Oral Arguments, with Context - Details, episodes & analysis

Podcast details

Technical and general information from the podcast's RSS feed.

Oral Arguments, with Context

Government

Frequency: 1 episode/0d. Total Eps: 1175

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.

Read moreCollapse

Site

RSS

Apple

Data updated on 05/11/2026

Recent rankings

Latest chart positions across Apple Podcasts and Spotify rankings.

Apple Podcasts

🇺🇸 USA - Government
05/11/2026
#61

Spotify

No recent rankings available

Shared links between episodes and podcasts

Links found in episode descriptions and other podcasts that share them.

See all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gif8-slblC8
1 share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn95zHc-gGc
1 share
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0OyO3SfFMk
1 share

RSS feed quality and score

Technical evaluation of the podcast's RSS feed quality and structure.

See all

RSS feed quality

To improve

Score global : 42%

Publication history

Monthly episode publishing history over the past years.

Year

Latest published episodes

Recent episodes with titles, durations, and descriptions.

See all

Ralph Bronson Fils-Aime v. Todd Blanche — 1st Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 37:00

The First Circuit hears a Haitian man's challenge to being sent to Mexico. An immigration judge had already granted him withholding of removal to Haiti, protecting him from deportation to that country. But in July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security told him it intended to remove him to Mexico instead. He says he was kidnapped and threatened with death in Mexico while traveling to the United States. He asked to reopen his immigration case and sought review in the First Circuit. Withholding is country-specific: protection against return to Haiti does not automatically prevent removal somewhere else. A motion to reopen asks the immigration agency to reconsider a completed case in light of new facts. You will hear ultra vires, meaning action beyond an official's lawful authority. Statutory withholding requires a connection between threatened persecution and a protected ground, such as race or nationality. Protection under the Convention Against Torture has a different focus: whether torture is more likely than not. Ralph Bronson Fils-Aime v. Todd Blanche (No. 25-1733) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official First Circuit recording. The original cuts off during the judge's final administrative closing remark after all advocacy has ended; the gap is preserved and no speech reconstructed: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1733_20261103.mp3 Argument date — official First Circuit recording listing: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-11 Consolidated case/date — official First Circuit November calendar: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf?TB_iframe=true Case background — filed D.N.H. habeas petition, August 3, 2025; public mirrored copy, allegations not findings: https://habeasdockets.org/media/documents/71006849/001_11703306062-48d4a290fdfe.pdf Country-specific statutory withholding — 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1231 Reopening proceedings — 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1229a Withholding, torture protection and third-country removal — 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/1208.16 Legal vocabulary — Cornell Wex definition of ultra vires: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ultra_vires

Read moreCollapse

Solomon Btesh v. Isaac Btesh — 11th Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 44:25

The Eleventh Circuit hears Solomon versus Isaac Btesh. The brothers are disputing their interests in a family bank in Panama and the proceeds of its sale. A family agreement referred disputes to procedures used by a Jewish congregation there. Solomon began arbitration in Panama, then pursued proceedings in Miami. A Miami rabbinical panel issued an award against Isaac, who did not participate in that arbitration. Solomon asked a Florida federal court to confirm the award, meaning turn it into an enforceable court judgment. The judge dismissed the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction: the court's power over Isaac. That differs from the arbitrators' authority under the family agreement. One route discussed here is Rule 4(k)(2), a federal rule for federal claims when no state's courts can exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. It looks beyond a single state, but exercising jurisdiction must still be constitutional. Another route, quasi in rem jurisdiction, concerns specified property, with recovery limited to that property rather than a general personal judgment. The judges also discuss dicta: observations in an earlier opinion that were not necessary to decide that case. Listen for the distinction between agreeing to arbitrate, choosing a particular tribunal, and giving an American court authority to enforce an award. Solomon Btesh v. Isaac Btesh (No. 25-11265) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Eleventh Circuit recording: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11265_11032026.mp3 Argument date — official Eleventh Circuit recordings listing: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Argument calendar — official Eleventh Circuit panel release: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal2%28Rev.2panelrelease%29.pdf Case background and prior dismissal — district-court order, public copy hosted by A&O Shearman: https://us-arbitration.aoshearman.com/siteFiles/50610/2025.03.21%20Btesh%20v.%20Btesh%2C%20No.%2023-CV-23679-JB%20%28S.D.%20Fla.%20Mar.%2021%2C%202025%29.pdf Federal jurisdictional route — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4 Confirmation provision discussed — 9 U.S.C. § 9: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/9 Property-based jurisdiction — Supreme Court opinion in Shaffer: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/433/186 Legal vocabulary — Cornell Wex definition of dicta: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dicta

Read moreCollapse

United States v. Mercado-Cañizares — 1st Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 24:39

