Podcasts about Administrative Procedure Act

This Day in Legal History: Wallace Stands in the Schoolhouse DoorOn this day in 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace physically stood in the doorway of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to block the registration of Vivian Malone and James Hood, the two Black students whose enrollment had been ordered by a federal district court. Wallace's “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” was the culmination of a long campaign of state defiance of federal desegregation orders that ran from Brown v. Board in 1954 through Cooper v. Aaron in 1958 — the case in which a unanimous Supreme Court told the Little Rock school district, and by extension every state actor, that federal constitutional rulings are the supreme law of the land and that state officials may not nullify them.President Kennedy responded to Wallace's stand by issuing Executive Order 11111, which federalized the Alabama National Guard, and ordering Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach down to Tuscaloosa to confront the governor. Wallace gave a long speech invoking states' rights and Tenth Amendment sovereignty, then stepped aside, and Malone and Hood walked in and registered. That night, Kennedy went on national television and delivered the civil rights address that put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 onto the national agenda. The legal and political throughline matters: the schoolhouse door, the executive order federalizing the Guard, the televised address, and the omnibus civil rights legislation that followed were a single coordinated federal response to massive resistance, and the institutional habit they built — the willingness of the federal political branches to back federal court orders with whatever force is necessary — is the substrate on which the modern enforcement of civil rights law sits. Whether that habit holds up under contemporary pressure is one of the live constitutional questions of our moment.The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” saga we have been following all week reached at least a partial resolution on Wednesday when Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia declined to extend her temporary restraining order against the program into a preliminary injunction. The reason, in essence, is that the Justice Department has now formally represented to the court, in writing and through acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, that the $1.8 billion fund is “not going forward.” Brinkema took DOJ at its word for present purposes and dissolved the TRO, which under standard mootness doctrine is the right call when a defendant credibly commits to abandoning the challenged program. But she also did something practical: she warned the government in plain terms not to “play possum with this court,” language that gives the plaintiffs a built-in mechanism to come back fast if the fund quietly re-emerges under a different name.The substantive theory the plaintiffs were pressing — that the fund is an unappropriated expenditure of public money, that the underlying Trump-IRS settlement was a litigation in which the United States was never really adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and that the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard — is now preserved for another day rather than litigated to judgment. The practical lesson is the durability of voluntary-cessation doctrine: a government defendant who is willing to abandon a program in court usually wins on mootness, but the cost is real, because future revivals get scrutinized against the prior representation. Watch the Federal Register and the DOJ component-level budget submissions for the next six months — if there is a successor program coming, those are where the first signal appears.Judge declines to halt “anti-weaponization fund” since Blanche says it's dead, but warns DOJ not to “play possum” | CBS NewsA coalition of environmental and tribal-nation plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday seeking to block a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved land exchange that would transfer 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge to SpaceX, in return for 683 acres of privately owned land elsewhere. The plaintiffs are the Center for Biological Diversity, Save RGV, the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, and the South Texas Environmental Justice Network.The legal theory of the case is unusually multi-statute: the complaint alleges violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, with the central administrative-law argument being that the Fish and Wildlife Service's environmental analysis failed to grapple seriously with impacts on endangered ocelots, aplomado falcons, and a long list of migratory species whose habitat the refuge was designed to protect when Congress created it in 1979. The plaintiffs describe this as one of the largest national-wildlife-refuge land exchanges outside Alaska, and the suit asks for vacatur of the exchange decision rather than damages — the standard APA remedy.The political and infrastructural backdrop is hard to miss: SpaceX's Starbase facility at Boca Chica has been expanding into the Lower Rio Grande Valley for years now, and the exchange would consolidate the company's footprint on land previously held for the protection of one of the last remaining ocelot ranges in the country. The merits of the case will turn on the rigor of the FWS environmental analysis. Expect a request for a preliminary injunction within weeks.Lawsuit challenges Trump administration's land swap with SpaceX in Texas | The Washington PostA Los Angeles County jury on Wednesday added $22 million in punitive damages to the $176 million compensatory verdict already entered against socialite and former philanthropist Rebecca Grossman and former Major League Baseball pitcher Scott Erickson, bringing the total civil award to the Iskander family to roughly $198 million.The underlying facts of the case are stark: in September 2020, Grossman and Erickson left a Westlake Village restaurant after drinking and street-raced separate Mercedes SUVs through a residential neighborhood, with Grossman striking and killing two young brothers, Mark and Jacob Iskander, then 11 and 8, as they crossed a marked crosswalk with their parents.Grossman was convicted of two counts of murder in 2024 and is serving 15 years to life. The civil case the family brought is the wrongful-death companion, and the punitive damages award the jury added on Wednesday is the part that does the most policy work: the jury split the punitive award $21 million against Grossman, $1.17 million against Erickson, which under California's reprehensibility-and-net-worth framework reflects both the much greater direct culpability of Grossman as the driver and the substantial disparity in their respective financial positions.The case is notable beyond the parties involved because of how clean it is on the standard punitive-damages analysis the Supreme Court laid out in BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell: high reprehensibility, a relatively modest single-digit ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages, and an underlying compensatory award that itself was supported by the gravity of the loss. Watch for an appeal that focuses on the compensatory rather than the punitive number — that is where the appellate leverage actually is.Jury Ups Philanthropist, Ex-Pitcher Crash Verdict To $198M | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Madison Introduces the Bill of RightsOn this day in 1789, James Madison rose from his seat in New York's Federal Hall — then the temporary capital of the new federal government — and gave the speech in which he introduced a list of amendments to the Constitution that we now know as the Bill of Rights. Madison had been, until quite recently, a skeptic of attaching a bill of rights to the federal Constitution: he had argued at the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist that the structure of enumerated and separated powers was a better protection of liberty than a “parchment barrier” of textual rights, and he worried that any enumeration would be read to imply that whatever was not enumerated was not protected. What changed his mind was politics. The Antifederalist opposition in several states had made ratification conditional on amendments protecting individual rights, and Madison — by then a member of the First Congress — concluded that introducing such amendments himself was the surest way to defuse a broader constitutional convention movement that might unravel the work of 1787. The list he proposed on June 8 was longer and somewhat different from what eventually became the Bill of Rights; the House debated it through the summer, passed seventeen amendments in August, the Senate reduced them to twelve in September, and ten of those — the ones we now call Amendments I through X — were ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. June 8 is the date a reluctant convert stood up and made the case that has carried American constitutional law ever since: the proposition that the government's structural restraint is necessary but not sufficient, and that the rights of speech, conscience, due process, and the rest deserve to be written down where everyone can read them.Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on Friday vacated four U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policies that had, since late last year, frozen work permits, green-card adjudications, naturalization, and asylum claims for nationals of roughly 39 countries on the second Trump administration's travel ban list. The case, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132, was brought by a coalition of immigrant-service organizations and labor unions. Judge McConnell held that all four policies — a “Benefits Hold” freezing affirmative benefits for travel-ban country nationals, a Global Asylum Hold halting asylum processing across the board regardless of country of origin, a Comprehensive Re-Review Policy requiring USCIS to re-examine previously approved benefits, and a separate adjudicator-instruction policy treating travel-ban country origin as a negative factor — are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal hook is familiar APA territory: the agency, McConnell concluded, failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the freezes and failed to account for the substantial reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of pending applicants. What makes this ruling stand out is the remedy. Other district courts that had blocked these policies in the last six months issued preliminary injunctions limited to named plaintiffs; McConnell vacated the policies themselves, which under standard APA practice means they cease to operate nationwide. That puts USCIS in the position of either rescinding the policies, going back to the drawing board with proper rulemaking, or appealing to the First Circuit and trying to get the vacatur stayed. Expect movement on all three fronts this week.US Judge Strikes Down Trump Policies Targeting Immigrants From 39 Countries | US NewsU.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia entered a temporary restraining order on Friday blocking the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” from disbursing any money while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. The fund — created by executive order earlier this year and funded out of a settlement the administration brokered in the Trump-IRS litigation we covered in early June — was meant to compensate people the administration described as victims of the Biden Justice Department's “weaponization” of federal law enforcement, with the first contemplated payments going to defendants and witnesses from the January 6 prosecutions. Plaintiffs include former DOJ attorney Andrew Floyd and other former federal prosecutors who argue, in essence, that the fund is an unauthorized expenditure of public money: Congress never appropriated it, the settlement that supposedly funds it is itself under judicial review for whether the United States was actually adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard. Judge Brinkema's order, narrowly drawn to “ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed,” set a June 12 hearing on whether the freeze should be extended into a preliminary injunction. By the end of last week the situation had escalated further: on June 5 the Justice Department told two federal judges, in writing, that it would stop work on the fund altogether and that the lawsuits challenging it are now moot. That representation will be tested at this Friday's hearing, because the plaintiffs are not satisfied with a unilateral DOJ promise and want a binding court order before they go away. Watch for what Brinkema does with that disagreement on Friday.Justice Department says it will stop work on $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” after judge's ruling | CBS NewsA divided Seventh Circuit panel on Friday upheld Indiana's law restricting who may attend an execution at the Indiana State Prison, holding that the First Amendment does not give reporters a right of access to be present at