Oral Arguments, with Context

Real U.S. court oral arguments, made followable: each episode plays the official courtroom audio with brief context woven in at natural pauses — what the case is about, who is arguing and what they stand for, and plain-English explanations of the legal concepts right when they come up. Audio comes from the courts' official recordings; Supreme Court timing data courtesy of Oyez.

Oral Arguments, with Context is a government podcast hosted by Context, with 357 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80. PitchCentric scores this show on Booking Probability, Listen Score, and live audience signals refreshed every 24 hours.

Context hosts Oral Arguments, with Context, a government show with 357 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Oral Arguments, with Context

  Kenneth Bae v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea — D.C. Cir. (argued September 14, 2026)

  Sep 14, 202633 min

  The D.C. Circuit hears Kenneth Bae's case against North Korea. North Korea detained Bae for about two years, sentenced him to fifteen years of hard labor, and released him in 2014. Bae later sued North Korea over his imprisonment and treatment. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act normally shields foreign governments from suit, but includes an exception for certain terrorism claims. North Korea was removed from the state-sponsor list in 2008 and returned in 2017. The district court ruled against Bae, and he appealed. The question is whether Bae's detention helped cause that redesignation under the statute. Kenneth Bae v. Democratic People's Republic of Korea (No. 25-7132) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-7132.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cadc/25-7132 Kenneth Bae litigation background — Voice of America: https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_suing-north-korea-presents-legal-logistical-hurdles/6203816.html Private litigation against North Korea — National Committee on North Korea: https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/private-litigation-against-north-korean-government Kenneth Bae detention and sentence — Obama White House archive: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/02/06/president-obama-speaks-2014-national-prayer-breakfast/index__q_page=3.html Kenneth Bae release — Obama White House archive: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/10/press-gaggle-senior-administration-official-director-clappers-trip-north 28 U.S.C. § 1605A — U.S. House: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A28%20section%3A1605A%20edition%3Aprelim%29

  Listen
• 

  Oral Arguments, with Context

  Archibald v. Banks — 2d Cir. (argued September 14, 2026)

  Sep 14, 202621 min

  The Second Circuit hears Archibald versus Banks. N.A., a New York City student with a seizure disorder, had a 2023 individualized education program that provided a full-time one-to-one paraprofessional and access to a school nurse as needed, but not a nurse assigned only to her. Her mother rejected that plan, kept her at the private iBRAIN school, and sought public funding. An impartial hearing officer ruled that the city had offered a free appropriate public education. A state review officer disagreed because the city had not provided adequate transportation support, but still denied funding for a dedicated nurse. The federal district court also found that the record did not show the nurse was necessary or actually provided at iBRAIN. The appeal asks whether, under the Second Circuit's Ferreira decision, the district judge independently weighed the fairness factors governing reimbursement. Archibald v. Banks (No. 25-2330) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2330.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html State Review Officer decision 24-028 — New York State Education Department: https://www.sro.nysed.gov/decision/2024/24-028 District court opinion — Archibald v. Banks: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2024cv05919/625999/25/0.pdf?ts=1757443897 Appellate docket — Archibald v. Banks: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-2330 Ferreira v. Aviles-Ramos — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-612_opn.pdf Rory Bellantoni — Liberty & Freedom Legal Group: https://libertyfreedom.law/meet-our-team/rory-bellantoni/ Rory Bellantoni appearance — New York Court of Appeals transcript: https://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/arguments/2026/Jan26/Transcripts/010626-1-Oral-Argument-Transcript.pdf Jennifer Lerner appearance — New York Appellate Division: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad1/calendar/List_Word/2023/12_Dec/07/PDF/Wagner%20%20v%20%20NYC%20Dept.%20%20Education%20(2023-01472).pdf

  Listen
• 

  Oral Arguments, with Context

  Cooper v. Collins — Fed. Cir. (argued September 10, 2026)

  Sep 13, 202626 min

  Veteran John Cooper seeks earlier dates for compensation tied to prostate cancer, diabetes, and a loss-of-use benefit, plus a higher prostate-cancer rating. Veterans Affairs denied his claims in 1997. In 2020, a declassified 1973 Air Force report was added to his file. The Project CHECO report described herbicide use around Thai air-base perimeters; Cooper served at one such base during the Vietnam era. In 2023, the Veterans Court sent the four claims back because the Board had not addressed that report or conflicting medical evidence. The Board then ordered a first-line Veterans Affairs office to determine the report's declassification date and clarify the medical exam. Cooper says the date cannot matter when the report only entered his file in 2020, and the Board should have granted earlier dates under section 3.156(c). That rule can require reconsideration when official service records are added after an earlier denial. Cooper appealed the remand itself. The Veterans Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, calling it interlocutory—preliminary, not final. The Federal Circuit must decide whether the Appeals Modernization Act changed that rule because a remanded claim no longer returns automatically to the Board; the veteran must file a new notice of disagreement. Cooper v. Collins (No. 25-1166) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 10, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1166_09102026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf Cooper v. McDonough order, No. 23-5963 — U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/CooperJA_23-5963.pdf 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-3/subpart-A/section-3.156 38 C.F.R. § 3.2502 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-3/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFRa3a9ee97d40c028/section-3.2502 38 C.F.R. § 20.800 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-20/subpart-I/section-20.800 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-20/subpart-N/section-20.1100 Federal Circuit appeal docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1166