The First Circuit hears United States versus Jorge Mercado. After serving time for an armed robbery, Mercado was on supervised release, a period of court-ordered supervision after prison. During that supervision, he possessed a machine gun and ammunition. That conduct led to a new criminal sentence and a separate prison term for violating his release conditions. In an earlier appeal, the First Circuit left the machine-gun sentence in place but vacated the revocation sentence because the judge had not adequately explained why it exceeded the advisory sentencing range. This appeal returns to those limits on revocation sentencing. An upward variance means a sentence above that advisory range, not necessarily above the statutory maximum. Another distinction runs through the argument: retribution means punishment because past wrongdoing deserves it; deterrence aims to prevent future crime. The Supreme Court has held that judges may not rely on retribution for the original offense when revoking supervised release. That ruling left open whether retribution for violating supervision is permissible. Listen for how the judges distinguish punishment for past conduct from deterrence and protecting the public, and what explanation an above-guidelines sentence requires. United States v. Mercado-Cañizares (No. 25-1867) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official First Circuit recording: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1867_20261103.mp3 Argument date — official First Circuit recordings listing: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-11 Argument calendar — official First Circuit calendar: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf?TB_iframe=true Case background and earlier remand — First Circuit opinion, April 2, 2025: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/21-1903P-01A.pdf Revocation and retribution — Supreme Court opinion in Esteras: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-7483_6k4c.pdf Supervised release — 18 U.S.C. § 3583: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap227-subchapD-sec3583.htm Sentencing factors — 18 U.S.C. § 3553: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partII-chap227-subchapA-sec3553.htm

Read moreCollapse

Joy Laskar v. Hurd et al. — 11th Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 30:22

The Eleventh Circuit hears Joy Laskar versus Phillip Hurd and Patrick Jenkins. Laskar was a Georgia Tech professor who also ran a wireless-technology startup. University auditors investigated whether the company had improperly used university money, microchips, facilities and staff. Their report was referred to state law enforcement, and a criminal investigation and arrest followed. Laskar denies wrongdoing, saying the company was permitted to use university resources through its research-center relationship. The criminal case was dismissed as time-barred: it was brought too late, not resolved by a jury verdict. Laskar then sued university officials for damages, alleging malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. That civil claim concerns an allegedly unlawful deprivation of liberty through criminal legal process. An earlier appeal allowed his claims against Hurd and Jenkins to proceed at the pleading stage, accepting his allegations as true rather than deciding whether they were proved. The dispute now centers on causation: whether these auditors can be held responsible for the allegedly unlawful arrest. The auditors also invoke qualified immunity, which protects officials from damages unless they violate clearly established federal law. Listen for the difference between criticizing an audit and proving that these particular defendants caused a constitutional violation. Joy Laskar v. Hurd et al. (No. 25-11296) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Eleventh Circuit recording: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/25-11296_11022026.mp3 Recording listing — official Eleventh Circuit index: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings?page=0 Argument date — official November 3, 2026 calendar: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal1%28panelrelease%29.pdf Earlier civil appeal — Eleventh Circuit opinion, August 28, 2020: https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201911719.pdf Criminal case background — filed dismissal order, October 5, 2016 (party-hosted court copy): https://joylaskarstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Laskar.-Order-for-dismissal.pdf Party account — Laskar's chronology, not court findings: https://joylaskarstory.com/chronology/ Civil-rights claims — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 Constitutional protection — Fourth Amendment: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment Qualified immunity — Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Wesby: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/15-1485

Robocast v. Netflix — Fed. Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 21:28

The Federal Circuit hears Robocast versus Netflix. Robocast sued Netflix over patents for automatically presenting online content. Instead of a user repeatedly opening separate pages, the patents describe software that arranges content and presents it in sequence. A Delaware federal judge granted Netflix summary judgment, ruling before trial that the asserted patent claims were ineligible for protection. The court treated them as abstract content organization and display carried out on conventional computers. Robocast challenges that characterization. It says its software structure improves how the computer operates, not merely the user's experience. This appeal concerns patent eligibility, rather than whether Netflix infringed. Patent claims define what an invention's legal protection covers. Under the Supreme Court's Alice framework, the court first asks whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If so, it asks whether their features, individually and together, add an inventive concept that transforms the idea into a patent-eligible application. Generic computer implementation is not enough. Listen for whether these claims describe a specific technological means or only a desired result. Robocast v. Netflix (No. 25-1651) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Federal Circuit recording: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1651_11032026.mp3 Argument date — official Federal Circuit listing: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ Case background and prior ruling — district-court order, February 21, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ded-1_22-cv-00305/pdf/USCOURTS-ded-1_22-cv-00305-2.pdf Patent eligibility — Supreme Court opinion in Alice: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-298 Patent subject matter — 35 U.S.C. § 101: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec101.htm Patent claims — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap11-sec112.htm Summary judgment — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56