the execution itself. Judge Michael Scudder wrote the 2-1 majority. The plaintiffs — the Associated Press, the Indiana Capital Chronicle, Gannett, WISH-TV, and TEGNA, represented by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — had argued that the long line of Supreme Court cases recognizing a First Amendment right of press and public access to criminal proceedings, from Richmond Newspapers forward, extends to the carrying out of capital sentences, particularly given Indiana's recent resumption of executions after a long pause and a 2024 statute that omitted journalists from the list of permitted witnesses. The panel disagreed. The majority emphasized that Indiana's witness list — the warden, execution staff, the prison physician, a chaplain, the prisoner's spiritual adviser, up to eight family members of the victim, and up to five unspecified additional witnesses — leaves journalists free to interview those who did attend, report on every other aspect of the proceeding, and comment on the state's choice to impose or carry out the sentence, and that there is no constitutional difference between watching the execution and reporting on it secondhand. The opinion's most striking passage, candidly weighed against the press claim: allowing “uninvited strangers with no immediate connection to the underlying crime” to watch a prisoner die “risks offending the dignity of their final moments.” The dissent argued the press's structural role in informing public deliberation over the death penalty depends on first-hand observation. The split sets up a possible petition for rehearing en banc and, in the longer run, a circuit-split-ready vehicle if other circuits go the other way.7th Circ. Says Ind. Can Bar Press From Attending Executions | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Rhode Island Ratifies the Constitution, 1790On this day in 1790, Rhode Island became the thirteenth and final original state to ratify the United States Constitution, doing so by a margin of 34 to 32 at a convention in Newport. Rhode Island's hesitation had been considerable: the state refused to send delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, and twice rejected ratification in popular referenda — a curiously democratic method for refusing to join a constitutional union founded in part on the premise that pure direct democracy is dangerous. The state's small-farmer and debtor classes, the same constituencies that had backed the paper-money policies that horrified Madison, were deeply suspicious of a strong federal government that would constrain state-issued currency, ban impairment of debt contracts (Article I, Section 10), and override state-level debtor protections.Ratification finally came under the gun: Congress, frustrated by the foot-dragging, was openly threatening to treat Rhode Island as a foreign nation for tariff purposes, which would have devastated the Providence merchants. The convention's narrow margin reflected a hostile deal more than a meeting of constitutional minds.Importantly, Rhode Island's ratification was conditioned on a lengthy list of proposed amendments — many of them mirroring the Bill of Rights that James Madison had already shepherded through Congress in September 1789 and that would be ratified in December 1791. With Rhode Island in, the original Union was at last complete, and the practical question of whether the new federal government could function with one stubborn holdout fell away. The episode is a useful reminder that the constitutional founding was not so much a singular moment as a slow, contested, occasionally coerced bargain — one that ended in Newport on a humid Saturday in May.The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a narrow 5-4 ruling in Pitchford v. Cain, reviving a Mississippi death row inmate's challenge to the prosecutor's race-based use of peremptory strikes at his 2006 capital trial. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for a majority that included Chief Justice Roberts plus Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, held that the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied Batson v. Kentucky's three-step framework for challenges to peremptory strikes.The Court found the trial judge accepted the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations without giving defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to argue that those reasons were pretextual, and the state appellate court compounded the error by treating that omission as a waiver. The prosecutor, Doug Evans, used four of his twelve strikes to remove four of the five Black prospective jurors, leaving a jury of eleven white jurors and one Black juror in a Mississippi county that was then roughly 40 percent Black.The Court leaned heavily on its 2019 Flowers v. Mississippi decision, which involved the same prosecutor and the same trial judge and had already found Evans's pattern of striking Black jurors discriminatory. Federal habeas relief was appropriate because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's deferential “no fair-minded jurist could agree” standard cannot rescue a state-court ruling that simply skips Batson's third step. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Barrett, arguing the record showed counsel chose silence rather than being denied an opportunity. The case now returns to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.Justices Revive Mississippi Death Row Inmate's Batson Claim | Law360Caesars Entertainment agreed Thursday to be acquired by Tilman Fertitta's privately-held Fertitta Entertainment in an all-cash deal valued at roughly $17.6 billion, including the assumption of approximately $11.9 billion of Caesars' outstanding debt. Shareholders will receive $31 per share, a 49 percent premium over Caesars' unaffected share price as of February 25, and the company will be delisted from Nasdaq upon closing. The agreement includes a go-shop period running through approximately July 11 — a Delaware deal-protection mechanism that lets the target board solicit competing bids without triggering a termination fee, and that helps insulate the sale process from a Revlon-flavored fiduciary-duty challenge by signaling the board actively tested the market after signing.Latham & Watkins and Skadden are representing Caesars (the latter on antitrust), White & Case is advising Fertitta, and Freshfields is counseling the Carano family, which holds a roughly 5 percent stake and will roll part of its equity into the combined entity. The combined company would control more than 60 casino resorts and over 200 retail sports betting locations under the William Hill brand. Antitrust review will be the inflection point given the overlap on the Las Vegas Strip — where Caesars operates eight properties — and across digital betting. Funding will come from Fertitta equity and committed debt financing arranged by a syndicate of ten banks.4 Firms Steer Fertitta's $17.6B Caesars Entertainment Buy | Law360The Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday finalized a long-awaited overhaul of the federal Independent Dispute Resolution process under the No Surprises Act of 2021, the statute that pulls most out-of-network billing fights out of the patient's hands and into a baseball-style arbitration between provider and payer. The headline change slashes the per-party administrative fee from $115 to $15 per case, undoing a sharp 2023 hike that providers had successfully challenged in the Eastern District of Texas as having been adopted without notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.The rule also expands batching, so economically similar items and services can be bundled into a single arbitration, which the agency says will cut transaction costs and ease the chronic IDR backlog. HHS is also rolling out a centralized federal dispute portal and a payer registry intended to fix the persistent problem of providers being unable to identify which entity is actually on the hook in any given case. Reactions from physician and radiology groups have been mixed, with broad support for the fee cut but lingering concern that the qualifying payment amount methodology — the benchmark arbitrators must consider — still tilts the field toward insurers. APA Section 706 challenges to portions of the earlier IDR framework remain pending in the Fifth Circuit.US HHS finalizes rule to streamline dispute resolution under No Surprises Act | ReutersABC's New York affiliate WABC-TV filed an objection with the FCC on Thursday, calling Chairman Brendan Carr's April order requiring early license renewals for all eight ABC-owned stations an “unconstitutional” act of viewpoint-based retaliation barred by the First Amendment. WABC submitted its renewal under protest, arguing the agency has not demanded simultaneous early renewals from a commonly owned station group in more than fifty years and that the Media Bureau's stated rationale — possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC's nondiscrimination rules — is pretext for punishing disfavored editorial speech.The doctrinal hook is the Bantam Books line of cases through last term's NRA v. Vullo, which holds that government officials cannot use the implicit threat of regulatory sanction to coerce private intermediaries into suppressing protected expression. The order followed a separate FCC inquiry into whether “The View” has been violating the agency's equal-time rule for political candidates, and came against the backdrop of repeated White House demands that Disney fire Jimmy Kimmel. Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez has openly urged Disney not to “flinch.”On the same day, the FCC issued a broader notice warning all broadcasters that licenses could be reviewed early if stations are deemed to be failing their statutory public-interest obligation — a posture that drops the question of broadcast licensing back into Red Lion-era First Amendment territory.FCC Targeting ABC Licenses To Punish Speech, Station Says | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Black Monday and the End of the NIRAOn May 27, 1935 — a day quickly dubbed “Black Monday” by the press — the United States Supreme Court delivered three unanimous decisions that gutted central pieces of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in a single morning. The most consequential was A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, in which the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act. The case grew out of the prosecution of a Brooklyn kosher poultry slaughterhouse for violating the “Live Poultry Code,” one of the hundreds of industry codes drafted by trade groups and given the force of federal law by the National Recovery Administration. The Court held that the NIRA's code-making scheme was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to private actors and the executive, and that the federal government's Commerce Clause authority did not reach the intrastate sale of poultry to local butchers. Justice Cardozo, concurring, famously described the statute as “delegation running riot.”The same day, in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Court cabined the President's power to remove members of independent regulatory commissions, a holding that would shape the constitutional status of agencies like the FTC, SEC, and FCC for the next ninety years. And in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, the Court invalidated the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act as an uncompensated taking from secured creditors. Roosevelt was, by all accounts, furious — and Black Monday became the proximate cause of his 1937 court-packing plan, which failed in Congress but is generally credited with prompting the “switch in time” that produced the more deferential commerce-clause and administrative-law jurisprudence of Jones & Laughlin Steel and the decades that followed. The nondelegation doctrine the Court announced in Schechter has, famously, not been used to strike down a federal statute since — though it has been the subject of growing interest from the current Court's conservative majority, which makes the ninety-first anniversary of Black Monday more than just a historical footnote.Former President Joe Biden has sued the Department of Justice to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, the prosecutor who investigated Biden's handling of classified documents and declined to bring charges. According to the filing, Biden argues that releasing the recordings would skirt federal law restricting disclosure of materials gathered in a special counsel probe, and would effectively turn protected investigative material into political fodder. The suit follows a 2024 Freedom of Information Act action by the conservative Heritage Foundation seeking the same recordings, and comes against the backdrop of repeated efforts by the current administration to make Hur-era material public — efforts the Biden team has argued are intended to embarrass the former president rather than to serve any legitimate investigative or oversight function. The transcripts of the Hur interviews were released back in 2024, but the audio itself has been the subject of executive privilege fights ever since. Worth watching for what the court does with the privilege claims, and for how the Special Counsel