⚖ 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

Michael and David Sztrom v. SEC — D.C. Cir. (Oct 15, 2026)

No. 26-5008 Argued October 15, 2026 Published October 17, 2026

The D.C. Circuit hears Michael and David Sztrom versus the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC alleged David helped his father access client information and execute trades while Michael was not associated with a registered advisory firm. They settled the fraud case without admitting liability. The SEC then began an internal follow-on proceeding seeking industry bans. The Sztroms filed a separate lawsuit challenging that process, but the district court dismissed it. It rejected some constitutional claims and required others to follow the agency-review route. While their appeal was underway, the SEC issued orders barring them from specified roles in the securities industry. Mootness asks whether a live dispute remains in which a court can give effective relief. Wholly collateral means separate from the enforcement issues the agency is deciding. That is one factor in deciding whether a separate district-court suit is allowed. Their constitutional challenge distinguishes Article Three’s federal judicial power from the Seventh Amendment’s civil-jury protection. A public-rights exception allows some matters to be decided initially by agencies. In SEC versus Jarkesy, the Supreme Court required a jury when the SEC sought civil penalties for securities fraud. That ruling did not decide this professional-ban dispute. The Sztroms will argue these sanctions belong in an independent federal court; the Commission will defend its administrative process.

Michael and David Sztrom v. SEC (No. 26-5008) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argued October 15, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — official D.C. Circuit recording:https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/docs/2026/10/26-5008.mp3
Case, counsel and argument date — official court archive:https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/bydate/2026/10
Background and district-court dismissal — Sztrom v. SEC, D.D.C. 24-cv-3548, Document 21, January 8, 2026:https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2024cv03548/275920/21/0.pdf?ts=1767950835
Original fraud allegations, not an admission of liability — SEC Litigation Release 25010, January 19, 2021:https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-25010
Intervening agency bars — SEC Release IA-7010, September 21, 2026; not the outcome of this court appeal; David may apply for reentry:https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2026/ia-7010.pdf
Mootness and effective relief — Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 172–175 (2013), majority opinion:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1347
Continuing live controversy — Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91–93 (2013), majority opinion:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-982
SEC fraud penalties, civil juries and public rights — SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), majority opinion:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Wholly collateral and the route to court — Axon Enterprise v. FTC, 598 U.S. 175 (2023), majority sections II–III:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21-86

0:00
0:00