Oral Arguments, with Context
NewAmerican Electric Power Service Corporation v. FERC — D.C. Cir. (Nov 13, 2026)
- Episodes
- 1,350
- Released
- daily
- Latest episode
- Nov 14, 2026
About the podcast
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.
Episodes 1,350
American Electric Power Service Corporation v. FERC — D.C. Cir. (Nov 13, 2026)
American Electric Power Service Corporation and other transmission owners challenge requirements for agreements governing transmission projects. PJM selects power-line projects and upgrades to meet transmission …
Show notes
American Electric Power Service Corporation and other transmission owners challenge requirements for agreements governing transmission projects. PJM selects power-line projects and upgrades to meet transmission needs, then identifies the companies responsible for building them. The dispute began when consumer organizations, including American Municipal Power, complained that PJM was not obtaining all the designated entity agreements required by its rules. These project agreements set construction obligations and milestones, and can also require financial security. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, found that PJM had not followed its agreement rules. It removed security requirements for certain projects without competing outside developers, but retained the remaining agreement requirements. It also kept full agreements for some competitively selected projects even when their costs would not be shared across the region. The transmission owners sought rehearing and now challenge the requirements that remain. They will argue that existing contracts and PJM's public project information already provide the needed protections, making the additional paperwork and financing costs unjustified. FERC will argue that binding milestones add transparency and accountability, and that comparable rules must apply throughout a competitive selection process. American Municipal Power will defend the requirements as protections for customers who ultimately pay the project costs. The judges will examine whether the challengers met their burden to show that the existing requirements were unjust or unreasonable, and whether FERC adequately explained its decision to retain them. American Electric Power Service Corporation v. FERC (No. 24-1361) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 13, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/24-1361.mp3 FERC rehearing order, March 20, 2025; underlying complaint and project-agreement requirements: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/EL22-80-001.pdfIn Re: New York City Board of Education — 2d Cir. (Nov 13, 2026)
The Second Circuit returns to the teacher-discrimination class action against the New York City Board of Education. The underlying lawsuit challenged a licensing exam used for public-school teachers; failing it …
Show notes
The Second Circuit returns to the teacher-discrimination class action against the New York City Board of Education. The underlying lawsuit challenged a licensing exam used for public-school teachers; failing it could block access to full-time teaching work. After years of litigation, the case reached a phase in which class members sought individual monetary relief. Peter Wilds-Bethea stayed involved for decades and became the sole class representative for that phase. The present appeal concerns his service award, an additional payment for representing the class, separate from compensation for his own employment losses. After he initially requested two point nine million dollars, the district court set that award at three hundred fifty thousand dollars. Two other named plaintiffs were awarded about two hundred seventy-three thousand dollars each. Those two amounts came from agreements with the Board, while his amount had to be decided by the court. Wilds-Bethea will argue that his longer service, greater burdens and risks require a much larger difference between those awards and his. The Board will argue that the judge fairly accounted for those contributions and had broad discretion to choose the amount. The appeal turns on how much leeway the court has in setting that extra award, and how closely it must track the awards made to other class representatives. In Re: New York City Board of Education (No. 25-2605) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 13, 2026. Sources: Official court argument; Official recording note: the complete argument, reservation of decision and closing thanks are present; a faint trailing closing sound is ambiguous. The source ending is preserved and no speech has been reconstructed: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2605.mp3 District court service-award order, September 17, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A1996cv08414/153024/12716/0.pdf District court judgment, September 18, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A1996cv08414/153024/12718/0.pdf Prior Second Circuit background opinion, August 17, 2006: https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/53555.pdfMichelle Murray v. Debbie Shaw — D.C. Cir. (Nov 13, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit hears Michelle Murray versus Debbie Shaw. Murray worked as a lawyer in the Social Security Administration’s inspector-general office and served as its whistleblower-protection coordinator. The …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit hears Michelle Murray versus Debbie Shaw. Murray worked as a lawyer in the Social Security Administration’s inspector-general office and served as its whistleblower-protection coordinator. The underlying dispute began after agency lawyers raised concerns about Social Security’s financial-penalty program. Shaw, another agency lawyer, challenged personnel actions as whistleblower retaliation and won corrective relief from an administrative judge. News coverage later described Murray as one of the officials the judge had found retaliated against Shaw. Murray says that description misstated the decision and wrongly portrayed her as responsible for continuing retaliation. She sued Shaw, other federal employees, and news organizations for defamation and related claims. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that some reporting fairly described the administrative proceeding and that other claims were inadequately pleaded. Murray will argue that the reporting attributed a finding of personal retaliation to her that the administrative judge never made. The media defendants will argue that their reporting was substantially accurate and that she has not plausibly alleged actual malice: knowledge of falsity or serious doubts about the truth. Shaw’s lawyer will argue that Murray did not identify an actionable false statement by Shaw and cannot hold her responsible for the journalists’ editorial choices. A separate dispute concerns the government’s substitution for some federal employees under the Westfall Act. That law can make the United States the defendant when an employee’s alleged wrongdoing falls within the scope of federal employment. Murray will seek discovery to challenge that protection, particularly for contacts with Congress; the government will defend those contacts as an outgrowth of the employees’ work. Michelle Murray v. Debbie Shaw (No. 25-5196) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 13, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-5196.mp3 District court memorandum opinion, March 26, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-00640/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-00640-0.pdfWest v. City of Hartford — 2d Cir. (Nov 13, 2026)
The Second Circuit hears Paul West versus the City of Hartford. West was a Hartford police lieutenant on medical leave when he applied for promotion to captain. After receiving his exam scores, he asked human …
Show notes
