Oral Arguments, with Context

Oral Arguments, with Context
  • 5.0 (2)
  • 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. 45m ago

    Tarver v. Hernandez — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    The Fifth Circuit hears Tarver versus Hernandez. Darius Tarver was a twenty-three-year-old University of North Texas student. His father's complaint described a recent head injury and unusual behavior. His roommate called for medical help at their apartment. Police arrived, and Tarver came down the stairs carrying a frying pan and a meat cleaver. Hernandez used a Taser, and Downing shot him. Tarver fell and dropped the cleaver, which an officer kicked away. He got back up, a second Taser attempt failed to subdue him, and Downing fired again. Tarver died. His father, Kevin, sued on behalf of the estate, alleging excessive force. The district judge reviewed body-camera footage and dismissed the claims against the officers without a trial. He found the force reasonable and also held that the officers were protected by qualified immunity. That defense shields officers from damages unless they violated a federal right and the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time. At the pleading stage, courts generally accept a plaintiff's factual allegations, but video can override an allegation it clearly contradicts. Lee Merritt will ask the court to revive the claims, contending that the judge resolved disputed movements against Tarver. The key questions are what the video actually establishes and whether each use of force was justified. Tarver v. Hernandez (No. 26-40070) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/26/26-40070_10-06-2026.mp3 Argument date and counsel — Fifth Circuit recording index: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 District court dismissal opinion — January 5, 2026, Doc. 35 (GovInfo court copy): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txed-4_21-cv-00970/pdf/USCOURTS-txed-4_21-cv-00970-1.pdf Qualified immunity — Supreme Court's Mullenix v. Luna opinion (U.S. Reports): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-577/pdf/USREPORTS-577-7.pdf

  2. 1h ago

    National Association of the Deaf v. Trump — D.C. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    The D.C. Circuit hears National Association of the Deaf versus Trump. The White House had provided American Sign Language interpretation of its press briefings, but stopped in January 2025. The association and a deaf viewer, Ford, sued to restore it. They said English captions and transcripts left people who rely on sign language unable to follow the briefings. American Sign Language is a distinct language, not simply English expressed through gestures. A district judge ordered White House officials to provide a publicly accessible live feed with qualified sign-language interpretation for publicly announced briefings by the President or Press Secretary. That preliminary injunction is temporary relief while the lawsuit proceeds; it does not cover every White House event or video. The government appealed. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits excluding otherwise qualified people from federal executive-agency programs solely because of disability. The first dispute is whether the plaintiffs have a private cause of action: a legal right to bring this claim in court. The court will also consider whether it can order officials to comply through its equitable powers, even without that statutory right to sue. Government lawyer Daniel Winik will contend that Congress did not authorize this claim and that captions and transcripts provide adequate access. National Association of the Deaf v. Trump (No. 25-5402) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-5402.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 District court preliminary-injunction opinion and order — November 4, 2025 (court filing, Clearinghouse-hosted copy): https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/164821.pdf Plaintiffs' filed preliminary-injunction motion — May 28, 2025 (Clearinghouse-hosted copy): https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/162603.pdf Ian Hoffman's current firm profile — Arnold & Porter: https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/people/h/hoffman-ian-s

  3. 2h ago

    Jetaime Flores v. Cook County — 7th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    The Seventh Circuit hears Flores versus Cook County. Flores worked as a pharmacy technician at a county hospital. Her duties included handing prescriptions to patients and delivering medicines, including to a floor treating COVID-19 patients. She sought a religious exemption from the hospital's vaccination requirement so she could continue working in person. The County denied her request and later fired her. She sued, claiming the County should have accommodated her religious objection. The district court ruled for the County without a trial, finding that allowing her to work unvaccinated would create an undue hardship for patient safety and hospital operations. Flores will contend that the County did not prove it could not reasonably accommodate her. The County will defend the ruling, pointing to risks for patients and staff. A recent decision called Mason involved a pharmacist at the same hospital under the same vaccination policy. The argument begins with whether Flores's different duties justify a different result. Jetaime Flores v. Cook County (No. 26-1088) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.26-1088.26-1088_10_06_2026.mp3 Argument date and case — Seventh Circuit recording index: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Flores district court opinion and order — December 19, 2025 (court filing, Justia-hosted copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2023cv16260/448469/56/0.pdf?ts=1766239043 Related Mason appellate opinion — September 28, 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2026%2FD09-28%2FC%3A25-2743%3AJ%3ALee%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3616327%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display