  Listen
• 

  Oral Arguments, with Context

  In re WSOU Investments LLC — Fed. Cir. (argued September 11, 2026)

  Sep 13, 202627 min

  The Federal Circuit reviews the Patent Office's rejection of claims in WSOU Investments' service-based networking patent. The patent tackles IP-address changes: its network layer lets endpoints find one another by service name and keep a connection through the change. Cisco earlier sought inter partes review based on Traversat, a peer-to-peer networking patent. The Board declined to institute review because Cisco used Traversat's peer name in the request but a separate identifier to establish the connection; WSOU's claim requires the same service name in both places. A third party later requested ex parte reexamination. The examiner rejected the claims; the Board reversed those rejections, then entered its own obviousness rejection. Claim construction means deciding what patent language covers. Obviousness asks whether a skilled engineer had reason to make the claimed change and could expect it to work. The appeal asks whether the Board broadened its earlier construction, adequately explained the modification, and properly refused to reopen prosecution. In re WSOU Investments LLC (No. 25-1153) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued September 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1153_09112026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/ September 2026 argument calendar — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf U.S. Patent No. 9,357,014 — PTAB exhibit: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/v1_Ex.%201001%20-%20US9357014%20%28Shamilian%29.pdf IPR2021-00961 institution decision — Patent Trial and Appeal Board: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/IPR2021-00961%20DI%20FINAL.pdf IPR2021-00961 patent-owner response — Patent Trial and Appeal Board record: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/2021-09-17.%20IPR2021-00961%20POPR.pdf Traversat, U.S. Patent No. 8,359,397 — PTAB exhibit: https://ptabdata.blob.core.windows.net/files/2021/IPR2021-00961/v5_Ex.%201005%20-%20US%208359397%20%28Traversat%29.pdf Ex parte reexamination request — USPTO Official Gazette: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2022/week22/TOC.htm 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 — Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-37/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-41/subpart-C/section-41.50 Procedure after a new Board rejection — USPTO MPEP § 1214.01: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1214.html Obviousness guidance — USPTO MPEP § 2143: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html 35 U.S.C. § 103 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title35-section103&num=0&edition=prelim U.S. Patent No. 9,357,014 record — Google Patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9357014B2/en Office of the Solicitor — USPTO: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/organizational-offices/office-general-counsel/office-solicitor Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1153

  Listen
• 

  Oral Arguments, with Context

  John Tomkins v. Brian Lammer — 7th Cir. (argued September 11, 2026)

  Sep 13, 202619 min

  The Seventh Circuit hears John Tomkins's challenge to mail policies at the federal prison in Thomson, Illinois. Tomkins filed a habeas petition under section 2241 in June 2025, alleging that the policies violated the First Amendment and asking for an injunction. The public dismissal order does not describe the particular mail restrictions because the court ended the case before deciding whether they were constitutional. Under Glaus v. Anderson, it dismissed without prejudice—allowing a new filing—and told Tomkins to start over with a civil-rights suit governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The procedural stakes include a five-dollar habeas filing fee versus four hundred five dollars for an ordinary civil action before fee relief, plus habeas's faster show-cause timetable. Tomkins will ask the Seventh Circuit to lift Glaus's categorical bar. The judges focus on whether an ordinary injunction suit already provides an adequate remedy, and whether the procedural differences justify changing circuit law. John Tomkins v. Brian Lammer (No. 25-2275) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 11, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/dab.25-2275.25-2275_09_11_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 District docket — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois via Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/illinois/ilndce/3:2025cv50254/479422 Appellate docket — Justia: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-2275 Glaus v. Anderson — Seventh Circuit via Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/408/382/509577/ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2241 28 U.S.C. § 2243 — U.S. House of Representatives: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&num=0&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title28-section2243 Federal court filing fees — U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina: https://www.scd.uscourts.gov/Resources/fee.asp FCI Thomson — Federal Bureau of Prisons: https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/tom/

  Listen

Recent guests on Oral Arguments, with Context. Study who booked and why before you pitch.

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.