The Second Circuit hears Paul West versus the City of Hartford. West was a Hartford police lieutenant on medical leave when he applied for promotion to captain. After receiving his exam scores, he asked human resources for information about the assessment panel, including its racial makeup. He also asked who was responsible for complying with a Connecticut law on promoting minority police officers. West was not promoted, and his paid-leave status was later temporarily withdrawn. He sued the city, alleging discrimination and retaliation. The district court entered judgment for the city without a trial. It held that his information requests did not qualify for anti-retaliation protection, and found insufficient evidence of retaliation. The focus here is Title Seven, the federal employment-discrimination law, and its protection against retaliation. West will argue that seeking information about suspected bias can itself be protected. The city will argue that the email did not clearly complain of discrimination and that the pay decision concerned a separate workers’ compensation dispute. The appeal therefore asks both whether the inquiry was protected and whether the evidence could support finding that retaliation caused the loss of paid leave. West v. City of Hartford (No. 26-12) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 13, 2026. Sources: Official court argument; Official recording note: all advocacy and the discussion of supplemental submissions are present; the court file cuts off only the final word of the judge’s administrative closing. The gap is preserved, not reconstructed.: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-12.mp3 District court summary-judgment ruling, December 19, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctd-3_23-cv-01020/pdf/USCOURTS-ctd-3_23-cv-01020-2.pdfMichael Leach v. District of Columbia — D.C. Cir. (Nov 13, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit hears Michael Leach versus the District of Columbia. Police responding to a reported shooting encountered Leach standing in an apartment doorway with a gun. One officer shot him five times …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit hears Michael Leach versus the District of Columbia. Police responding to a reported shooting encountered Leach standing in an apartment doorway with a gun. One officer shot him five times. After he fell, other officers moved in to retrieve the gun and handcuff him; another officer repeatedly struck him in the face. Leach brought a civil excessive-force case against the District and the officers. The district court rejected his claims on summary judgment. Leach will ask for the case to go back for further proceedings, arguing that the judge wrongly resolved important factual disputes against him. The District and the officers will argue that the force was reasonable and that Leach has not shown a violation of clearly established law. Qualified immunity adds a separate requirement: existing law at the time must have clearly established that the particular conduct was unlawful. The appeal concerns both the shooting and the later blows, and what the body-camera evidence permits a judge to decide without a jury. Michael Leach v. District of Columbia (No. 26-7004) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 13, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/26-7004.mp3 District court memorandum opinion, December 23, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_19-cv-00947/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_19-cv-00947-3.pdfThe Central Orthopedic Group, LLP v. Aetna Life Insurance Company — 2d Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The Second Circuit hears two related appeals between the Central Orthopedic Group and Aetna. The medical practice says it provided care outside Aetna's network to patients covered by Aetna plans, but was not …
Show notes
The Second Circuit hears two related appeals between the Central Orthopedic Group and Aetna. The medical practice says it provided care outside Aetna's network to patients covered by Aetna plans, but was not properly reimbursed. To sue for plan benefits under the federal law known as ERISA, the practice relies on patients' assignments of their benefit rights: claimed transfers of the right to pursue payment. But the plans contain anti-assignment clauses, and Aetna says those restrictions prevent the practice from bringing the patients' claims. The practice responds that Aetna gave up that defense by dealing directly with it, processing claims and appeals, and paying part of some bills. This is a waiver argument: intentionally giving up a contractual right. The district court dismissed the federal benefits claims, finding that ordinary claims handling did not show a waiver, and denied permission to amend the complaints. The practice will argue that the plan clauses needed further examination, and that its allegations justify discovery or at least another chance to amend. Aetna will argue that processing claims and paying providers directly are consistent with its obligations to patients, not a surrender of its contractual defenses. The court will also consider whether the practice adequately told the district judge what additional facts it could plead. Listen for the difference between an insurer paying a doctor directly and the doctor acquiring a patient's right to sue for plan benefits. The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (No. 25-2813) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official joint court argument, appeals 25-2813 and 25-2814: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2813%20%26%2025-2814.mp3 District ERISA opinion, case 24-cv-7014, filed September 4, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_24-cv-07014/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_24-cv-07014-0.pdf District reconsideration opinion, case 24-cv-7014, October 15, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_24-cv-07014/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_24-cv-07014-1.pdf District reconsideration opinion, case 24-cv-7022, October 15, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_24-cv-07022/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_24-cv-07022-0.pdfUnited States v. Daniel Kingery — D.C. Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit hears United States versus Daniel Kingery. Kingery was living in an encampment in Washington's McPherson Square when authorities cleared the park in 2023. He opposed the clearance and said he …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit hears United States versus Daniel Kingery. Kingery was living in an encampment in Washington's McPherson Square when authorities cleared the park in 2023. He opposed the clearance and said he would not leave voluntarily; that dispute eventually led to federal park-regulation charges. During a later remote proceeding scheduled for trial on those tickets, he appeared by telephone and represented himself. He insisted on a jury trial and disconnected rather than proceed before the magistrate judge alone. That disconnection became the basis of a separate criminal contempt charge, not just the fact that he had criticized the judge. The same magistrate later convicted him of both the park offenses and contempt, with time-served sentences after nineteen days in custody. Kingery will challenge the absence of a jury, while acknowledging Supreme Court precedent that denies jury trials for petty offenses. A central question is whether participating by telephone puts him in the presence of the court for the federal contempt statute. He will also dispute the authority to conduct the remote proceeding and argue that the contempt case should have gone to a different judge. The government will argue that an ongoing virtual hearing is still a real court proceeding, and that hanging up can obstruct it. Listen for the distinction between a judge's power to maintain order, and the limits that criminal procedure places on punishing contempt. United States v. Daniel Kingery (No. 25-3118) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-3118.mp3 District court opinion, December 9, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cr-00274/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cr-00274-0.pdf AP on-scene report and Kingery interview, February 15, 2023: https://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/2023/02/15/park-service-clears-homeless-encampment-near-white-house/Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Soo Line Railroad Company — 7th Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The Seventh Circuit hears Norfolk Southern versus Soo Line, which operates as Canadian Pacific. This case concerns a rail connection used to move freight between Detroit and Chicago. In 2005, Norfolk Southern …