  4. 2h ago

    NewsGuard Technologies v. FTC — D.C. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    The D.C. Circuit hears NewsGuard Technologies versus the Federal Trade Commission. NewsGuard publishes ratings of news websites' reliability, which advertisers use to help decide where to place ads. The FTC demanded company records as part of an investigation into possible coordinated advertising boycotts. Separately, it imposed a settlement order on Omnicom's acquisition of Interpublic, restricting the merged advertising company's use of news ratings based on journalistic standards. The order permits ratings-based lists developed at an individual client's express direction. NewsGuard sued, alleging that these actions retaliated against its journalism and cut it off from customers. The FTC later withdrew its investigative demand, but the merger order remained. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, a temporary order pending a final decision, because NewsGuard had not shown imminent, irreparable harm. This appeal concerns harm that cannot adequately be repaired later, not a final ruling on NewsGuard's constitutional claims. Robert Corn-Revere represents NewsGuard. He will contend that losing access to an audience for its journalism is a speech injury, not merely lost revenue. The FTC will contend that NewsGuard has not shown the ongoing injury needed for temporary relief. NewsGuard Technologies v. FTC (No. 26-5138) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/26-5138.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 NewsGuard's filed opening brief — June 30, 2026 (FIRE-hosted copy): https://www.fire.org/sites/default/files/2026/06/Brief%20for%20Appellant%20-%20NewsGuard%20v.%20FTC.pdf NewsGuard's filed reply — August 31, 2026 (FIRE-hosted copy): https://www.fire.org/sites/default/files/2026/09/NewsGuard%20DC%20Cir%20Reply%20Brief%20-%20filed.pdf FTC final Omnicom-IPG consent order — September 26, 2025: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OmnicomOrder.pdf FTC decision on NewsGuard's investigative demand — March 6, 2026: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/NewsGuard-PTQ_0.pdf

  5. 3h ago

    Jacqueline Wilkerson v. Douglas Collins — 7th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    The Seventh Circuit hears Jacqueline Wilkerson versus Douglas Collins. Wilkerson conducted mediations for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The agency fired her after saying she failed to meet its mediation targets. She says the termination was retaliation for her complaint against a supervisor. The district court ruled for the agency without a trial, finding insufficient admissible evidence to support her claims. Wilkerson's lawyer will argue that a supervisor began preparing her removal just after learning of her complaint, and that she could not control how many mediations she was assigned. The government will respond that these objections do not undermine the agency's record of poor performance. The appeal also involves whether she completed the required administrative process before suing. Jacqueline Wilkerson v. Douglas Collins (No. 25-2820) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-2820.25-2820_10_06_2026.mp3 Argument date and case — Seventh Circuit recording index: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=10%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District court reconsideration opinion — August 13, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2021cv05255/407700/71/0.pdf Federal employee administrative routes — Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-568/pdf/USREPORTS-568-41.pdf

  6. 3h ago

    American Oversight v. HHS — D.C. Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    The D.C. Circuit hears American Oversight versus HHS. In 2017, American Oversight requested communications between Congress and two agencies: the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Management and Budget. When neither agency responded on time, it sued. Records were later released with portions withheld. Some email chains contained a footer claiming congressional control. The question is whether those emails are agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act, or congressional records outside it. In an earlier appeal, this court rejected the agencies' use of an exemption for certain internal agency communications. On remand, the district court found that the footers did not establish congressional control. The House Ways and Means Committee appeals that ruling. Brooks Hanner represents the Committee. He will argue that the footers sufficiently express its intent to retain control. American Oversight v. HHS (No. 25-5375) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Court-original argument audio — D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/25-5375.mp3 Argument date and counsel — D.C. Circuit recording index: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10 District court opinion — September 24, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-00827/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-00827-1.pdf Earlier appeal opinion — May 17, 2024 (22-5281): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2024/05/22-5281-2055001.pdf Vaughn index — DOJ Guide to the Freedom of Information Act, p. 27: https://www.justice.gov/oip/media/1341081/dl?inline= Vaughn index — Ninth Circuit opinion, p. 5 n. 1: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/02/01/16-15178.pdf