regulations are treated now that there is an ex-president on each side of these disputes.Former President Biden sues DOJ over release of interview audio | ReutersThe Trump administration is asking a California federal judge to throw out an expanded challenge to its sweeping reorganization of the federal workforce, calling the litigation a “litigation safari.” In a Friday motion to dismiss filed in AFGE v. Trump, the administration urged Judge Susan Illston to toss a supplemental complaint that broadened the case to cover, among other things, the downsizing of FEMA and a set of forward-looking workforce planning documents the administration issued last October. The original suit, filed in April 2025 by a coalition including the American Federation of Government Employees, SEIU, and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco, challenged layoffs and reorganizations at more than twenty federal agencies. Judge Illston enjoined the workforce plans last May, but the Supreme Court stayed her injunction in July, and she has since declined to dismiss the case outright.The administration's argument is essentially jurisdictional: that the October planning documents are too tentative to constitute “final agency action,” that there is no specific DHS order behind the FEMA contract lapses the plaintiffs point to, and that individual FEMA terminations must run through the administrative civil-service process rather than land in district court. The “litigation safari” framing — that the plaintiffs are simply “roving the executive branch to explore various employment issues” — is rhetorically catchy but glosses over the more interesting underlying question: how cleanly the Administrative Procedure Act's “final agency action” requirement maps onto a coordinated, rolling, and openly cross-agency reorganization. A ruling on the dismissal motion is expected later this summer.Trump Admin Looks To Ax Expanded Suit Over Staffing Cuts - Law360Billionaire insurance magnate Greg Lindberg was sentenced in the Western District of North Carolina to twelve years in federal prison across two separate criminal cases — eighty-seven months on charges that he tried to bribe the state's insurance commissioner, and 144 months on wire-fraud charges arising from a $2 billion scheme in which prosecutors said he treated the insurance companies he controlled as a personal piggy bank. The sentences will run concurrently. Judge Max Cogburn also entered a preliminary restitution order of $1.6 billion based on a court-appointed special master's recommendation, which Lindberg's defense team described as the largest restitution award in state history.Prosecutors said the scheme harmed more than two hundred thousand victims, most of them elderly annuity holders, at least twenty thousand of whom died before any promised payouts arrived. The bribery case has its own complicated history — Lindberg was first convicted in 2020, had that conviction vacated by the Fourth Circuit in 2022 over faulty jury instructions, and was reconvicted on retrial in 2024. He pleaded guilty to the separate wire-fraud and money-laundering counts in November 2024. Judge Cogburn credited Lindberg's “extraordinary cooperation” with prosecutors and the special master, but also noted, with what reads like real exasperation in the transcript, that Lindberg has continued to file pro se civil lawsuits against the insurance companies he once owned and that the case illustrates how much of our regulatory apparatus can be “bought and sold like sacks of potatoes.” The government had sought roughly fourteen and a half years; Lindberg had asked for four.‘Regretful' Billionaire Gets 12 Years For $2B Fraud, Bribery - Law360The Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a debt buyer suing a consumer must attach to its complaint a non-affidavit writing that actually shows the buyer owns that consumer's debt — not just a generic bill of sale showing that the buyer purchased some bundle of receivables from the original creditor. The case, Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, involved a $671.29 Victoria's Secret credit-card balance that Comenity Bank had sold to Portfolio Recovery in 2018. Portfolio Recovery's complaint attached a bill of sale and an affidavit identifying the last four digits of Wright's account number, and the lower courts found that sufficient under Colorado's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Colorado Supreme Court, in the first opinion authored by recently appointed Justice Susan Blanco, reversed and held the affidavit could not cure a complaint that didn't first satisfy the statute's non-affidavit-writing requirement.The practical consequence is significant: the four largest debt buyers alone filed close to forty thousand cases in Colorado county courts between 2013 and 2015, accounting for around eight percent of the state's county-court civil docket, and many of those complaints have historically relied on exactly the kind of generic bill-of-sale-plus-affidavit packaging the court just rejected. Consumer advocates argue the ruling will help consumers — most of whom never had any relationship with the debt buyer — understand and respond to the suits filed against them; the debt-buying industry will, in the near term, need to retool its pleading practices statewide.Colo. Justices Say Debt Buyer Must Show It Owns The Debt - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Today's episode of the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast features a wide-ranging and timely discussion about one of the most consequential fair lending developments in years: the CFPB's final rule fundamentally reshaping enforcement under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B. Hosted by Alan Kaplinsky (the Founder, Chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr, LLP), the episode brings together an exceptional panel of fair lending authorities: our special guest Bradley Blower (the Principal and Founder of Inclusive-Partners LLC) along with John Culhane, Jr., and Richard Andreano, Jr., Senior Counsel in the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr LLP. The discussion revisits a proposal first examined on the podcast last year when the CFPB under Acting Director Russell Vought proposed sweeping revisions to ECOA enforcement principles (you can find more on that episode here). Now, the Bureau has finalized the rule largely as proposed, marking a dramatic shift in federal fair lending policy. The CFPB's Three Major Changes As discussed during the podcast, the final rule makes three major changes from the former Regulation B: ·        Eliminates the use of disparate impact analysis under ECOA and Regulation B. ·        Narrows discouragement liability by focusing primarily on spoken, written, or visual statements rather than broader conduct. ·        Revises the framework governing Special Purpose Credit Programs (SPCPs), particularly for for-profit lenders. The Bureau's stated rationale is that ECOA does not authorize disparate impact liability and that fair lending enforcement should focus on intentional discrimination rather than statistical disparities alone. Supporters of the rule argue that the changes provide lenders with clearer standards, reduce regulatory uncertainty, and create a more predictable environment for innovation, including AI-driven underwriting and algorithmic decision-making. Critics, however, contend that the rule ignores the historical role disparate impact analysis has played in uncovering systemic discrimination and could make it substantially more difficult to identify discriminatory outcomes embedded in facially neutral policies or automated systems. Disparate Impact: A Sea Change, But Not the End of Fair Lending The panel devoted significant attention to the CFPB's elimination of disparate impact liability under ECOA. John Culhane described the move as a "dramatic shift" for non-mortgage lending, noting that disparate impact theories historically drove many federal fair lending actions involving indirect auto finance, student lending, and other consumer credit products. At the same time, Rich Andreano emphasized that the mortgage industry remains subject to disparate impact claims under the federal Fair Housing Act because of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. As a result, mortgage lenders still face substantial fair lending exposure notwithstanding the CFPB's new ECOA position. The panelists also stressed that disparate impact is far from dead at the state level. Several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are expected to continue aggressive fair lending enforcement using disparate impact theories under state statutes, regulations, and consumer protection laws. Indeed, the panel highlighted the growing role of state attorneys general and state regulators as federal enforcement narrows. Discouragement Liability and the "Townstone Effect" Another focal point of the discussion was the CFPB's narrowing of discouragement liability. The panel explored how the Bureau's revisions appear heavily influenced by the CFPB's controversial enforcement action against Townstone Financial, where the Bureau alleged that comments made during radio broadcasts and podcasts discouraged minority borrowers from applying for loans. Rich Andreano characterized the final rule's discouragement provisions as effectively "the Townstone rule," reflecting the current CFPB leadership's strong opposition to the prior Bureau's enforcement theory in that case. Nevertheless, both Brad Blower and John Culhane cautioned that courts and state regulators may continue to consider broader conduct, including branch placement, marketing strategies, and community engagement, when evaluating potential redlining or discouragement claims. SPCPs Face New Uncertainty The podcast also examined the CFPB's revisions to Special Purpose Credit Programs. Brad Blower explained that while SPCPs remain permissible, the new rule substantially complicates the use of race-conscious programs by for-profit lenders. Many institutions may now seek to redesign programs around race-neutral criteria such as first-generation homeownership, low- and moderate-income geographies, or majority-minority census tracts. Rich Andreano warned that many financial institutions, especially banks, may scale back SPCPs due to litigation and regulatory uncertainty, particularly given the broader political and legal environment surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The Practical Message: "Stay the Course" Despite the significance of the CFPB's rule changes, the clearest takeaway from the discussion was remarkably consistent: lenders should not dismantle their fair lending compliance programs. All three panelists emphasized that institutions should continue: ·                 Monitoring for disparate impact. ·                 Reviewing underwriting and pricing models. ·                 Evaluating marketing and branch strategies. ·                 Testing AI and algorithmic systems for bias. ·                 Maintaining robust fair lending compliance management systems. As Brad Blower observed, institutions that "take their foot off the gas" risk state enforcement actions, private litigation, reputational harm, and future regulatory scrutiny under a different federal administration. Rich Andreano summarized the prevailing industry guidance succinctly: "Stay the course." AI, Algorithmic Underwriting, and Future Litigation The panel also explored how the rule intersects with AI-driven lending. Although federal ECOA disparate impact enforcement may narrow, the panelists noted that state laws and private litigation could continue targeting algorithmic discrimination. Several states already are pursuing or considering laws specifically addressing AI bias and automated decision-making. The panel further predicted that legal challenges to the CFPB's final rule are highly likely. Potential claims could include: ·        Administrative Procedure Act challenges. ·        Arguments that the CFPB disregarded congressional intent underlying ECOA. ·        Challenges arising under the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which eliminated Chevron deference to agency rules. The panel suggested that litigation over the final rule could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, particularly on the unresolved question of whether ECOA itself authorizes disparate impact liability. Conclusion This episode provides an exceptionally practical and nuanced examination of one of the most important fair lending developments in recent memory. While the CFPB has dramatically narrowed federal ECOA enforcement theories, the broader fair lending landscape remains highly active due to state enforcement, private litigation risk, the Fair Housing Act, and ongoing scrutiny of AI-based underwriting systems. For lenders, the message from the panel was unmistakable: despite the CFPB's final rule, fair lending compliance remains as important as ever. You can listen to the full podcast on the Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast available through Ballard Spahr and major podcast platforms. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

Can the FDA ship abortion pills by mail? Discover why the 5th Circuit stayed the 2023 rule in this legal breakdown.