Show notes
The Seventh Circuit hears Norfolk Southern versus Soo Line, which operates as Canadian Pacific. This case concerns a rail connection used to move freight between Detroit and Chicago. In 2005, Norfolk Southern gave Canadian Pacific long-term rights to run trains over part of its network. A separate interchange agreement allowed those trains to connect to Gibson Yard through tracks controlled by Norfolk Southern and Conrail, with Indiana Harbor Belt handling the interchange. Norfolk Southern signed that second agreement as a consenting party, rather than as the railroad performing the interchange service. It later sued to end its obligations, arguing that the second agreement sets no fixed end date for it and can be terminated on reasonable notice. The practical dispute is whether a connection needed to make the longer-term route work can be withdrawn separately. After a bench trial, the district court treated the two agreements as linked and ruled that Norfolk Southern could not terminate the interchange agreement before 2040. Norfolk Southern will argue that Indiana contract law does not justify combining these different agreements. It will also argue that the trial judge had promised not to reopen that issue, so it prepared its evidence for a different question. Canadian Pacific will defend both the linked-contract reading and the fairness of the trial. Listen for two separate questions: what the railroads actually agreed to, and whether Norfolk Southern had a fair opportunity to try the issue that ultimately decided the case. Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Soo Line Railroad Company (No. 26-1877) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.26-1877.26-1877_11_12_2026.mp3 District court findings and judgment, March 27, 2026: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/indiana/inndce/2%3A2017cv00015/89016/192/0.pdfSEC v. Laura and Sichenzio — 2d Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The Second Circuit considers how much two defendants must pay back in a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement case. The underlying venture raised money for companies promoting crude-oil processing …
Show notes
The Second Circuit considers how much two defendants must pay back in a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement case. The underlying venture raised money for companies promoting crude-oil processing technology. Investors were offered revenue-sharing agreements, shares and convertible loans. The SEC alleged they were misled about the technology, expected returns and how their money would be used. It said investor money went to personal spending and repayment of personal debts rather than the promised business purposes. Partial consent judgments left the amounts of monetary relief for the judge to decide. For that calculation, the defendants agreed the complaint's allegations would be treated as true. The dispute now concerns disgorgement: giving up profits from wrongdoing. Their lawyer will argue that money they put into the venture and legitimate business expenses must be accounted for, so the award does not exceed what they actually gained. The SEC will argue that its calculation already allows legitimate deductions, and the defendants did not establish the additional deductions they sought. A particular point of disagreement is whether money described as a loan was actually an investment, and what difference that makes when investor funds later flow back to the defendants. Listen for the distinction between calculating net profits and deciding which claimed costs the evidence really supports. SEC v. Laura and Sichenzio (No. 25-603) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-603.mp3 District court background opinion, June 28, 2023: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_18-cv-05075/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_18-cv-05075-4.pdf SEC complaint, September 7, 2018: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2023/comp25626.pdf District court remedies order, July 9, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_18-cv-05075/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_18-cv-05075-5.pdfSierra Club v. EPA — D.C. Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit hears Sierra Club versus the Environmental Protection Agency. The dispute concerns federal air-pollution standards for facilities that burn solid waste. These rules cover very small municipal …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit hears Sierra Club versus the Environmental Protection Agency. The dispute concerns federal air-pollution standards for facilities that burn solid waste. These rules cover very small municipal garbage burners and institutional waste incinerators. The underlying standards date to 2005, and an earlier court challenge led the agency to reconsider them. In 2025, EPA revised the standards and definitions, but continued to leave other kinds of burners outside this rule. Examples include crematories and units used to destroy confiscated contraband. EPA also excluded rudimentary combustion devices, saying the standards and controls developed for other incinerators were not appropriate for those devices. The central question is whether the Clean Air Act requires standards for every incinerator within its definition, or gives EPA discretion to choose which additional categories to regulate. EPA will argue that it lawfully reviewed the standards for the categories already regulated, without having to extend them to every other kind of burner. The dispute also concerns whether that periodic review required the agency to revisit the scope of its older rule. Listen for the difference between deciding how to group incinerators and deciding whether a whole kind of incinerator gets federal emissions standards at all. Sierra Club v. EPA (No. 25-1182) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-1182.mp3 EPA final rule, June 30, 2025 (90 FR 27910): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-06-30/pdf/2025-11446.pdfRoshani Sheth v. National Association of Realtors — 7th Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The Seventh Circuit hears a former employee's appeal against the National Association of Realtors, or NAR. The former employee had complained about workplace discrimination. After her employment ended, she …
Show notes