  7. 4h ago

    Harvard College v. DHS — 1st Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    We hear Harvard College against the Department of Homeland Security in the First Circuit. In April twenty twenty-five, Harvard rejected government demands to change its admissions, hiring and university governance. DHS also requested disciplinary records about foreign students and disputed whether Harvard had adequately responded. On May twenty-second, DHS revoked Harvard's certification to enroll international students on F visas. Harvard sued the next day, and the district court blocked that withdrawal. On June fourth, President Trump issued a separate proclamation restricting entry for foreign students and exchange visitors headed to Harvard, but not to other universities. On June twenty-third, the judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking its implementation, finding Harvard likely to succeed on First Amendment claims. That was temporary protection during the lawsuit, not a final decision on the case's merits. The government appeals that injunction. The central statute, section eleven eighty-two, subsection f, allows the President to restrict entry by noncitizens after finding it detrimental to United States interests. The government says the proclamation lawfully addresses national security and reporting concerns; Harvard says it punishes the university's views and lawsuits. Tiberius Davis will argue for the government. The presidential entry restriction expired on December fourth, twenty twenty-five. That raises mootness: whether a live dispute remains for the court to decide, rather than an abstract legal question. Harvard College v. DHS (No. 25-1627) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1627_20261006.mp3 Case and argument date — First Circuit recording list: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-10 Case history and preliminary injunction — D. Mass. DHS case 25-cv-11472, document 75, June 23, 2025 (Harvard-hosted court document): https://www.harvard.edu/federal-lawsuits/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2025/06/show_temp-234.pdf Harvard's position and counsel — actual appellee brief, January 12, 2026 (public PDF copy): https://aip.brightspotcdn.com/a1/1c/6f78cb7d479cb50176de6683b895/2026-01-12-harvard-brief.pdf Government's position and counsel — actual DHS-case opposition, document 67, June 14, 2025 (UniversalHub public copy): https://www.universalhub.com/files/attachments/2025/harvard-dhs-norights.pdf Challenged entry policy — Proclamation 10948, June 4, 2025, official Federal Register: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-06-10/pdf/2025-10668.pdf Presidential entry authority — 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), 2024 Code edition, read with the case materials: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title8/html/USCODE-2024-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm Vacatur — United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-340/pdf/USREPORTS-340-36.pdf Equitable limits on vacatur — U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S. 18 (1994): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-513/pdf/USREPORTS-513-18.pdf Mootness and voluntary cessation — Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-528/pdf/USREPORTS-528-167.pdf Mandel and rational-basis immigration review — Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667 (2018), majority opinion: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-585/pdf/USREPORTS-585-667.pdf Student education-record privacy — FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, 2024 Code edition: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title20/html/USCODE-2024-title20-chap31-subchapIII-part4-sec1232g.htm

  8. 6h ago

    Gore v. State Farm — 5th Cir. (Oct 6, 2026)

    We hear Gore against State Farm in the Fifth Circuit. After a fire damaged Wendy Gore's home, she sought insurance payments for the building and the belongings inside. State Farm made payments, but Gore says it still owes her more. She sued for breach of contract and other claims, including bad faith and misrepresentation. The district court rejected most of her claims at summary judgment. Gore now challenges the summary-judgment decision. Under Civil Rule fifty-six, a court can decide a claim without trial if no genuine dispute exists over a fact that matters to the outcome, and the law entitles a party to judgment. Rule fifty-six calls for specific record citations; a judge may consider other materials but need not search everything submitted. Gore argues that the court wrongly disregarded her supporting exhibits, while State Farm says the brief failed to identify the evidence precisely enough. They also disagree about whether the house was a total loss and whether Gore needed an expert to prove the extent of structural damage. Evidence Rule seven oh two governs expert opinions using specialized knowledge to help decide a factual issue. Lay opinion must be based on the witness's own observations, not scientific or technical expertise. Philip Mansour will seek to restore Gore's claims for further proceedings; Michael Myers will defend the judgment for State Farm. Gore v. State Farm (No. 25-60625) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued October 6, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/25/25-60625_10-06-2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Fifth Circuit recording list: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/results?from=2026-08-01&to=2026-10-07 Underlying facts and partial summary judgment — Northern District of Mississippi order, September 30, 2025, document 64 (Justia mirror): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/mississippi/msndce/4%3A2024cv00027/49040/64/0.pdf Counsel spellings — historical appellate docket entries, checked against recorded introductions: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca5/25-60625 Summary judgment and record citations — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (December 2025 rules): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-civil-procedure.pdf Lay and expert opinions — Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702 (December 2024 rules): https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/federal-rules-of-evidence.pdf

See All (728)

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