Geoffrey Pipoly and Andrew Tauber, partners at the Bryan Cave law firm, speak with Senior Editor Roger Parloff about their case, known at the Supreme Court level as Trump v. Miot. In it, they have been fighting to preserve Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 350,000 Haitian immigrants. The Court is hearing the case on April 29, along with Mullin v. Dahlia Doe, which concerns the government's attempt to terminate TPS status for about 7,000 Syrians. Pipoly and Tauber explain what the TPS program is and why they contend that the government's attempt to terminate it for Haitians violates the TPS statute, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the equal protection component of the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week Ken and Josh discuss several big defamation suits. The Atlantic has reported that Kash Patel is often drunk and derelict in his duties as FBI Director. But Patel says he's only guilty of working really hard, and he's suing the Atlantic. He's got a theory he says is a “slam dunk” — The Atlantic defamed him with actual malice because he denied the accusations against him but they printed him anyway. That theory didn't work for Trump against The Wall Street Journal and it didn't work for Patel against Frank Figliuzzi Jr., who accused him of being a nightclub rat on Morning Joe, but maybe it will work this time? (It won't).Also, his lawyer did something incompetent — shocker.And more formidably, former Capitol Police officer Shauni Kerkhoff is suing The Blaze and two of its “journalists” for accusing her of being the Capitol Hill pipe bomber, on the basis of a shoddy “gait analysis” alleging that her limp matched the way the bomber walked on surveillance video. Proving actual malice is hard — as a police officer, Kerkhoff is treated as a public figure in the coverage of her work — but the journalists' persistence with their accusations even after Brian Cole was arrested for the bombings strengthens her case. She also has very real defamation lawyers: Clare Locke, the firm that got the huge settlement out of Fox for Dominion Voting Systems.That defamation coverage is for all listeners this week. In the full premium episode, there's also:* Even more defamation coverage, with Laura Loomer losing at summary judgment in her lawsuit against Bill Maher, and Megan Thee Stallion failing to obtain a court order instructing Milagro Cooper to stop talking about her.* A preliminary injunction telling Apple and Facebook to restore anti-ICE resources they took off the internet at the government's behest.* The SPLC indictment.* A settlement for Carter Page.* A Sam Bankman-Fried update.* And a court ruling that says it's legal to be a huge dick in Alabama.Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.

Judge Brian Murphy blocked termination of TPS for 5,000 Ethiopians.DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin will continue Noem's tradition of announcing his intention to violate the law in advance, so as to give litigants a heads up.Michael Avenatti moves to a halfway house, remains a full-way non-lawyer.And Democrats overperformed in Tuesday's special elections. MAIN SHOW:Crazytimes continue at the DOJ as Trump's goons jockey to replace Pam Bondi. Acting AG Todd Blanche is professing his love for Trump at the podium. US Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro can't indict a ham sandwich, and juries are telling her to take a hike. Politico says Harmeet Dhillon, head of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, is in the running for the top job. She's currently trying to indict January 6 Committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson for perjury — which has exactly nothing to do with civil rights. And Dhillon's office keeps losing when she sues states demanding they turn over their voter rolls. Will Republicans invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office? (No.) But the fact that we're asking the question shows how far we've come.And in Tennessee, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is trying to get his human smuggling case dismissed on grounds of vindictive prosecution. Both the government and Garcia filed their briefs this week. The government claims that prosecution started with an article in the local paper, the Tennessee Star. Which is weird because the case was reopened in Baltimore the week before the article was published — and DHS is actually the source of the reporting!Blanche Steals Bondi's Brown Nosehttps://lawandchaospod.substack.com/p/blanche-steals-bondis-brown-noseJustice Dept.'s Civil Rights Division Is Investigating Star Witness Against Trumphttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/doj-cassidy-hutchinson-investigation-trump.htmlKilmar Abrego Garcia [TN criminal docket]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.104622/2022 TN Traffic Stop of Kilmar Abrego Garcia Was Day Three of Trip That Originated in Houston, Took Detour to St. Louis, Crossed Trafficking Hubs and Areas with MS-13https://tennesseestar.com/justice/2022-tn-traffic-stop-of-kilmar-abrego-garcia-was-day-three-of-trip-that-originated-in-houston-took-detour-to-st-louis-crossed-trafficking-hubs-and-areas-with-ms-13/tpappert/2025/04/21/African Communities Together v. Noem [TPS for Ethiopians]https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72178312/african-communities-together-v-noem/Mullin weighs using airport customs as leverage against sanctuary citieshttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/mullin-weighs-using-airport-customs-leverage-against-sanctuary-citiesJudge Jeanine's Big Auditionhttps://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/judge-jeanine-pirro-attorney-general-trump-jerome-powell.htmlInside the battle to be Trump's next attorney general​​https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/09/trump-attorney-general-blanche-dhillion-pirro-00864988Show Links:https://www.lawandchaospod.com/BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPodThreads: @LawAndChaosPodTwitter: @LawAndChaosPodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1866On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.At the center of the case is whether Mehta's termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong' - Law360A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency's workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency's actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.HHS Must Face States' Suit Over RFK's ‘Dramatic Overhaul' - Law360John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company's control over the repair market.The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers' Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: United States v. CruikshankOn March 27, 1876, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Cruikshank, a ruling that exposed the Court's deep reluctance to enforce the promises of Reconstruction. The case arose from the Colfax Massacre, where dozens of Black citizens were murdered by white supremacists attempting to overturn a contested election. Federal prosecutors secured convictions under the Enforcement Act, aiming to protect Black citizens' constitutional rights in the face of organized racial violence. The Supreme Court, however, dismantled those convictions with striking indifference to the underlying atrocities.The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment constrained only state action, not the conduct of private individuals, effectively shielding perpetrators of racial terror from federal accountability. It further ruled that rights such as assembly and bearing arms were not protected from state interference through the Constitution at that time. This narrow interpretation gutted federal enforcement power at precisely the moment it was most needed. The decision ignored the reality that state authorities in the South were often unwilling—or actively refusing—to protect Black citizens.Critically, the Court's reasoning elevated formal legal distinctions over the lived experience of widespread, systematic violence. By insisting on a rigid state-action requirement, the justices created a legal loophole large enough to permit organized terror campaigns to flourish unchecked. The ruling signaled to white supremacist groups that federal intervention would be weak or nonexistent. In doing so, it contributed directly to the collapse of Reconstruction-era protections and the rise of Jim Crow.The long-term consequences were profound, as Cruikshank became a cornerstone for limiting civil rights enforcement for decades. It delayed meaningful federal protection of individual rights until well into the twentieth century. Modern constitutional law has largely rejected its reasoning through incorporation doctrine, yet its impact remains a stark reminder of how judicial decisions can entrench injustice.A federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from labeling Anthropica national security supply chain risk, finding the move was likely unconstitutional retaliation. The dispute arose after Anthropic pushed back during contract negotiations with the government, arguing it should be allowed to limit how its AI system Claude is used, particularly for mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. Shortly after the company made its position public, the administration directed agencies to stop using its tools and moved to formally designate it as a security risk.Judge Rita F. Lin concluded that Anthropic is likely to succeed on its claims, emphasizing that the government appeared to be punishing the company for publicly criticizing its contracting stance. She found that the measures were not closely tied to genuine national security concerns and instead resembled retaliation for protected speech. The court stressed that while the government is free to choose its vendors, it cannot take additional punitive steps that violate constitutional protections.The ruling also found that the designation was likely unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and potentially violated due process because Anthropic had no opportunity to respond. The judge noted that branding a company as a national security threat for expressing disagreement raises serious constitutional concerns. The injunction blocks enforcement of the directive and prevents further action against the company while the case proceeds.The decision highlights broader tensions between government control over AI use and private companies' efforts to impose ethical limits. It also underscores concerns that government retaliation could chill public debate about AI safety. The administration must now report back to the court on its compliance with the order.Anthropic Blocks Pentagon's ‘Orwellian' Security Risk Label - Law360US judge blocks Pentagon's Anthropic blacklisting for now | ReutersA lawyer for Elon Musk has asked a federal judge to review a jury verdict that found him liable for defrauding Twitter investors during his acquisition of the platform, now known as X. The request focuses in part on the jury's use of the number “$4.20” on the verdict form, which Musk's attorney argued was an intentional joke that showed bias and suggested the jury was trying to “send a message” rather than decide the case impartially.Musk's legal team claims this, along with other alleged trial issues, undermines the integrity of the