The Seventh Circuit hears a former employee's appeal against the National Association of Realtors, or NAR. The former employee had complained about workplace discrimination. After her employment ended, she signed a settlement releasing claims from her time at the association. That agreement included a promise of neutral employment references. She later struggled to find work and says the association failed to respond to employment checks. She also says she received harassing texts while her discrimination charge was under investigation. She treats those events as retaliation for pursuing a discrimination complaint, but the connection to the employer is disputed. She is appealing the dismissal of her retaliation and race-discrimination claims. Her lawyer will argue that the allegations, viewed together, justify letting her seek evidence through discovery. The association's lawyer will argue that the complaint does not plausibly link the texts or the unanswered reference requests to retaliation by the employer. The appeal also raises how to plead racial discrimination when more than one discriminatory motive is alleged. Listen for the line between facts that support a reasonable inference and suspicion that still needs evidence. Roshani Sheth v. National Association of Realtors (No. 26-1289) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.26-1289.26-1289_11_12_2026.mp3 District court background opinion, April 22, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2024cv05061/460364/27/0.pdf?ts=1745402081Central American Bank for Economic Integration v. Dante Mossi — D.C. Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit hears the Central American Bank for Economic Integration versus Dante Mossi. At the heart of this lawsuit is a falling-out between the bank and its former president. The bank says Mossi steered …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit hears the Central American Bank for Economic Integration versus Dante Mossi. At the heart of this lawsuit is a falling-out between the bank and its former president. The bank says Mossi steered an electric-vehicle relationship toward his own future business while still working for the bank. It points to a bank-funded Washington conference and purchases of two electric vehicles. After leaving, Mossi formed a vehicle-distribution business, and the bank accuses him of attacking its reputation with credit-rating agencies and business partners. It sued him under RICO, the federal racketeering law, alleging fraud and extortion. Those claims are disputed. The district judge found jurisdiction over Mossi but dismissed the racketeering claim, finding the alleged enterprise, underlying crimes, and pattern inadequately pleaded. The bank will argue that those requirements were read too narrowly, and that Washington was the starting point of the alleged scheme. Mossi's lawyer will argue that legitimate business dealings and criticism of the bank do not establish racketeering, and that his American contacts are insufficient to require him to defend this suit here. So there are two tracks to listen for: whether an American court has authority over Mossi, and whether the bank has alleged enough to proceed under the racketeering law. Recording note: The court's original includes a brief silent interval during a judicial question. That interval is preserved; no speech has been reconstructed. Central American Bank for Economic Integration v. Dante Mossi (No. 25-7162) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-7162.mp3 District court memorandum opinion, September25,2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2024cv02544/272369/38/0.pdfUnited States of America v. Genaro Garcia Luna — 2d Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The Second Circuit hears the United States versus Garcia Luna. Garcia Luna is a former senior Mexican security official. Prosecutors said he took bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel to protect drug shipments bound …
Show notes
The Second Circuit hears the United States versus Garcia Luna. Garcia Luna is a former senior Mexican security official. Prosecutors said he took bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel to protect drug shipments bound for the United States. A federal jury convicted him of drug-trafficking offenses and making false statements. He sought a new trial, claiming that later-obtained material exposed false testimony and withheld evidence useful to the defense. The trial judge denied that request, finding that much of the claimed new evidence was already known or accessible before trial. The lawyers' references to thirty-five-hundred material mean certain prior statements by prosecution witnesses. His lawyer will argue that the additional material undermines important prosecution witnesses and warrants a new trial. The government will argue that the defense could have investigated facts its client already knew, and that other witnesses independently supported the verdict. Recording note: The official file ends just after the court says it will reserve decision, with an abrupt trailing sound. Both sides have finished arguing; the ending is preserved without reconstructed speech. United States of America v. Genaro Garcia Luna (No. 24-2949) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/24-2949.mp3 District court new-trial decision (court-authored, verified public text): https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/66b59b512087cd191557b65a/amp U.S. Attorney's Office jury-verdict announcement: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/ex-mexican-secretary-public-security-genaro-garcia-luna-convicted-engaging-continuing 18 U.S.C. 3500: witness statements: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3500 Supreme Court explanation of witness-statement production (Palermo): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/360/343/Matthew Haynam v. City of Chicago — 7th Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The Seventh Circuit hears Matthew Haynam versus the City of Chicago. Haynam was a senior manager at Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability, which investigates alleged police misconduct. He says he …
Show notes
The Seventh Circuit hears Matthew Haynam versus the City of Chicago. Haynam was a senior manager at Chicago's Civilian Office of Police Accountability, which investigates alleged police misconduct. He says he reported his agency head's alleged interference with investigations and suppression of an internal audit to outside city oversight bodies, and was fired in retaliation. He sued, claiming that the firing violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. The district court dismissed that federal claim because it treated his reports as part of his job, not speech as a private citizen. His lawyer will argue that reporting his boss to outside oversight bodies was not one of his duties, and that the court drew that conclusion too early, before the case developed beyond the complaint. The city's lawyer will argue that the reports concerned investigations and training he was responsible for supervising, so the dismissal should stand. Listen for whether going outside an agency changes the capacity in which a public employee speaks, and what can be decided from the complaint alone. Recording note: The official recording ends during the judge's administrative closing remarks, after both sides have finished arguing and the court has taken the case under advisement. The recorded fragment is preserved; no missing speech has been reconstructed. Matthew Haynam v. City of Chicago (No. 26-1368) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.26-1368.26-1368_11_12_2026.mp3 District court dismissal order (court-authored, verified public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2025cv05339/478128/14/0.pdfACT Now Coalition v. United States Department of Education — 7th Cir. (Nov 12, 2026)
The Seventh Circuit hears ACT Now Coalition versus the United States Department of Education. Two federal Full-Service Community Schools grants supported ACT Now's work connecting Illinois schools with …
Show notes
