. (Oct 26, 2026)

    The Second Circuit revisits fraud convictions over a United Nations-funded radio station for women in Iraq. Steve Jabar and Deborah Bowers ran the nonprofit that received three hundred fifty thousand dollars for the project. Prosecutors say more than sixty-five thousand dollars went toward personal bills and debts. The defense says the station was built and project spending exceeded the grant, even though money moved through mixed accounts. A jury convicted them, but the trial judge set aside the fraud verdicts. In 2021, the appeals court reversed those acquittals and sent the case back for consideration of a new-trial request. The defendants now challenge their reinstated convictions and seek a new trial. Robert Singer, for Jabar, and Mahoney, for Bowers, will argue that later Supreme Court decisions undermine the earlier fraud analysis, and that the trial judge should reconsider the evidence. Tiffany Lee, for the United States, will defend the convictions as fraud aimed at obtaining money, not merely withholding information. United States of America v. Jabar (Bowers) (No. 25-1118) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 26, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit original; starts during the case announcement, with both dockets and all advocacy retained: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1118,%2025-1164.mp3 Official recording and argument date — October 26, 2026; joined cases 25-1118 and 25-1164: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Grant background, trial and earlier appeal — November 19, 2021 Second Circuit opinion; not the result of this argument: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca2-17-03514/pdf/USCOURTS-ca2-17-03514-0.pdf Right-to-control theory — Ciminelli v. United States, Supreme Court majority, 2023: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1170_b97d.pdf Fraudulent inducement and materiality — Kousisis v. United States, Supreme Court majority, 2025: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-909_f2q3.pdf New-trial motions — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_33 Judgment of acquittal and conditional new-trial ruling — Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_29 Current appeal and counsel entries — appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-1118

  2. 6h ago

    U.S. Wholesale Outlet and Distribution, Inc., et al. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 27, 2026)

    Seven California wholesalers challenge the promotional advantages given to Costco Business Centers in selling five-hour Energy. Both supply the drink to smaller retailers, including convenience stores. The wholesalers sued Living Essentials and its parent, Innovation Ventures, in 2018, saying Costco received better prices and advertising support. A jury rejected their price-discrimination claim, but an earlier appeal sent their separate request for equal promotional treatment back to the trial judge. Section Two D of the Robinson-Patman Act requires promotional payments to be available on proportionally equal terms to competing customers, not necessarily in identical dollar amounts. The issue now is what threatened harm the wholesalers must prove to obtain an injunction—a court order changing future conduct. Mark Poe will argue that missing out on promotion-driven sales is enough. Daniel Ravitz will argue that they have not linked their losses to unlawful promotion rather than lawful discounts or falling demand. Antitrust injury means harm of the kind antitrust law protects against, caused by the challenged conduct. U.S. Wholesale Outlet and Distribution, Inc., et al. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, et al. (No. 25-3460) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 27, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit original: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/27/25-3460.mp3 Argument recording and date — official Ninth Circuit archive, October 27, 2026: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3460&hearingDate=2026-10-27 Background, earlier appeal and coupon limitation — amended 2023 court opinion, Exhibit A; not the result of this argument: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1099/302803/20240311152633123_Exs.%20A-E.pdf Wholesalers' factual account and requested relief — filed opening brief, October 20, 2025: https://business.cch.com/ald/USWholesaleOutletandDistributionIncvInnovationVenturesLLCOpeningBrief.pdf Price discrimination and promotional payments — 15 U.S.C. 13(a), (d): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/13 Threatened harm and injunctive relief — 15 U.S.C. 26: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/26 Counsel appearances and appeal details — appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca9/25-3460

  3. 6h ago

    John A. Mansour v. Morgan Stanley — 2d Cir. (Oct 27, 2026)