Read moreCollapse

Hospital Menonita Ponce v. National Labor Relations Board — 1st Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 54:36

The First Circuit hears Hospital Menonita Ponce versus the National Labor Relations Board. After a hospital-asset purchase in Puerto Rico in 2022, Menonita Ponce faced a dispute over its employees' union representation. The union had represented seven groups under the previous operator. Menonita Ponce recognized the union for two groups, then withdrew recognition, saying the union lacked employee support. The union filed charges alleging unlawful refusals to recognize or bargain and retaliation in hiring; the hospital denies violating labor law. It also filed a separate constitutional lawsuit. It challenges rules limiting the President's power to remove Board members and administrative law judges, the agency's hearing officers. The hospital sought a preliminary injunction, a temporary order stopping the agency proceeding. The district court refused, invoking the Norris-LaGuardia Act's restriction on labor-related injunctions and, alternatively, the hospital's failure to meet the ordinary injunction requirements. The statute reaches cases involving or growing out of a labor dispute. The hospital invokes Axon, a Supreme Court decision allowing certain structural constitutional claims to go directly to federal district court. The Board responds that permission to litigate a claim does not itself confer a right to stop the agency. Listen for that distinction between hearing a constitutional challenge and granting the requested remedy. Hospital Menonita Ponce v. National Labor Relations Board (No. 26-1589) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official First Circuit recording: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/26-1589_20261103.mp3 Argument date — official November 2026 index: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/doar/results/2026-11 Case background and prior ruling — district-court order, May 6, 2026: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458427baf6 Labor allegations — General Counsel's post-hearing brief (not findings): https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45843b9f06 Hospital's account and denials — employer's post-hearing brief: https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45843b96a3 Labor-injunction restriction — Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title29/html/USCODE-2024-title29-chap6-sec101.htm Labor-dispute definitions — 29 U.S.C. § 113: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/113 Constitutional-claim jurisdiction — Supreme Court opinion in Axon: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-86 Legal terms — U.S. Courts glossary: https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary Amicus participation — Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_29

Fraud Free Transactions v. Ping Identity — Fed. Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 32:12

The Federal Circuit hears Fraud Free Transactions versus Ping Identity. Fraud Free sued Ping for allegedly infringing two patents on checking online users' identities. One adjusts verification requirements to the risk associated with an access request. The other uses an app on a registered phone to approve or deny access from another device. This is out-of-band verification: using a separate channel to confirm the request. The patent owner says its phone-app method improves security over verification by text message or phone call. A Delaware federal judge dismissed the asserted patent claims before trial, finding them ineligible for patent protection. The appeal concerns that threshold, not whether Ping infringed. Patent claims define the invention for which protection is sought. The question is whether these claims cover a specific technological solution or an abstract way of verifying identity. Under the Supreme Court's Alice framework, the court first asks whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. If so, it asks whether their additional features, considered individually and together, supply an inventive concept beyond that idea. Merely using generic computers is not enough. Listen for the distinction between a useful security result and the claimed means of achieving it. Fraud Free Transactions v. Ping Identity (No. 25-1830) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Federal Circuit recording: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1830_11032026.mp3 Argument date — official November 2026 calendar: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-November2026.pdf Case background and prior ruling — district-court order, April 29, 2025: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-1218.pdf Patent eligibility — Supreme Court opinion in Alice v. CLS Bank: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-298 Patent subject matter — 35 U.S.C. § 101: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap10-sec101.htm Patent claims — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title35/html/USCODE-2024-title35-partII-chap11-sec112.htm

Read moreCollapse

McCarthy v. Massachusetts Department of Children and Families — 1st Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 25:22

The First Circuit hears Audrey McCarthy versus the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families. McCarthy worked as an administrative manager for the department. In 2021, she asked for a medical exemption from the employee COVID vaccination requirement, citing a heart condition. The department's letter acknowledged a medical contraindication, a reason a treatment may be unsuitable, but denied the exemption, citing workplace safety and operational concerns. She brought a disability-discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The district judge ruled for the department without a trial. The court found that the evidence did not establish a workable accommodation or adequately connect the requested exemption to her asserted disability. McCarthy contends that her own medical record and job duties called for an individual assessment. A qualified individual is someone able to perform a job's essential duties with or without a reasonable accommodation: a workplace adjustment that helps a person with a disability do the job. The argument also concerns direct threat: a significant safety risk that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce. Listen for the difference between a policy's general justification and the evidence about this employee, this job, and the requested exception. McCarthy v. Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (No. 25-1508) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official First Circuit recording: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/25-1508_20261103.mp3 Argument date — official November 2026 calendar: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf?TB_iframe=true Case background and prior ruling — district-court order, April 23, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_23-cv-11258/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_23-cv-11258-0.pdf Disability employment definitions — 42 U.S.C. § 12111: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title42/html/USCODE-2024-title42-chap126-subchapI-sec12111.htm Accommodation and direct-threat definitions — 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1630.2 Decision without trial — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_56 Medical term — contraindication (general definition, not a patient assessment): https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002314.htm