The Seventh Circuit hears ACT Now Coalition versus the United States Department of Education. Two federal Full-Service Community Schools grants supported ACT Now's work connecting Illinois schools with academic, social, and health services for students and families. In December 2025, the department refused to continue the funding, pointing to diversity, equity, and inclusion language in the original grant applications. The organizations sued, alleging that the government was penalizing their viewpoints rather than controlling what federal money could buy. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, a temporary order that would have restored funding while the lawsuit proceeded, because it found their First Amendment claims unlikely to succeed. Their lawyer will argue that the cited language described the organizations' values, not plans to spend these grants on the disputed training, and that losing student services warrants temporary relief. The government's lawyer will argue that the department could reject the risk of funding activities it opposed, and that serious harm cannot replace the required showing of likely success. The appeal turns on the line between choosing projects and punishing speakers, and on the standard for relief before a final judgment. Recording note: The official audio cuts off during the judge's administrative closing words, after the argument and the statement that the case is taken under advisement. ACT Now Coalition v. United States Department of Education (No. 26-2473) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 12, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.26-2473.26-2473_11_12_2026.mp3 District court preliminary-injunction order (court-authored, verified public copy): https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2025cv15704/492120/62/0.pdf?ts=1782748124 Filed request for temporary relief (plaintiffs' position): https://clearinghouse-umich-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media/doc/169615.pdfYeshiva Ohr Shraga Veretzky v. Town of Highland Zoning Board of Appeals — 2d Cir. (Oct 30, 2026)
The Second Circuit hears a zoning dispute between a religious school and the Town of Highland in New York. The school wanted to use its property for religious education during the summer. The town's zoning code …
Show notes
The Second Circuit hears a zoning dispute between a religious school and the Town of Highland in New York. The school wanted to use its property for religious education during the summer. The town's zoning code allows places of worship with a special-use permit, but its zoning board concluded that the school's proposal did not qualify. The school brought religious-liberty claims in federal court without first applying for a use variance, permission to depart from the zoning restrictions. The district court dismissed the suit as unripe: too early for federal review because the school had not sought that variance. The school's lawyer will argue that the board's interpretation was already final, and that seeking a variance would give up the legal status the school says the zoning code already allows. The town's lawyer will argue that the school must first seek a variance so the town can make a final decision about how the property may be used. The appeal concerns that threshold, not whether the town actually discriminated. Yeshiva Ohr Shraga Veretzky v. Town of Highland Zoning Board of Appeals (No. 26-638) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 30, 2026. Sources: Official court argument: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-638.mp3 Official court summary order (background verification; outcome not narrated): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/26-638_so.pdfFrank Lynn Morrison v. Douglas A. Collins — CAVC (Nov 10, 2026)
The Veterans Court hears Frank Lynn Morrison's appeal over additional disability compensation for his adult stepdaughter. Morrison married her mother in 2021, when the daughter was already over eighteen. He …
Show notes
The Veterans Court hears Frank Lynn Morrison's appeal over additional disability compensation for his adult stepdaughter. Morrison married her mother in 2021, when the daughter was already over eighteen. He says she lives with the family and has been unable to support herself since childhood. The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied the dependency claim because VA's regulation requires stepchild status to begin before eighteen. The dispute concerns two different questions: when the disability began, and when the stepchild relationship legally began. Congress's definition of a child includes some unmarried adults who became permanently incapable of self-support before eighteen. Morrison will argue that Congress did not also require the stepchild relationship to begin before that age. The Secretary's lawyer will defend VA's rule as continuing a relationship formed in childhood, not creating eligibility through a later marriage. The judges will also consider whether a victory on that legal issue would permit an immediate award, or whether the Board would first need to decide when permanent incapacity began. Frank Lynn Morrison v. Douglas A. Collins (No. 25-0029) — United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — official Veterans Court recording: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Morrison.MP3 Argument date — official Veterans Court audio index: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/oral_arguments_audio.php?fullsite=yes Case and filings — official Veterans Court public docket: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=CaseSummary.jsp&caseNum=25-0029&incOrigDkt=Y&incDktEntries=Y Dependency denial — Board decision of September 21, 2024, filed February 7, 2025: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011164592 Morrison's factual account and statutory challenge — August 11, 2025 appellant brief; selected pages reviewed: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012011718916 Secretary's factual account and defense — November 24, 2025 appellee brief; selected pages reviewed: https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/docs1/012012040790 Statutory definition of child — 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A): https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-134/t38/s101/ VA's child and stepchild definitions — 38 C.F.R. § 3.57; public regulation text: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.57Holtzman v. Kunstmuseen Krefeld — D.C. Cir. (Nov 10, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit considers a dispute over paintings by the Dutch artist Piet Mondrian. Trustees claiming through his heir say the works were lent to a museum in Krefeld, Germany, for an exhibition in 1929, but …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit considers a dispute over paintings by the Dutch artist Piet Mondrian. Trustees claiming through his heir say the works were lent to a museum in Krefeld, Germany, for an exhibition in 1929, but never returned. They seek the remaining paintings and compensation for others sold or exchanged after the war. The city disputes their ownership claim. Mondrian fled Nazi persecution and died in New York in 1944. The trustees say persecution prevented him from recovering the works, and that the museum later wrongfully kept or disposed of them. A federal district court dismissed their suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. That law generally protects foreign states and their agencies from suit, subject to exceptions. Here the claimed exception concerns property taken in violation of international law. The trustees will argue that persecution and the museum's later conduct qualify. The museum will respond that these allegations do not establish a governmental taking, even if they describe an ordinary property wrong. Listen for the difference between wrongful possession and the kind of expropriation that lets a U.S. court hear the case. This appeal concerns jurisdiction, not a final ruling on who owns the paintings. Holtzman v. Kunstmuseen Krefeld (No. 25-7173) — United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-7173.mp3 Case and argument date — D.C. Circuit official November listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/11 Alleged painting history and jurisdictional dismissal — district court Doc.43, September30,2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2020cv02976/223109/43/0.pdf City's competing provenance account — commissioned summary, July2,2019: https://krefeld-production.b-cdn.net/media/attachments/W1siZiIsIjVmYzBlZWMxYjI1NmYwMDAzOWNlYTFjYSJdLFsicCIsImNvbnRlbnRfZGlzcG9zaXRpb24iLG51bGxdXQ/Dossier_Mondrian_en.pdf?sha=0e0f71746f76b92e Artist chronology — Peggy Guggenheim Collection: https://www.guggenheim-venice.it/en/art/artists/piet-mondrian/White v. Wolcott — 2d Cir. (Nov 10, 2026)