    The Second Circuit considers an investor's claims over money and securities allegedly diverted from his Morgan Stanley accounts. John Mansour says stock worth millions left through entries marked deliver, without proceeds returning to him, and that later trading concealed what happened. The challenged activity dates to the late nineteen-nineties and early two-thousands; Mansour sued in 2024 after a later forensic review. Federal law generally bars basing civil racketeering, or RICO, claims on securities fraud. The judge applied that bar and found the state-law claims too late. A predicate act is an underlying offense used to support a racketeering claim. For Mansour, Bathaee will argue that theft need not involve a securities sale and that concealment excuses the delay. Mark Emery will defend both dismissal grounds for Morgan Stanley. Inquiry notice means warning signs that can trigger a duty to investigate, even before the investor knows the full alleged scheme. John A. Mansour v. Morgan Stanley (No. 26-600) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 27, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Second Circuit original; begins during the case announcement, with the full caption, docket and advocacy retained: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-600.mp3 Official argument recording and date — search October 27, 2026, case 26-600: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Background and earlier dismissal — March 6, 2026 district court opinion, public court-text copy: https://app.midpage.ai/document/john-a-mansour-v-morgan--e8178de0-a819-476f-9bcc-f36f848bc75b Civil RICO securities-fraud restriction — 18 U.S.C. 1964(c): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1964 Underlying racketeering offenses — 18 U.S.C. 1961: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961 Counsel and appeal details — case docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-600

  4. 6h ago

    Azcarate v. Williams, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 27, 2026)

    The Ninth Circuit considers a murder sentence and expert mental-health evidence the jury never received. Ray Azcarate was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Jurors heard about a warning to the victim and efforts to clean up afterward, alongside evidence of drug use and delusions. His lawyer presented no supporting expert evidence at sentencing, although a psychological report described a drug-related disorder and improvement with treatment. The evaluations concerned competence to stand trial, not directly his mental state during the killing. A federal judge later ordered a new penalty hearing, finding a reasonable probability that the missing evidence would have led to a lower sentence. Nevada challenges that ruling; Azcarate also challenges evidence of earlier misconduct used at his trial. Mitigation means evidence supporting a less severe punishment, not a finding of innocence. His lawyer will defend the new hearing; Nevada will argue that the reports do not establish the required likelihood of a different sentence. Azcarate v. Williams, et al. (No. 24-3174) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 27, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit original: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/27/24-3174.mp3 Official argument recording and date: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=24-3174&hearingDate=2026-10-27 Official calendar — argument date and guilt-phase appeal / penalty-phase cross-appeal: https://35hjpeoxfc5vhiw5jka3m7vnye0sdzwj.lambda-url.us-west-2.on.aws/?casenum=24-3174 Background, evidence and earlier habeas ruling — district court opinion, April 17, 2024, Doc. 65: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2017cv02190/124899/65/0.pdf?ts=1713438789

  5. 6h ago

    Johnson, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al. — 9th Cir. (Oct 26, 2026)

    The Ninth Circuit considers Seattle's permit rules for public events. Organizers of a religious gathering were denied their preferred Pike Street location and obtained a permit elsewhere. They say opponents then violently disrupted their event. They sued, alleging the city let hostile outsiders influence its decisions. Seattle says it applied neutral safety rules. The district judge denied a preliminary injunction because the organizers had not sufficiently alleged a future encounter with the permitting system. This appeal concerns forward-looking relief, not damages for the earlier incident. Daniel Schmid will argue that the group's recurring events and allegations of continuing harm establish standing. Jessica Leiser will defend Seattle's standing argument and permit standards. A facial challenge attacks the rules themselves, rather than their application to one event. A heckler's veto means silencing a speaker because of a hostile audience's reaction, rather than addressing neutral logistical concerns. Johnson, et al. v. City of Seattle, et al. (No. 26-1700) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 26, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Ninth Circuit original: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/10/26/26-1700.mp3 Official argument recording and date: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=26-1700&hearingDate=2026-10-26 Official calendar — case, originating district docket and argument date: https://35hjpeoxfc5vhiw5jka3m7vnye0sdzwj.lambda-url.us-west-2.on.aws/?casenum=26-1700 Background and earlier standing ruling — district court opinion, February 18, 2026, Doc. 27; actual court document, all twelve pages: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2025cv01874/352990/27/0.pdf?ts=1771519873 Counsel and earlier proceedings — district docket; public browser text available despite automated-access challenge: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/washington/wawdce/2%3A2025cv01874/352990 Heckler's-veto terminology — Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign v. King County, actual court opinion, March 18, 2015, pages 23–24: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/11-35914/11-35914-2015-03-18.pdf?ts=1426698062

  6. 7h ago

    Alan Cross v. Brendan Kelly — 7th Cir. (Oct 27, 2026)

