Oral-argument transcript

Code snippets

curl "https://api.oanor.com/oyez-api/v1/case/oral-argument" \
  -H "x-oanor-key: oanor_test_..."

await fetch("https://api.oanor.com/oyez-api/v1/case/oral-argument", {
  headers: { "x-oanor-key": "oanor_test_..." }
});

$ch = curl_init("https://api.oanor.com/oyez-api/v1/case/oral-argument");
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_HTTPHEADER, ["x-oanor-key: oanor_test_..."]);
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER, true);
$out = curl_exec($ch);

import requests
requests.get(
    "https://api.oanor.com/oyez-api/v1/case/oral-argument",
    headers={"x-oanor-key": "oanor_test_..."}
)

Example response

A real response from this endpoint, captured by the latest health check.

{
    "data": {
        "case": "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission",
        "term": "2008",
        "title": "Oral Argument - March 24, 2009",
        "turns": [
            {
                "stop": 8.119,
                "text": "We will hear argument today in Case 08-205, Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. Mr. Olson.",
                "start": 0,
                "speaker": "John G. Roberts, Jr."
            },
            {
                "stop": 130.319,
                "text": "Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Participation in the political process is the First Amendment's most fundamental guarantee. Yet that freedom is being smothered by one of the most complicated, expensive, and incomprehensible regulatory regimes ever invented by the administrative state. In the case that you consider today, it is a felony for a small, nonprofit corporation to offer interested viewers a 90-minute political documentary about a candidate for the nation's highest office that General Electric, National Public Radio, or George Soros may freely broadcast. Its film may be shown in theaters, sold on DVDs, transmitted for downloading on the Internet, and its message may be distributed in the form of a book. But its producers face 5 years in prison if they offer it in the home through the vehicle of Video On Demand. Because the limitation on speech, political speech, is at the core of the First Amendment, the government has a heavy burden to establish each application of a restriction on that form of speech is a narrowly tailored response to a compelling governmental interest. The government cannot prove and has not attempted to prove that a 90-minute documentary made available to people who choose affirmatively to receive it, to opt in, by an ideologically oriented small corporation poses any threat of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. Indeed, this documentary is the very definition of robust, uninhibited debate about a subject of intense political interest that the First Amendment is there to guarantee.",
                "start": 8.119,
                "speaker": "Theodore B. Olson"
            },
            {
                "stop": 135.505,
                "text": "Mr. Olson, if the film were distributed by General Motors, would your argument be the same?",
                "start": 130.319,
                "speaker": "David H. Souter"
            },
            {
                "stop": 167.928,
                "text": "Well, it wouldn't -- definitely would not be the same because there are several aspects of the argument that we present. However, in one respect, it would. A 90-minute documentary was not the sort of thing that the -- the BCRA -- that the Congress was intended to prohibit. In fact, as the -- as the Reporters Committee for -- for Freedom of Speech points out, the documentary is objectively indistinguishable from other news media commentary--",
                "start": 135.505,
            
…