The Second Circuit considers whether Derrick White's trial lawyer should have challenged police access to his cellphone location records. White was convicted of assault and weapon offenses after a man was shot …
Show notes
The Second Circuit considers whether Derrick White's trial lawyer should have challenged police access to his cellphone location records. White was convicted of assault and weapon offenses after a man was shot in the foot in New York. Two eyewitnesses identified him, and cell-tower records placed his phone near the shooting. Police obtained those records with a court order, not a search warrant. His trial lawyer did not ask to exclude them. The trial preceded Carpenter, the Supreme Court decision recognizing Fourth Amendment protection for historical cellphone location data. The state courts rejected White's ineffective-assistance claim, and a federal district court denied his habeas petition. Federal habeas review challenges a state conviction on federal constitutional grounds, with deference to state-court rulings. White will argue that counsel should have preserved a plausible challenge for appeal, and that the phone evidence mattered to the result. The state will respond that counsel could rely on existing law and that other evidence made any error harmless. Listen for prejudice: whether there is a reasonable probability of a different result, not just a lawyer's mistake. White v. Wolcott (No. 25-1239) — United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Second Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-1239.mp3 Case and argument date — Second Circuit official listing: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Federal habeas denial and concrete shooting background — district court Doc. 20, April 22, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2021cv05980/563252/20/0.pdf?ts=1745499000 Prior conviction and ineffective-assistance rulings — New York Appellate Division, December 22, 2020: https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_07719.htmMark Huff, M.D. v. Drug Enforcement Administration — D.C. Cir. (Nov 10, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit reviews the revocation of Dr. Mark Huff's federal authority to prescribe controlled drugs. The dispute began when Huff sought to move his registration from Utah to Georgia, prompting a DEA …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit reviews the revocation of Dr. Mark Huff's federal authority to prescribe controlled drugs. The dispute began when Huff sought to move his registration from Utah to Georgia, prompting a DEA investigation. The agency found that he had not been candid about a fentanyl relapse and subsequent treatment. Huff maintained that he had misunderstood questions about treatment. He requested an administrative hearing and submitted a brief description of his proposed testimony. The administrative law judge found that description inadequate and terminated the hearing proceedings. DEA's administrator then revoked Huff's registration. Huff will argue that his summary complied with the judge's order and that denying him a hearing was improper. DEA will defend the judge's authority to enforce procedural requirements. Listen for the difference between limiting testimony that was not disclosed in advance and denying a hearing altogether. Mark Huff, M.D. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (No. 26-1029) — United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — D.C. Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/26-1029.mp3 Case and argument date — D.C. Circuit official November listing: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/11 Agency findings and hearing termination under review — DEA final order, 91 FR 1827: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2026-01-15/pdf/2026-00621.pdfTracy Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Nov 10, 2026)
The Seventh Circuit considers whether SuperValu can face civil penalties for false pharmacy bills even without proven government losses. The dispute began with a price-matching program: cash customers could …
Show notes
The Seventh Circuit considers whether SuperValu can face civil penalties for false pharmacy bills even without proven government losses. The dispute began with a price-matching program: cash customers could obtain discounted prescriptions, while the pharmacies reported higher prices as their usual and customary charges to government health programs. Whistleblowers sued under the False Claims Act, a law that lets private plaintiffs pursue fraud claims in the government's name. A pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, is a private intermediary that helps administer prescription benefits. This case already reached the Supreme Court in 2023, which addressed the defendants' knowledge, not whether every bill was false. After the case returned for trial, the jury found for the whistleblowers on knowledge but found they had not proved the false claims caused government losses. The district court entered judgment for SuperValu and denied a new trial. The whistleblowers will argue that civil penalties do not require proven damages and that errors in the jury instructions require further proceedings. SuperValu will defend the judgment and challenge earlier rulings on falsity and on materiality, the ability to influence payment. Listen for the difference between a false bill, knowledge that it was false, and proof that it cost the government money. The parties also disagree about how any retrial should count individual claims. Tracy Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc. (No. 25-3134) — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Seventh Circuit official recording, November 10, 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ef.25-3134.25-3134_11_10_2026.mp3 Case and argument date — Seventh Circuit official November listing: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=11%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 Trial findings and disputed instructions — district court Doc. 605, October 31, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilcdce/3%3A2011cv03290/52788/605/0.pdf Prior knowledge-standard ruling, not this appeal's outcome — Supreme Court, June 1, 2023: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1326_6jfl.pdf Industry amicus position supporting SuperValu — U.S. Chamber brief: https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/U.S.-Chamber-Amicus-Brief-U.S.-ex-rel.-Schutte-v.-Supervalu-Holdings-Inc.-Seventh-Circuit.pdfDepartment of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC — SCOTUS (Nov 10, 2026)
The Supreme Court considers a labor dispute involving Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey fruit-and-vegetable farm that hired seasonal workers through the H-two-A visa program in 2015. That program allows foreign …
Show notes