United States v. Luz Paulino — 1st Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 18:27

The First Circuit hears United States versus Luz Paulino. The case grew out of a tax-refund-loan scheme in Massachusetts. Investigators described stolen identities and false tax returns being used to obtain and cash bank loans against expected refunds. Paulino later received a prison sentence, and this appeal challenges the calculation of her advisory sentencing range. Those federal guidelines guide the judge, but do not dictate the final sentence. For financial crimes, the amount of loss can increase that range. Actual loss is financial harm the offense caused; intended loss is harm the defendant purposely sought. The central question is whether the court could count intended loss under commentary: explanatory notes accompanying the guideline. The Sentencing Commission later moved that rule into the guideline itself. The judges will discuss whether that change merely clarified the earlier rule, and whether a prior robbery-conspiracy case called Walker controls here. They will also discuss Kisor, a Supreme Court decision about when courts give special weight to an agency's reading of its own rules. Listen for two distinctions: interpreting a rule versus enlarging it, and clarifying an old rule versus changing it. United States v. Luz Paulino (No. 24-1979) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official First Circuit recording: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/oralargs/24-1979_20261103.mp3 Argument date — official November 2026 calendar: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/calendar.pdf?TB_iframe=true Original scheme allegations — filed FBI affidavit, December 14, 2020 (archival copy): https://originals.pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/complaint-united-states-v-paulino-dkt-1-2-d-mass-f0c3b528a1/1-att2-complaint.pdf Later prosecution background — U.S. Attorney's Office sentencing announcement, October 11, 2024: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/owner-tax-preparation-company-sentenced-more-four-years-prison-bank-fraud-and-21-million Intended-loss rule and amendment — Sentencing Commission, Amendment 827: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/amendment/827 Prior robbery-conspiracy precedent — First Circuit, United States v. Walker (2023): https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/22-1929P-01A.pdf Agency-interpretation framework — Supreme Court, Kisor v. Wilkie (2019): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-15_9p6b.pdf Advisory sentencing and clarifying amendments — Sentencing Commission application principles: https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2026-guidelines-manual/annotated-2026-chapter-1

National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — 11th Cir. (Nov 3, 2026)

Wednesday, November 4, 2026 • Duration 28:24

The Eleventh Circuit hears National Wildlife Federation versus the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps operates reservoirs in the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint river system, known as the ACF basin. Those operations affect freshwater reaching Florida's Apalachicola River, floodplain, and bay. In 2017, the Corps adopted updated operating rules for water supply, flood control, and other authorized uses. Conservation groups challenged the manual and its environmental analysis, saying the Corps had understated future harm to downstream habitats and dismissed reasonable alternatives. The Corps, Georgia, and local water providers defend the manual. The district court ruled for the Corps. The appeal centers on NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Water Resources Development Act. NEPA calls for environmental review, not a particular environmental outcome. An environmental impact statement, or EIS, examines effects and alternatives. The Supreme Court's Seven County decision stresses deference to agency judgments about the scope and detail of that review. A separate question is whether water-resources law required a mitigation plan here: measures to lessen or offset ecological harm. Listen for the difference between telling the agency its study was legally inadequate and asking judges to choose how the water system should operate. National Wildlife Federation v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (No. 21-13104) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 3, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Eleventh Circuit recording: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_argument_recordings/21-13104_11032026.mp3 Argument date — official November 3, 2026 calendar: https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/oral_arguments/cal1%28panelrelease%29.pdf Case background and prior ruling — district-court opinion, August 11, 2021: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-gand-1_18-mi-00043/pdf/USCOURTS-gand-1_18-mi-00043-0.pdf Environmental-review framework — Supreme Court, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (2025): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf Disputed mitigation provision — 33 U.S.C. § 2283(d)(1): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2283 Counsel identity — historical appellate clerk entries (2021): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/21-13104

Read moreCollapse

Oral Arguments, with Context - Details, episodes & analysis

Podcast details

Recent rankings

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Shared links between episodes and podcasts

RSS feed quality and score

Publication history

Latest published episodes

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Oral Arguments, with Context - Details, episodes & analysis

Podcast details

Recent rankings

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Shared links between episodes and podcasts

Other99+

X11

YouTube7

RSS feed quality and score

Publication history

Latest published episodes

Similar podcasts and content

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Other99+

X11

YouTube7