verdict and warrants further judicial review by Judge Charles Breyer. The verdict, issued on March 20, found Musk liable for certain public statements he made about the prevalence of bots on the platform during the acquisition process, which investors argued harmed the company's stock price. Potential damages in the case could reach as high as $2.5 billion.Attorneys for the investors strongly rejected Musk's arguments, calling them baseless and accusing him of attacking the jury instead of accepting responsibility. They emphasized that the verdict followed substantial evidence presented at trial.The dispute stems from claims that Musk publicly criticized Twitter to renegotiate or exit the deal, ultimately affecting shareholders who sold at lower prices. While the jury found him liable for some statements, it did not conclude that he engaged in a broader scheme to defraud.Musk urges judge to review Twitter verdict, accuses jury of ‘mocking' him | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived part of an ERISA class action against Wells Fargo and Ocwen Financial Corp., overturning a lower court decision that had dismissed the case before trial. The lawsuit was brought by trustees of a union pension fund, who claim the companies mishandled subprime mortgages tied to the fund's investments in mortgage-backed securities.The appellate court found that the trial judge made a key mistake in concluding that none of the underlying mortgages qualified as ERISA plan assets. While the court agreed that some mortgage-backed securities—specifically those structured as notes—are not plan assets, it ruled differently for securities issued as trust certificates. In those instances, the underlying mortgages can count as plan assets because the investment structure gives the pension fund an equity-like interest in the trust.This distinction matters because ERISA fiduciary duties apply only to plan assets. By recognizing that certain underlying mortgages fall within that definition, the court reopened the possibility that the companies could be held liable for breaching fiduciary duties. The pension fund alleges that the defendants mishandled loans during the 2007–2009 financial crisis, including pushing borrowers into foreclosure, which harmed the fund's investments.The court declined to decide whether Ocwen acted as an ERISA fiduciary, noting that the lower court had not addressed that issue. As a result, the case will return to the trial court for further proceedings on the revived claims.​​2nd Circ. Reopens Mortgage-Backed Securities ERISA Suit - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Most Americans believe federal agencies operate in straightforward, binary ways—either you have the authority or you don't. But behind the scenes, agency structure is a complex constitutional plumbing system, rife with legal traps that can unravel entire cases. When a federal agency's design is flawed, even a single constitutional error can invalidate decades of regulation, or even the agency's entire existence. This episode pulls back the curtain on the real mechanics of agency power, revealing how appointment, removal, and control are hotly contested legal battlegrounds that shape U.S. governance.Imagine you're a business owner threatened with multimillion-dollar fines or facing a licensure ban. You might assume the law is clear—an agency acts within its authority or it doesn't. But beneath that surface, courts scrutinize whether agency officials were constitutionally appointed, how they can be lawfully fired, and whether their organizational structure satisfies the strict limits of the Constitution. You'll discover how landmark Supreme Court cases like Lucia v. SEC and Free Enterprise Fund set the boundaries. These rulings expose how stacking protections or creating insulated agencies can violate the President's Article II power, and why some agency officials, like ALJs and inspectors, are actually officers of the United States, not just civil servants.We break down the core doctrine: the Buckley v. Vallejo test for significant authority, the Edmund v. United States supervision criteria for inferior officers, and the subtle distinctions between independent agencies and executive departments. You'll learn how the Appointments Clause is a constitutional gatekeeper—who can be appointed where, and how failure to comply renders decisions voidable. The episode reveals the crucial difference between “full control” and “independent insulation,” illustrating how modern courts draw the line, especially in cases like the CFPB's single-director structure or multi-layered insulation, which courts increasingly find unconstitutional.But it's not just about who's appointed properly—it's about whether agencies are structured so that the President can effectively control them. We explore how the “unitary executive” theory—the idea that all executive power resides in the President—drives recent Supreme Court decisions. You'll see how the Court zigs when agencies try to wall off decision-making with multi-layer protections, and zag when it demands that the President must wield the power to remove and supervise key officials. The case law is stark: stacking dual layers of for-cause protections or creating unreviewable adjudicators can threaten the President's constitutional duty, but so can making officials completely removable at will.Timing and process matter—especially in the vital realm of agency personnel and rulemaking. You'll learn how the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) operates as the president's secret weapon, scrutinizing regulations before they're issued, and how the Supreme Court has ruled on the limits of White House pressure that violate statutory procedures. We reveal the trap: White House demands aren't illegal per se, but they cannot override Congress's statutory authority or bypass the Administrative Procedure Act.This episode also dives into practical remedies—when courts find structural flaws, they prefer surgical fixes like severing unconstitutional parts rather than dismantling agencies altogether. Whether it's removing a four-cause removal protection or reclassifying an agency's structure, the courts aim to preserve regulatory stability while enforcing constitutional safeguards.Perfectly suited for anyone preparing for the bar exam or deepening their understanding of administrative law, this episode offers a step-by-step analytical roadmap. From classifying officers with Buckley and Edmund tests, to mapping chains of command, and understanding how courts fix unconstitutional structures.

Most students think of administrative law as a chaotic maze of agencies, rules, and Supreme Court cases. But beneath this apparent complexity lies a precise, logical system built on one powerful idea: controlled delegation. If you're preparing for the bar exam or want to master the hidden machinery of modern governance, this episode reveals the core framework to decode the entire administrative state.Imagine trying to understand how the U.S. government actually works. From the surface, it looks like Congress passes laws, the President enforces them, and courts interpret the rules. But peel back the layers, and you'll see an intricate web of agencies—EPA, SEC, FDA—acting as a third, unofficial branch of government. They blend legislative, executive, and judicial powers into a single, constitutional gray area. How does this happen without threatening the separation of powers? The answer lies in the evolution of delegated authority — a history stretching back to the founding era, refined through crises like the New Deal, and cemented in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.This episode breaks down the fundamentals: why agencies exist, how they interpret their delegated powers, and the legal boundaries that keep them in check. You'll discover the four main justifications for agency authority—expertise, uniformity, political accountability, and flexibility—and how these justify the inevitable risks of concentration and drift. Most importantly, you'll learn to classify agency actions—are they rulemaking or adjudication?—and how that classification dictates the procedures they must follow and the judicial review they face.We delve into the APA's detailed "building code" for agency action—notice-and-comment rulemaking, interpretive rules, policy statements, and the critical concept of Chevron deference. Plus, understand the landmark Chenery doctrine, which mandates agencies only justify their actions on the legally relevant grounds at the moment of decision, preventing them from sneaking policy shifts through backdoor adjudications. The six-step exam sequence is your blueprint for cracking complex fact patterns: identify authority, classify action, follow procedures, assess reviewability, determine the standard of review, and apply the facts rigorously. Knowing this will transform your approach from confusion to confidence.Why should you care? Because the biggest dangers lie in the perceived "fourth branch" myth—agencies wield unchecked power, overriding democratic control. But the truth is, agencies are subordinate entities, created by Congress, bound by law, and reviewable by courts. Recognizing controlled delegation's logic clarifies why this system, despite its flaws, is essential for modern governance. Yet, as AI and algorithms threaten to redefine decision-making, the fundamental questions of transparency, fairness, and legal authority become even more urgent. Will the 1946 APA's procedural protections survive in the age of black box models and machine learning?This episode is essential for anyone who wants to understand the deep structure of administrative law—not just for passing exams but to grasp the real forces shaping policy and accountability today. Arm yourself with the six-step framework, decode the alphabet soup of agencies, and navigate the future of tech-driven governance with confidence. Whether you're a law student, a future policy-maker, or a concerned citizen, this content equips you to see beyond the map and understand the plumbing beneath our political system.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week Ken and Josh discuss the Customs Service saying its computers won't let it refund IEEPA tariffs, more situations where courts are telling the Trump Administration it can't just ignore the need to get officials confirmed by the Senate, and another decision about ICE.That's for all subscribers. Paying subscribers will also hear our conversations about a number of additional lawsuits, including some especially weird ones:* Voting machine maker Smartmatic's parent company under indictment over bribes its former executives are alleged to have paid in the Philippines, alleges that it is being selectively and vindictively prosecuted.* Anthropic suing over the Pentagon's “supply chain risk” designation that threatens the company's business. The company makes First Amendment claims, but Ken thinks its less glamorous arguments — like that the designation violated everyone's favorite law, the Administrative Procedure Act — are more persuasive.