The Supreme Court considers a labor dispute involving Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey fruit-and-vegetable farm that hired seasonal workers through the H-two-A visa program in 2015. That program allows foreign agricultural workers to come to the United States, with protections for them and domestic workers doing corresponding jobs. Sun Valley employed ninety-six foreign workers and fifty-one domestic workers. Labor Department investigators said the farm failed to keep promises about housing, transportation, kitchen access, and guaranteed work. For example, workers had been promised free cooking facilities, but the agency found they lacked meaningful kitchen access and were charged for a meal plan instead. A Labor Department administrative law judge ordered more than half a million dollars in civil penalties and back wages, and the department's review board upheld that order. The farm challenged the agency process in federal court. After a district court rejected its claims, the Third Circuit ruled that these money claims had to be decided in an independent federal court, not the agency's own tribunal. The Labor Department now asks the Supreme Court to reverse. Article Three generally reserves federal judicial power to independent courts, but the public-rights doctrine permits some matters to be decided within government agencies. The government will argue that enforcing conditions of permission to hire foreign workers fits that exception. Sun Valley will answer that these are ordinary contract-like claims for money, even if the contracts arose in an immigration program. A separate question is whether Congress actually authorized this kind of in-house adjudication. Judicial review is already available; listen for why the parties disagree about whether that later review is enough, and who should initially decide the facts. Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC (No. 25-966) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — Supreme Court official recording: https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/25-966.mp3 Official argument transcript — November 10, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2026/25-966_c0nd.pdf Case, argument date and questions granted — Supreme Court docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-966.html Prior ruling and underlying employment dispute — Third Circuit, July 29, 2025: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/232608p.pdf Government's background and position — Petitioners' merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-966/413619/20260618153112527_25-966SunValleyGovtBr_with_Appendix.pdf Sun Valley's background and position — Respondent's merits brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-966/417327/20260727112239225_25-966%20Brief%20of%20Respondent.pdfArata v. Standard Lithium Ltd. — 2d Cir. (Nov 10, 2026)
The Second Circuit considers investor Arata's securities-fraud lawsuit against Standard Lithium. The company was testing a process to extract lithium from salty water at an Arkansas demonstration plant. Arata …
Show notes
The Second Circuit considers investor Arata's securities-fraud lawsuit against Standard Lithium. The company was testing a process to extract lithium from salty water at an Arkansas demonstration plant. Arata says its statements about high recovery rates and large production volumes overstated what the plant could actually do. Reports challenging the company's claims were followed by sharp drops in its stock price. The company disputes the reports' calculations and says it warned investors that the project was still being tested. A federal judge dismissed the case, finding the alleged misleading statements and fraudulent intent insufficiently pleaded. Arata will argue that warnings about future risks did not excuse withholding disappointing results already known to management. Standard Lithium will argue that its statements described laboratory results and potential capacity, not proven commercial production. Arata v. Standard Lithium Ltd. (No. 25-2821) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Official Second Circuit oral argument — November 10, 2026. Source note: the argument and submission are complete; a faint final administrative sound is indistinct and is retained as supplied by the court.: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2821.mp3 Prior district-court memorandum and order — Doc. 46, September 28, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyedce/1%3A2022cv00507/475099/46/0.pdfUnited States v. Yong Zhu and Congying Zheng — 2d Cir. (Nov 10, 2026)
The Second Circuit hears the criminal appeals of Zhu and Zheng. The case grew out of a campaign to pressure a Chinese couple living in New Jersey to return to China. Zhu hired a private investigator to locate …
Show notes
The Second Circuit hears the criminal appeals of Zhu and Zheng. The case grew out of a campaign to pressure a Chinese couple living in New Jersey to return to China. Zhu hired a private investigator to locate them, while Zheng posted a threatening note at their home. The note used a prison sentence and the family's safety to pressure the husband to return. A jury convicted both men of stalking-related crimes. It also convicted Zhu of acting for China without notifying the U.S. attorney general, but acquitted Zheng of the foreign-agent charges. The trial judge refused to overturn their convictions. Zhu will challenge limits on his defense evidence and argue that his police interview should have been excluded. Zheng will dispute whether his brief involvement made him part of the larger stalking agreement, and will challenge limits on cross-examination. The government will defend the trial rulings and argue that the evidence supports the convictions. United States v. Yong Zhu and Congying Zheng (No. 25-121) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Official Second Circuit oral argument — November 10, 2026. Source note: the court recording cuts off the tail of the judge's final administrative word after all advocates have finished; this original gap is preserved, not reconstructed.: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-121,%2025-227.mp3 Prior district-court opinion denying post-trial motions — Doc. 294, March 1, 2024: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-1_21-cr-00265/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-1_21-cr-00265-2.pdf Public court docket — April 11, 2023 suppression-motion scheduling entry: https://www.drdocket.com/case/united-states-v-ji-hu-nyed-2021Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, et al. v. Kennedy — D.C. Cir. (Nov 10, 2026)
The D.C. Circuit hears Gottlieb Memorial Hospital and other teaching hospitals challenge a change in their Medicare payments. Medicare pays teaching hospitals an extra amount to help cover costs associated with …
Show notes
The D.C. Circuit hears Gottlieb Memorial Hospital and other teaching hospitals challenge a change in their Medicare payments. Medicare pays teaching hospitals an extra amount to help cover costs associated with training doctors. That amount depends in part on the ratio of doctors in training to hospital beds: counting more beds reduces the payment. The agency began including labor and delivery beds that had previously been excluded, and these hospitals received less money. They challenged the rule, but a federal district judge upheld it, finding both statutory authority and a reasonable explanation for the change. The hospitals will argue that Congress preserved the earlier calculation and that the agency failed to justify changing this measure of teaching intensity. The government will argue that Congress authorized it to define available beds, and that counting labor and delivery beds consistently with another Medicare payment program was reasonable. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, et al. v. Kennedy (No. 25-5190) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued November 10, 2026. Sources: Official D.C. Circuit oral argument — November 10, 2026: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/11/25-5190.mp3 District-court memorandum opinion — Doc. 23, March 25, 2025: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-00116/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_24-cv-00116-0.pdfCarmen Martinez v. City of Hammond, Indiana — 7th Cir. (Nov 9, 2026)
The Seventh Circuit reviews the dismissal of a Hammond police sergeant’s discrimination lawsuit. Martinez says the department ridiculed her after she sought treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. She …
Show notes