    The Seventh Circuit considers how Illinois classifies people with out-of-state sex-offense convictions. Alan Cross was convicted in Missouri and later moved to Illinois. His obligation to register elsewhere led Illinois to give him the legal label sexual predator, carrying lifetime registration and exclusion from public parks. An equivalent Illinois conviction would put him in the less restrictive sex-offender category. Cross accepts continued registration; he challenges the automatic escalation and the absence of a hearing about that label. The district judge ruled for the state. His lawyer will argue that the distinction is arbitrary, while Illinois will defend it as constitutionally rational. For the equal-protection claim, the court applies rational-basis review: a deferential test asking whether any reasonable basis connects the distinction to a legitimate government interest. Alan Cross v. Brendan Kelly (No. 25-3125) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 27, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Seventh Circuit original; all advocacy complete. Source ends during the judge’s administrative closing after “under advisement, and”; original gap preserved, no speech reconstructed: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/sk.25-3125.25-3125_10_27_2026.mp3 Argument date and recording — official Seventh Circuit October 2026 archive: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case, argument date and originating district docket — official October 27, 2026 calendar; select that date: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/oralArgCal/getOralArgCalendar.pl Background, statutory classifications and earlier judgment — district court opinion, October 31, 2025, Doc. 43, all fourteen pages; public copy of the actual court document: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/3%3A2023cv03165/89688/43/0.pdf

  7. 7h ago

    Lek Securities Corporation v. SEC — D.C. Cir. (Oct 26, 2026)

    The D.C. Circuit hears Lek Securities' challenge to stock-exchange penalties after roughly ten years of SEC review. Lek executed and cleared customers' stock trades through its electronic system. The New York Stock Exchange disciplined the firm for trading-rule violations and inadequate supervision, including failures to monitor potentially manipulative trading. Lek sought review by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2015. The Commission ruled in 2025, largely upholding the findings. One limited part of the penalty was later reduced, but the wider dispute remained. The firm's lawyer will argue that excluding industry-expert testimony left no adequate basis to judge its supervision. The SEC will defend the record supporting the disciplinary findings. The judges will also examine whether the long delay harmed Lek's ability to defend itself. Lek Securities Corporation v. SEC (No. 25-1221) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 26, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit original; complete case call, advocacy and closing retained; routine loudness matching and peak protection only: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-1221.mp3 Case, argument date and arguing counsel — official D.C. Circuit October 2026 recordings archive, October 26 entry: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 Trading background, supervisory findings, 2015 review and expert-testimony ruling — actual SEC March 6, 2025 opinion, pages 1–5 and 42–46; earlier agency ruling, not this court’s outcome: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2025/34-102533.pdf Limited remand, reduced penalty and final agency order — actual SEC August 26, 2025 opinion, all four pages; not a finding that the entire case settled or all appeal rights were waived: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2025/34-103777.pdf Official index and underlying administrative proceeding 3-16424: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/administrative-proceedings/3-16424

  8. 7h ago

    Jessie Hooks v. URB Cannabis — 7th Cir. (Oct 27, 2026)

    The Seventh Circuit hears Jessie Hooks's lawsuit over products sold as lawful hemp. Hooks alleges that products he bought from Lifted Made exceeded legal limits for THC and that the sellers misrepresented what he was buying. The company disputes his claims. He brought federal civil racketeering claims, known as RICO claims, along with state-law claims. The district court dismissed those claims. Hooks filed a revised complaint, but the court dismissed the case again, and he appealed. The dispute is about whether his allegations are enough to let his claims proceed. This is a civil damages case, not a criminal prosecution of the manufacturers. Jessie Hooks v. URB Cannabis (No. 26-1619) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 27, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Seventh Circuit original; full case call, advocacy and closing retained, routine loudness matching and peak protection only: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/sk.26-1619.26-1619_10_27_2026.mp3 Argument date and recording — official Seventh Circuit October 2026 archive: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Case, argument date and originating district docket — official October 27, 2026 calendar; select that date: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/oralArgCal/getOralArgCalendar.pl Purchase allegations, company position and earlier dismissal history — company-filed SEC legal-proceedings disclosure, Hooks paragraph; not an SEC finding of unlawful sales: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1391135/000109690626001233/R20.htm Appeal identity, parties and procedural record — public copy of the appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1619

See All (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