* Nippon Life Insurance Company of America suing OpenAI, the makers of the ChatGPT AI engine. Nippon says it has been dogged by a vexatious litigant — she decided she didn't like the settlement she'd signed with the company, and when her human lawyer advised her that settlements are a no-backsies kind of situation, she fired him in favor of the AI engine that gave her the advice she wanted to hear: sue, sue, sue. Nippon says this is tortious interference with the valid settlement contract they'd entered with their aggrieved former policyholder. Because tortious interference requires knowledge of the contract you're interfering with, this lawsuit turns an interesting philosophical question into an interesting legal one — did OpenAI “know” that Nippon had a settlement, simply because their former policyholder told ChatGPT about it?* And Ed Martin appears to be the Justice Department official with some especially stupid bar trouble.Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week Ken and Josh discuss how The Trump Administration surprised observers by withdrawing its efforts to appeal its losses against all four law firms that challenged its legal orders against them. Then, it surprised observers again by changing its mind and asking to appeal the cases after all. We discuss why, whether you're allowed to do that, and what happens to the nine firms that didn't fight when the other firms win.We also look at a strange letter from the Department of Justice to state bar associations, telling them they'll have to pause investigations into DOJ lawyers, or else. It's unclear what authority DOJ thinks it has here, but they may be upset about a Florida Bar investigation into Lindsey Halligan. And we talk about news that DOJ tried to come up with a way to do a criminal prosecution related to President Biden's autopen, but didn't.That's for all listeners. Paying subscribers get a whole lot more this week:* You'd think, now that the IEEPA tariffs have been thrown out, customs would stop charging them to importers. You'd be wrong! The customs bureau keeps finalizing tariff payments including the now-barred IEEPA charges — in a filing issued after we taped, they argued their computers won't let them stop — but Judge Richard Eaton from the U.S. Court of International Trade has told them to cut the crap and refund taxpayers' money. Ken and I discuss how this episode might affect the next round of tariff litigation over the new legal authorities the administration is leaning on to replace IEEPA.* There's Administrative Procedure Act news! Judge Lewis Liman says the Trump Department of Transportation can't end New York's congestion pricing program, in an order that Ken calls “149 pages of pain.” One of the issues? As often happens with APA cases, the DOT said New York couldn't challenge its move because they hadn't actually imposed a “final” agency action. Unfortunately for DOT, President Trump last February tweeted a picture of himself wearing a crown and declaring “CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD,” which sounded pretty final to Liman.* We have an update on West Virginia judges resisting the Trump administration on ICE.* We look at why Tom Goldstein couldn't save his own ass in court, discuss the superseding indictment with a whopping 39 defendants in the St. Paul ICE Church protest case, and we discuss the prosecution in Alabama of a woman who dressed up as a giant penis for a No Kings protest. Local prosecutors argue, among other claims, that she sought to mislead officers as to her identity by saying her name was “Antifa,” and that her huge penis costume was so distracting that it constituted a criminal traffic hazard.Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showThis week, Ken and Josh discuss Julie Le, the DOJ lawyer who vented in court that it "sucks" to represent this government. They cover what you should do if you're a lawyer whose client is frustratingly non-compliant and taking actions that bother you; venting to the judge is the wrong course of action, but there are other options available.That's for all subscribers. Paying subscribers will also get our takes on other topics, including:* Judge Kate Menendez's ruling that denied Minnesota the preliminary injunction it sought against Operation Metro Surge. As we expected, the state's novel theory that federal government's actions are a 10th Amendment violation was a bridge too far, even for a judge who seemed to be looking for some avenue to rein in the operation.* Judge Ana Reyes's grant of a temporary restraining order on the grounds that the Trump Administration may have violated the Administrative Procedure Act by revoking Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, and the limits of using the APA to litigate substantive questions about immigration policy.* Bill and Hillary Clinton's emerging deal to testify before the House Oversight Committee and avoid the otherwise-likely prospect of contempt of congress prosecutions.* Former Minnesota Vikings offensive tackle Matt Kalil's lawsuit against his ex-wife Haley, over her disclosure on a podcast that his incredibly large penis made their sex life impractical and was a major driver of their divorce. He says this was an invasion of privacy; she argues in a motion to dismiss that the story is about her sex life too and she's free to tell whoever she wants. Is this the first case of a reverse Streisand Effect, where you litigate because you want to draw more attention to an allegation that's been made about you? What even are the damages at issue here? Would Matt Kalil like to visit Fire Island this summer? Ken and I discuss.Upgrade your subscription to receive all of our episodes at serioustrouble.show.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Trump administration illegally stripped Temporary Protected Status from Venezuelans and Haitians, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem overstepped her legal authority. Judges said federal law does not allow DHS to undo or erase TPS protections once they have been lawfully granted. The court set aside the administration's actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants protected and able to work, remain with their families and avoid deportation. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Trump administration illegally stripped Temporary Protected Status from Venezuelans and Haitians, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem overstepped her legal authority. Judges said federal law does not allow DHS to undo or erase TPS protections once they have been lawfully granted. The court set aside the administration's actions under the Administrative Procedure Act, leaving hundreds of thousands of immigrants protected and able to work, remain with their families and avoid deportation. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A coalition of 22 Democratic state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court against CFPB Acting Director Russell Vought and the Federal Reserve Board, alleging that the refusal to request statutorily required funding and to maintain key consumer complaint and mortgage data systems unlawfully interrupts state access to critical tools used in investigations and enforcement. The complaint asserts multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and separation-of-powers principles, and highlights how states rely on CFPB resources like the Consumer Response System and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data to pursue discrimination and consumer protection cases. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Beth Bolen Chun, Abigail Stempson, Andrea deLorimier.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger Picture[CB] around the world are dumping the Fed note, they just aren’t taking on anymore, everything is about to change. Trump’s GDP outshines Biden’s. China is now going to restrict silver, silver is used in electronics, batteries,solar panels etc. Silver prices are going to move. [CB] fraud is now exposed. The Tariff system is the future. The [DS] criminal syndicate is being exposed, it’s not just in DC it is world wide. As people learn how corrupt the system is and most of the taxes and borrowing goes to support the criminal system the people will be with Trump to remove the Fed. Trump is in the process of bringing down the entire corrupt temple on the [DS]. Trump moves closer to peace with Ukraine, 2026 is going to change everything. Economy Status of the US Dollar as Global Reserve Currency: USD Share Drops to Lowest since 1994  Central Banks diversify their holdings into dozens of smaller “non-traditional reserve currencies.”  The share of USD-denominated assets held by other central banks dropped to 56.9% of total foreign exchange reserves in Q3, the lowest since 1994, from 57.1% in Q2 and 58.5% in Q1, according to the IMF's new data on Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves. USD-denominated foreign exchange reserves include US Treasury securities, US mortgage-backed securities (MBS), US agency securities, US corporate bonds, and other USD-denominated assets held by central banks other than the Fed. Excluded are any central bank's assets denominated in its own currency, such as the Fed's Treasury securities or the ECB's euro-denominated securities. It's not that foreign central banks dumped US-dollar-denominated assets, such as Treasury securities. They did not. They added a little to their holdings. But they added more assets denominated in other currencies, particularly a gaggle of smaller currencies whose combined share has surged, while central banks' holdings of USD-denominated assets haven't changed much for a decade, and so the percentage share of those USD assets continued to decline.   Central banks' holdings of foreign exchange reserves in all currencies, and expressed in USD, rose to $13.0 trillion in Q3. Top holdings, expressed in USD: USD assets: $7.41 trillion Euro assets (EUR): $2.65 trillion Yen assets (YEN): $0.76 trillion British pound assets (GBP): $0.58 trillion Canadian dollar assets (CAD): $0.35 trillion Australian dollar assets (AUD): $0.27 trillion Chinese renminbi (RMB) assets: $0.25 trillion Source: wolfstreet.com (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");  https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/2004750391435755846?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2004928015172821228?