⚖ 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

Roberta Agyeman v. Todd Blanche, et al. — D.C. Cir. (Sep 28, 2026)

No. 25-5360 Argued September 28, 2026 Published October 31, 2026

The D.C. Circuit hears from people denied payments from the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. The fund's administrator, called the Special Master, ruled that they were not eligible for compensation. They sued, saying she had misread the eligibility law. The district court did not decide whether they qualified. It dismissed the lawsuit because it held that Congress had barred court review of compensation decisions. The claimants will argue that deciding eligibility is different from deciding how much to pay, and that legal mistakes remain reviewable. The government will contend that the review ban covers eligibility decisions too. The lawyers also discuss mandamus: a court order directing a government official to carry out a legally required duty. One procedural dispute is whether the claimants properly requested that remedy. The threshold question is whether a court can review the denial, not what payment to award.

Roberta Agyeman v. Todd Blanche, et al. (No. 25-5360) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued September 28, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording:https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/09/25-5360.mp3
Case, counsel and argument date — official D.C. Circuit listing:https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/9
Background and dismissal — D.D.C. memorandum opinion, September 17, 2025:https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00529/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00529-0.pdf
Fund administration and judicial-review provisions — 34 U.S.C. § 20144:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/20144
Mandamus jurisdiction — 28 U.S.C. § 1361:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1361

0:00
0:00