The Seventh Circuit reviews the dismissal of a Hammond police sergeant’s discrimination lawsuit. Martinez says the department ridiculed her after she sought treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. She says a fitness-for-duty evaluation led to administrative leave and removal from her traffic assignment. She also alleges sexual harassment and retaliation after she complained. A federal judge found her complaint insufficient and refused a further amendment. Martinez will argue that the judge demanded too much detail before discovery and should have allowed her to revise the complaint. The city will argue that her account of past grievances does not plausibly connect the facts to the legal claims. Carmen Martinez v. City of Hammond, Indiana (No. 25-3066) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 9, 2026. Sources: Official Seventh Circuit oral argument — November 9, 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ch.25-3066.25-3066_11_09_2026.mp3 District-court opinion and order — Martinez, October 17, 2025: https://app.midpage.ai/document/carmen-martinez-v-hammond-city-11174240Kaotica IP Corp. v. Iconic Mars Corporation — Fed. Cir. (Nov 9, 2026)
The Federal Circuit hears a dispute over a photograph attached to a trade-dress settlement. Kaotica accused Iconic Mars of violating its rights in a product’s appearance. The resulting judgment barred Iconic …
Show notes
The Federal Circuit hears a dispute over a photograph attached to a trade-dress settlement. Kaotica accused Iconic Mars of violating its rights in a product’s appearance. The resulting judgment barred Iconic from selling the accused product, identified by an attached photo. Years later, Iconic asked to replace that photo, saying it showed a redesigned product rather than the version covered by the deal. Kaotica disputes that the photo is wrong. The district court refused to change the judgment. Iconic will argue that the rule for correcting clerical mistakes also covers a party’s drafting error. Kaotica will defend the signed agreement and argue that this is not a clerical correction. Kaotica IP Corp. v. Iconic Mars Corporation (No. 25-1883) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 9, 2026. Sources: Official Federal Circuit oral argument — November 9, 2026. Source note: the official file cuts off the judge’s final administrative word after ‘The case is submitted’; all advocacy is preserved, and no speech has been reconstructed.: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1883_11092026.mp3 District-court order denying judgment correction — Kaotica, Doc. 69, May 22, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2021cv00433/701844/69/0.pdfNorguard Insurance Company v. MB Real Estate Services, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Nov 9, 2026)
The Seventh Circuit hears an insurance dispute over lost video evidence. MB Real Estate faced a claim that it had failed to preserve a video. Its insurer, Norguard, provided defense counsel, but waited about …
Show notes
The Seventh Circuit hears an insurance dispute over lost video evidence. MB Real Estate faced a claim that it had failed to preserve a video. Its insurer, Norguard, provided defense counsel, but waited about five months before warning that this claim was not covered. The insurer nevertheless continued the defense in that lawsuit. After that lawsuit was dismissed, the claimant refiled the video-loss claim, and MB Real Estate settled it. After a bench trial, a federal judge ruled that Norguard could deny coverage. MB Real Estate will argue that surrendering control of its defense was enough to show prejudice. Norguard will argue that the company remained involved in its defense and was not harmed by the delay. Norguard Insurance Company v. MB Real Estate Services, Inc. (No. 25-3238) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 9, 2026. Sources: Official Seventh Circuit oral argument — November 9, 2026: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ch.25-3238.25-3238_11_09_2026.mp3 District-court post-trial memorandum and order — Norguard, Doc. 177, November 6, 2025: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2022cv03007/415851/177/0.pdfBetts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC — 2d Cir. (Nov 9, 2026)
The Second Circuit reviews a ruling against hotel companies in a guest’s negligence lawsuit. Betts called the front desk for an in-room massage, and the hotel arranged an outside therapist. She says he sexually …
Show notes
The Second Circuit reviews a ruling against hotel companies in a guest’s negligence lawsuit. Betts called the front desk for an in-room massage, and the hotel arranged an outside therapist. She says he sexually assaulted her during the appointment. He held a professional license, but his New York registration had expired. A federal judge found the hotel companies liable without a trial on that issue. The judge treated the hotel’s violation of New York’s massage-services law as negligence in itself, and found a legal causal link to her injuries. The companies will contest how the statute applies, whether it establishes negligence, and whether the violation caused the assault. Betts will defend the ruling as enforcing protections for massage clients. Betts v. Sixty Lower East Side, LLC (No. 25-2108) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued November 9, 2026. Sources: Official Second Circuit oral argument — November 9, 2026: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2108.mp3 District-court memorandum and order — Betts, Doc. 75, August 21, 2023: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2020cv04772/539059/75/0.pdf?ts=1692718822Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. — Fed. Cir. (Nov 9, 2026)
The Federal Circuit hears Acadia Pharmaceuticals’ patent dispute with generic drugmakers Aurobindo and MSN. The dispute concerns a small-capsule formulation of pimavanserin, a medicine used for hallucinations …
Show notes
The Federal Circuit hears Acadia Pharmaceuticals’ patent dispute with generic drugmakers Aurobindo and MSN. The dispute concerns a small-capsule formulation of pimavanserin, a medicine used for hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson’s disease psychosis. The generic manufacturers pursued their own versions, and Acadia accused them of infringing its formulation patent. The patent’s requirements include granules—powder particles made to stick together—inside the capsule. After trial, a Delaware judge rejected the invalidity challenge and found Aurobindo’s proposed product infringed. Now the generic manufacturers will challenge the patent’s validity, and Aurobindo will also contest the infringement finding. Acadia will defend both rulings. Listen for the distinction between challenging the patent itself and disputing whether a particular product meets its requirements. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (No. 25-1875) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 9, 2026. Sources: Official Federal Circuit oral argument — November 9, 2026: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1875_11092026.mp3 District-court trial order — May 16, 2025: https://app.midpage.ai/document/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-v-aurobindo-1000439765716 Official district-court claim-construction opinion and order — December 13, 2023: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/22-1387.pdf Acadia litigation announcement — May 16, 2025: https://acadia.com/en-us/media/news-releases/delaware-district-court-rules-favor-acadia-nuplazidr FDA prescribing information — April 2026; indication only: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2026/207318s016lbl.pdf
These are the latest 40 of 1,350 episodes. You’ll find older episodes in the podcast’s feed.
Similar podcasts
More Government podcasts
Is this your podcast?
Confirm it with an entry in your feed: you get a code here, add it as podcast:txt to the channel of your feed, and we check it. Your podcast is then shown as “verified” on SoundNode.