Oral Arguments, with Context

Oral Arguments, with Context
  • 0.0(0개의 평가)
  • 정부
  • 매일 업데이트

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. 25분 전

    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.

    32분

  2. 53분 전

    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

    1시간 21분

  3. 1일 전

    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

    1시간 39분

  4. 1일 전

    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

    1시간 23분

  5. 1일 전

    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.

    54분

  6. 1일 전

    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.

    1시간 1분

  7. 1일 전

    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.

    34분

  8. 2일 전

    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

    2시간 10분
모두 보기(14개)

소개

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.

정보

  • 제작진
    Oral Arguments, with Context
  • 방송 연도
    2026년
  • 에피소드
    14
  • 등급
    전체 연령 사용가
  • 웹사이트 보기
    Oral Arguments, with Context