Oral Arguments, with Context

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

Audio-enhanced court oral arguments with context, drawn from publicly available sources — including the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeals, and state courts. Each episode plays the real courtroom audio, cleaned up for clarity where the original is rough, 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. Recordings come from the courts' own public releases; Supreme Court timing data courtesy of Oyez.

Episodes

  1. 7h 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

  2. 8h 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

  3. 9h 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

  4. 14h ago

    George v. Barbers Hill Indep Sch — 5th Cir. (argued June 03, 2026)

    George v. Barbers Hill Indep Sch (No. 25-40544) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued June 03, 2026.

    1h 1m

  5. 19h ago

    Garcia Garcia v. Blanche — 9th Cir. (argued June 26, 2026)

    Garcia Garcia v. Blanche (No. 25-7464) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued June 26, 2026.

    34 min

  6. 1d ago

    Chatrie v. United States — SCOTUS (argued April 27, 2026)

    Chatrie v. United States (No. 25-112) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 27, 2026. Question presented: This case concerns the constitutionality of geofence warrants. For cell phone users to use certain services, their cell phones must continuously transmit their exact locations to their service providers. A geofence warrant allows law enforcement to obtain, from the service provider, the identities of users who were in the vicinity of a particular location at a particular time. In this case, law enforcement obtained, and served on Google, a geofence warrant seeking anonymized location data for every device within 150 meters of the location of a bank robbery within one hour of the robbery. After Google returned an initial list, law enforcement sought - without seeking an additional warrant - information about the movements of certain devices for a longer, two-hour period, and Google complied with that request as well. Then again without seeking an additional warrant-law enforcement requested de-anonymized subscriber information for three devices. One of those devices belonged to petitioner Okello Chatrie. Based on the evidence derived from the geofence warrant, petitioner was convicted of armed robbery. The questions presented are: 1. 2. Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from the geofence warrant. LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026

    2h 10m

  7. 1d ago

    Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I — SCOTUS (argued April 28, 2026)

    Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I (No. 24-856) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 28, 2026. Question presented: 1. Whether the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting. 2. Whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than purpose suffices to show the requisite mens rea. 3. Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note, allows a judiciallyimplied private right of action for aiding and abetting. GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 3 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2026

    2h 8m

  8. 1d ago

    Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. — SCOTUS (argued April 29, 2026)

    Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (No. 24-889) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 29, 2026. Question presented: Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act "[t]o facilitate the approval of generic drugs as soon as patents allow." Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 566 U.S. 399, 405 (2012). Recognizing that many drugs are approved for both patented and unpatented uses, Congress sought to ensure "that one patented use will not foreclose marketing a generic drug for other unpatented ones." Id. at 415. The statutory mechanism is a "skinny label": Generic drugmakers "carve out" patented uses from their labels, leaving only instructions to use generic drugs for their unpatented uses. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii). Congress designed this carve-out mechanism to encourage competition and to protect generic drugmakers from allegations that marketing a generic drug for an unpatented use "actively induces infringement." 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). After all, active inducement requires "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"-there is no "liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use." Metro-GoldwynMayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 936-937 & n.11 (2005). The questions presented are: 1. When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a "generic version" and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use? 2. Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use? CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026

    1h 10m

  9. 1d ago

    Mullin v. Doe — SCOTUS (argued April 29, 2026)

    Mullin v. Doe (No. 25-1083) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 29, 2026. Question presented: If the Court grants certiorari before judgment, the Court should review the following questions: (1) whether the judicial-review bar in the TPS statute, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A), precludes respondents' APA claims; and (2) if reviewable, whether respondents' APA claims nonetheless fail on the merits. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY (25A952) PRESENTED TO JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR AND BY HER REFERRED TO THE COURT IS DEFERRED. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY (25A999) PRESENTED TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND BY HIM REFERRED TO THE COURT IS ALSO DEFERRED. THE APPLICATIONS ARE ALSO TREATED AS PETITIONS FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT (25-1083, 25-1084), AND THE PETITIONS ARE GRANTED. THE CASES ARE CONSOLIDATED, AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. CERT. GRANTED 3/16/2026

    1h 57m

  10. 1d ago

    Fischer v. United States — SCOTUS (argued April 16, 2024)

    Fischer v. United States (No. 23-5572) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 16, 2024. Question presented: Does 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence?

    1h 48m

  11. 2d ago

    United States v. Rahimi — SCOTUS (argued November 07, 2023)

    United States v. Rahimi (No. 22-915) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued November 07, 2023. Question presented: Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violate the Second Amendment?

    1h 38m

  12. 2d ago

    Pulsifer v. United States — SCOTUS (argued October 02, 2023)

    Pulsifer v. United States (No. 22-340) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued October 02, 2023. Question presented: Must a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?

    1h 46m
  • 12 Episodes

About

Audio-enhanced court oral arguments with context, drawn from publicly available sources — including the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeals, and state courts. Each episode plays the real courtroom audio, cleaned up for clarity where the original is rough, 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. Recordings come from the courts' own public releases; Supreme Court timing data courtesy of Oyez.

Information