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2004946780216328590?s=20  Political/Rights https://twitter.com/Patri0tContr0l/status/2004590513182367845?s=20  https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2005107085865103608?s=20 ICE: 70% Arrested Had Criminal Ties Roughly 70% of illegal migrants arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the second Trump administration reportedly had been convicted of or faced charges for criminal offenses. New data provided to the Washington Examiner shows the Trump administration arrested about 595,000 illegal immigrants between Jan. 20 and Dec. 11, according to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE said 70%, roughly 416,000, had “criminal convictions or pending criminal charges” in the United States, underscoring President Donald Trump’s promise to prioritize the “worst of the worst” in immigration enforcement. ICE officials stressed that even those without U.S. criminal records can still pose major public safety threats, the agency said, noting many are wanted abroad for violent crimes or have ties to gangs, terrorism, or other serious offenses. “This statistic doesn’t account for those wanted for violent crimes in their home country or another country, INTERPOL notices, human rights abusers, gang members, terrorists, etc. The list goes on,” an ICE spokesperson told the Examiner. Source: newsmax.com   New Files Show Epstein Was ‘Too Useful' for Banks to Drop — Trump Was ‘Too Politically Dangerous' to Keep  The newest Epstein disclosures include deposition testimony that illustrates, in unusually concrete detail, how major financial institutions assessed risk, value, and accountability. The transcript does not add new allegations about Epstein. Instead, it explains why he remained bankable long after his 2008 conviction and why his relationship with major banks survived despite generating almost no traditional revenue. That institutional logic is the same logic that later drove JPMorgan to end its ties with Trump Media, and the contrast between the two cases shows how selectively these standards are applied. In the deposition, Paul Morris—a private banker who handled Epstein's accounts at JPMorgan Chase and later Deutsche Bank—described Epstein's financial profile with unusual precision. Epstein's trading was minimal. His accounts produced limited fees. He was not a high-activity client and did not utilize the investment tools that banks rely on to generate consistent revenue. By every conventional benchmark, he was a low-value account. And yet, the relationship continued. The deposition shows why. Epstein was not retained for his financial performance but for his institutional usefulness. Morris acknowledged that Epstein facilitated introductions to ultra-wealthy individuals that the bank viewed as essential prospects. One example was Leon Black, whom Morris identified as a “priority prospect” because of Black's significant net worth and influence in the investment sector. Epstein introduced the bank to real-estate investor Andrew Farkas and discussed a potential connection involving biotech investor Boris Nikolic, who had ties to Bill Gates. These introductions were specific, documented, and initiated by Epstein, not the bank. This is the key element that many public accounts overlook. Epstein was not being managed as a traditional client. He functioned as a relationship broker inside a system where introductions to power carry more internal value than account-level returns. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  DOGE Geopolitical The EU Leaders Shouting About Visa Bans Are the Same EU Leaders Who Sent Political Operatives Into the U.S. to Support Kamala Harris  EU leaders from across the spectrum of their collective assembly, are furious with the administration of President Donald Trump for restricting their entry into the United States by blocking their visa permissions.  However, these same EU leaders are the people who sent operatives into the United States in order to interfere in our 2024 election. The Vice President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, sums up the European position: “The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty. Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.” The “attempt to challenge our sovereignty” statement is a particular type of hubris when we consider THIS: GREAT BRITAIN (October 2024) – The British Labour Party is sending approximately 100 current and former staff members to the United States to work for Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign in key swing states. [SOURCE – LINKEDIN] Not only did the U.K attempt to challenge our sovereignty, but they also actively worked to influence the outcome of our national election in 2024. It is worth remembering the British intelligence operation, (Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), commonly known as MI6), was at the center of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy in 2016. The first EU political group to be targeted with the visa bans includes French former EU commissioner Thierry Breton, who was one of the architects of the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA). Also: Imran Ahmed, the British CEO of the U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate, Anna-Lena von Hodenberg and Josephine Ballon of the German non-profit HateAid, and Clare Melford, co-founder of the Global Disinformation Index. https://twitter.com/GeneHamilton/status/2004656229684224393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004656229684224393%7Ctwgr%5E91706d63d41394916634b106fbd2268d7711e121%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F12%2F27%2Fthe-eu-leaders-shouting-about-visa-bans-are-the-same-eu-leaders-who-sent-political-operatives-into-the-u-s-to-support-kamala-harris%2F https://twitter.com/GeneHamilton/status/2004656234910433405?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004656234910433405%7Ctwgr%5E91706d63d41394916634b106fbd2268d7711e121%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2Fblog%2F2025%2F12%2F27%2Fthe-eu-leaders-shouting-about-visa-bans-are-the-same-eu-leaders-who-sent-political-operatives-into-the-u-s-to-support-kamala-harris%2F Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/michaelgwaltz/status/2005058695647166898?s=20 https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2005035840934723894?s=20 War/Peace   EIGHT, perhaps the United States has become the REAL United Nations, which has been of very little assistance or help in any of them, including the disaster currently going on between Russia and Ukraine. The United Nations must start getting active and involved in WORLD PEACE!   the United States is capable of doing. Under my leadership, our Country will not allow Radical Islamic Terrorism to prosper. May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.   DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Trump Tasks Military With an ‘Oil Quarantine' Against Venezuela, as Economic Pressure Is Chosen for Now Over Military Action Venezuela's oil industry under maximum pressure.   And now that the extended holidays are over, the socialist regime will have to deal with the veritable siege imposed by the US and its unprecedented armada. Venezuela is running out of storage space for its oil production since some ships are being seized and many others turned around and left.  Now, it arises that Donald J. Trump has directed US forces to enforce ‘an oil quarantine' against Venezuela for at least the next two months. These moves lead many to think that the Trump team will focus on economic rather than military means to pressure Caracas into ousting Maduro. Reuters reported:   Read  more: Source: thegatewaypundit.com Trump Blockade Leaves $1 Billion Of Venezuelan Crude Stranded On Tankers  With a two-month “quarantine” placed on Venezuelan oil by the Trump administration in a foreign policy move called “gunboat diplomacy,” new data estimate that roughly $900 million worth of crude is currently loaded on tankers, unable to depart Venezuela due to the U.S. blockade. “Based on our visual analysis from both shore and space, we estimate that there are around 17.5 million barrels of crude oil floating onboard tankers in Venezuela which are unable to depart due to the ongoing US blockade,” independent research Tanker Trackers wrote on X. “That’s around $900M of oil.” https://twitter.com/TankerTrackers/status/2004713684871078162?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2004713684871078162%7Ctwgr%5E016cd45f97095edcd74bb159f40c4e93caf9794d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fcommodities%2Ftrump-blockade-leaves-1-billion-venezuelan-crude-stranded-tankers Source: zerohedge.com Trump to POLITICO: Zelenskyy ‘doesn't have anything until I approve it' Trump's comments come ahead of his Sunday meeting with Zelenskyy, who will bring with him a new 20-point plan to end the war President Donald Trump on Friday cast himself as the ultimate arbiter of any peace deal between Ukraine and Russia, in an exclusive conversation with POLITICO. “He doesn't have anything until I approve it,” Trump said. “So we'll see what he's got.” Source: politico.com https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2005352028365848993?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2005352028365848993%7Ctwgr%5E1588e24fb392689513bf7b2f064c646c1bf5f470%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2025%2F12%2Ftrump-says-russia-ukraine-peace-talks-entering-final%2F  Medical/False Flags 19 Blue States Sue Trump Admin to Preserve Right to Perform Child Sex Changes Last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to any provider that offers so-called gender-affirming treatment to minors. “Under my leadership, and answering President Trump's call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said at the time. The Oregon-led lawsuit claims that the decision “exceeds the Secretary's authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes.” A total of nineteen blue states are suing the Trump administration in a bid to protect the right to perform child sex changes. His office said in a press release: Source: thegatewaypundit.com [DS] Agenda  https://twitter.com/nickshirleyy/status/2004642794862961123?s=20   work way too hard and pay too much in taxes for this to be happening, the fraud must be stopped. https://twitter.com/MAGAVoice/status/2005011311756017964?s=20 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2005158623442600391?s=20 https://twitter.com/DataRepublican/status/2005292438114738555?s=20  diabolical. And it’s going to work until we understand that primaries will be more important than generals from here out on. https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/2005016429687701811?s=20 https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2005351086115405986?s=20 https://twitter.com/CynicalPublius/status/2005030256382464493?s=20  and your tribe. I spent a lot of my life in the Middle East and Central Asia, working closely with foreign contractors and foreign governments to provide support to American military operations. As a US Army officer with a big checkbook courtesy of Uncle Sam, I can't really count the sheer number of times I was offered bribes to award a contract, or falsify records to do things like create larger (fake) headcounts at places like dining facilities, or to just simply be on the take for future illegal requests. Of course I had enough sense to never comply with such requests. Moreover, they were never explicitly structured as “bribes”; instead it was usually along the lines of “Here I have these Rolexes as gifts for you and your wife to show our friendship.” (Unfortunately, too many US officers and NCOs succumbed to this siren song and ended up breaking rocks in Leavenworth.) The weird thing about this to me was that whenever I turned down such an offering, it was treated as a grave insult. I was the one in the wrong, and not the fraudster trying to bribe me. They considered it rude that I was in their country and refused to accept how things got done. After all, why did I not want to help my tribe by helping their tribe? Let me repeat: in these cultures, FRAUD IS NOT EVEN A CONCEPT. There is only what helps your tribe. Such thought processes are so alien to Americans and much of the West. We are raised on the presumption that our institutions are valid, that the rule of law always prevails, and that integrity is universal. We need these presumptions to have working governments and economies, and without those presumptions—without the mental barrier that causes us not to accept outright fraud—our nation would quickly descend into