The present study examined the use of heteroglossic resources in courtroom oral arguments in a high-profile political case, using the Engagement system within the Appraisal model developed by Martin and White (2005). The discursive analysis of legal teams representing Donald Trump and the United States revealed that both teams employed the dialogically expansive formulations of entertain and attribute more frequently than the contractive resources of disclaim and proclaim. However, within the contractive category, disclaiming resources (deny and counter) were used more often than proclaiming resources (concur, pronounce, and endorse). Comparing the two teams, the United States legal team, represented by Dreeben, utilised more contractive resources overall, emphasising authority and rejection of opposing arguments, while Trump’s legal team, represented by Sauer, relied more on expansive resources to foster openness and flexibility. The frequent use of deny by both teams reflects their direct contestation of opposing claims, projecting confidence and control. Dreeben’s strategic combination of deny and counter provided a dynamic edge by acknowledging Sauer’s points before refuting them, subtly shifting the power dynamics in his favor. This study provides valuable insights into the strategic use of heteroglossic resources. Therefore, the study may contribute to understanding the rhetorical strategies used to incorporate multiple voices and perspectives in similar contexts, advancing knowledge in legal and linguistic studies.