⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

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.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS Status

NetChoice v. Jay Jones — 4th Cir. (Oct 28, 2026)

No. 26-1252 Argued October 28, 2026 Published October 30, 2026

The Fourth Circuit considers Virginia's limits on minors' use of social media. Senate Bill eight fifty-four requires covered platforms to check whether users are younger than sixteen, and impose a one-hour daily limit per service or application. Parents may increase or decrease that limit. NetChoice, a trade association for internet companies, sued Virginia's attorney general, arguing the law restricts the speech rights of platforms and users. A district judge granted NetChoice a preliminary injunction, finding the law likely violates the First Amendment. That preliminary injunction is an interim order, not a final judgment on the whole case. Virginia will argue that the adjustable default helps parents address harmful platform features rather than censoring a message. NetChoice will argue that parental permission does not cure a state-imposed restriction on protected speech. Breckenridge will speak for Virginia.

NetChoice v. Jay Jones (No. 26-1252) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, argued October 28, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — official Fourth Circuit original, October 28, 2026:https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/OAarchive/mp3/26-1252-20261028.mp3
Official recording and written counsel listing:https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/oral-argument/oral-argument-audio-files
Official dated calendar and parental-control appeal:https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/cal/internetcalOct272026.pdf
Underlying law, lawsuit and preliminary ruling — original district opinion, February 27, 2026:https://netchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Virginia-PI-Opinion_Granted.pdf
Age threshold, daily default and parental adjustment — Virginia Code section 59.1-577.1:https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title59.1/chapter53/section59.1-577.1/
NetChoice and facial challenges — Moody v. NetChoice, majority printed pages 9–10:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Interim relief is not a final merits judgment — University of Texas v. Camenisch, page 395:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/451/390/
Content-based speech restrictions and strict scrutiny — Reed v. Town of Gilbert:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/155/
Content-neutral tailoring — Ward v. Rock Against Racism, pages 798–800:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/781/
Strict and intermediate scrutiny distinguished — McCullen v. Coakley, majority Parts III–IV:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/464/
Noscitur a sociis — Jarecki v. G. D. Searle, page 307:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/303/
Contextual reading of statutory lists — Gustafson v. Alloyd, pages 574–575:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/513/561/
Constitutional avoidance and plausible interpretations — Clark v. Martinez, majority:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/371/
Avoidance cannot contradict legislative intent — DeBartolo, page 575:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/485/568/

0:00
0:00