the economic and social hellscape of countries like…. ummm… you know…. SOMALIA! So when we import people en masse from cultures that accept bribery and fraud as routine, acceptable ways to advance one's tribe, we should not be surprised that things like the $8 BILLION fraud schemes of the Somali population in Minnesota happen so easily. Introducing a fraud-based culture based on tribalism into America is like introducing some sort of lethal virus into a population that has no natural immunity. The virus will spread and grow, unchecked, because it is so alien to the host. Similarly, a culture of fraud is anathema to American thinking, and it must be cut out before it consumes the host. So when you see and hear patriotic Americans decrying what is happening in Minnesota or elsewhere, and when they seek deportation of the offenders, it is not “racism,” it is not “bigotry,” it is not “xenophobia”; instead, it is preserving the American tradition of responsible institutions and national integrity. https://twitter.com/MarioNawfal/status/2005262465190223928?s=20 https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2005305530651189719?s=20   exploiting federal programs. Fraud that steals from taxpayers and robs vulnerable children will remain a top FBI priority in Minnesota and nationwide. To date, the FBI dismantled a $250 million fraud scheme that stole federal food aid meant for vulnerable children during COVID. The investigation exposed sham vendors, shell companies, and large-scale money laundering tied to the Feeding Our Future network. The case led to 78 indictments and 57 convictions. Defendants included Abdiwahab Ahmed Mohamud, Ahmed Ali, Hussein Farah, Abdullahe Nur Jesow, Asha Farhan Hassan, Ousman Camara, and Abdirashid Bixi Dool, each charged for roles ranging from wire fraud to money laundering and conspiracy. These criminals didn't just engaged in historic fraud, but tried to subvert justice as well. Abdimajid Mohamed Nur and others were charged for attempting to bribe a juror with $120,000 in cash. Those responsible pleaded guilty and were sentenced, including a 10-year prison term and nearly $48 million in restitution in related cases. The FBI believes this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. We will continue to follow the money and protect children, and this investigation very much remains ongoing. Furthermore, many are also being referred to immigrations officials for possible further denaturalization and deportation proceedings where eligible. https://twitter.com/ScottPresler/status/2004932316926193933?s=20 https://twitter.com/HarmeetKDhillon/status/2004976287270731981?s=20 https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/status/2005080344610177489?s=20  https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2005092720927232198?s=20  “skeptical jurors” in federal cases involving President Trump. Co-founder Alex Dodds said jurors have “enormous power” to judge the administration itself. Critics report the sessions encourage rigging trials against the administration, conduct plainly barred under 8 USC §1503. President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2004653262491058216?s=20 accomplished what no one else could. When we arrived, taxpayers were about to be on the hook for nearly $5 billion for a new headquarters that wouldn't open until 2035. We scrapped that plan. Instead, we selected the already-existing Reagan Building, saving billions and allowing the transition to begin immediately with required safety and infrastructure upgrades already underway. Once complete, most of the HQ FBI workforce will move in, and the rest are continuing in our ongoing push to put more manpower in the field, where they will remain. This decision puts resources where they belong: defending the homeland, crushing violent crime, and protecting national security. It delivers better tools for today's FBI workforce at a fraction of the cost. The Hoover Building will be shut down permanently.  They Got Her: FBI Caught Hillary Clinton Talking Donations with Foreign Felon on Tape As Hillary Clinton closed in on the presidential nomination in the spring of 2016, FBI field officers advised colleagues at headquarters to press her on the foreign donations flowing to the Clinton Foundation while she steered American foreign policy and whether she had used the charity as a campaign piggy bank. But the FBI HQ in Washington — a city in which the former secretary of state and first lady wields enormous influence — let the trail go cold. FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge Diego Rodriguez advised agents in Washington to ask Clinton several questions about the foundation, which are reproduced in full in documents released to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI and published on Dec. 15. The questions reveal the concerns about foreign bribery that the Clinton Foundation case — codenamed “Cracked Foundation” — had uncovered. Among the evidence available to investigators, according to their questions: A recorded conversation between Clinton and Indian hotel magnate Sant Singh Chatwal in which Clinton discussed donations to the foundation and her remaining 2008 campaign debt. The new documents confirm that the FBI had at one time been “intercepting individuals associated with the Clinton Foundation.” Source: westernjournal.com  John Brennan's Lawfare Lawyers are Revealing More Than They Intend   former CIA Director John Brennan are sending proactive letters to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida {SEE HERE}.  However, some of the information included in the letters intended to be exculpatory is actually damning against their defense position. You have to go deep in the weeds to see it but if you understand the details of the events, the information being revealed by Brennan's lawyers is the opposite of helpful to his case.  As an example, there is a citation included in a footnote of the December 22, 2025, [fn #20 page 6] letter that links to a March 31, 2022, letter sent to John Durham. Here's page 6 of the 2025 letter. Compare the underlined section to the 2022 letter sent to John Durham. In 2025 Brennan is telling the Florida court the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) conclusion was confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a “very serious review.”  However, in 2022 Brennan told John Durham that Robert Mueller never interviewed him or offered an assessment of the ICA; Mueller just regurgitated it. So, which is it? These contradictions are throughout both of the letters when you compare them side-by-side.  In 2022 former CIA Director John Brennan was trying to escape the Durham review.  In 2025 Brennan is trying to escape a grand jury review. [We are aware that the U.S Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason Reding Quiñones, has access to the CTH public library of research into all of these historic events.] There are other citations in the 2022 letter that are certainly worth reviewing because the legally binding statements made by John Brennan at the time have been shown to be false in 2025. Another of the claims in the 2022 letter to John Durham highlights why it was critical for the CIA to assist in the capture and arrest of Julian Assange in 2019. Source: thegatewaypundit.com  Trump: Upcoming Midterms Will Be ‘About Pricing’ The 2026 midterm elections will be “about pricing,” according to President Donald Trump, who said that his administration is restoring the nation’s economy after the condition in which former President Joe Biden left it. “I think it’s going to be about the success of our country,” Trump said in an interview with Politico, the outlet reported Saturday. “They gave us high pricing, and we’re bringing it down. Energy’s way down. Gasoline is way down.” Over the past two weeks, a series of positive economic reports has shown that inflation is decreasing, with the White House highlighting the latest data while addressing cost-of-living concerns nationwide. According to a Politico poll conducted last month, Americans say they are finding that the costs of groceries, utilities, healthcare, housing, and transportation are too expensive. Trump has been fighting to reframe that, however, blaming Democrats under Biden for driving prices up. He said in the interview, conducted Friday, that “electricity is down. It’s way down.” “When the gasoline goes down, and when the oil and gas go down, the electricity comes down naturally,” he said. “But it’s all coming down. It’s all coming down. It’s coming beautifully.” Source: newsmax.com https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2004696380531503505?s=20   the NG will have quick response troops on standby in every state, the FBI building is being moved to a new location, the war between Russia and Ukraine is coming to an end, and all of Trump's pieces will be in place. There seems to be a shift in attitude. I think we are passing into a different phase of the operation. The shadow war will eventually have to come to the surface. (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Wednesday, December 17th, 2025Today, Pete Hegseth refuses to release the full video of the double tap boat strike in the Caribbean; Mike Johnson refuses to hold a vote on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies; the Trump administration says the White House East Wing destruction is a matter of national security; enforcement of Texas' bathroom bill draws challenges; Trump sues the BBC for $10B over edited January 6th insurrection speech; Kushner abandons his plan to build a hotel in Serbia amid backlash; Denver rejects the Key Lime Air airport lease because of ICE flights; election thief Tina Peters' lawyer demands Colorado honor Trump's pardon; Pulitzer Board members hit Trump with discovery in his lawsuit; Vanity Fair publishes a two-part expose on Trump Chief of Staff Susie Wiles; and Allison and Dana deliver and your Good News.Thank You, Naked WinesTo get 6 bottles of wine for $39.99, head to http://nakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password. Guest: Isabela Dias - Reporter at Mother Jones https://www.motherjones.comhttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/11/dreamers-daca-trump-deportation-detention-betrayal-big-feature/https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/12/noem-trump-dhs-ice-year-of-hell-immigrants-punitive-theatre-cecot/Subscribe to the MSW YouTube Channel - MSW Media - YouTubeStoriesHegseth says he won't publicly release video of boat strike that killed survivors in the Caribbean | PBS NewsHouse Republican leaders ditch vote on ACA funding, all but ensuring premiums will rise | NBC NewsTrump sues BBC for billions | POLITICOTina Peters' lawyers citing Trump pardon launch new efforts to free her | Colorado NewslineAfter Backlash, Jared Kushner Drops Plan to Build a Trump Hotel in Serbia | WSJPulitzer Prize Board members dump broad discovery demands on Trump for tax returns, psych records, and 'any' prescription meds history | Law and CrimeTrump administration says White House ballroom construction is a matter of national security | AP NewsEnforcement of Texas' bathroom bill draws challenges | Texas TribuneICE flights cited in Denver's denial of Key Lime airport lease | Colorado NewslineTakeaways From Susie Wiles's Vanity Fair Interviews Describing Trump World | NYTGood Trouble - https://near.tl/sm/ik-ZushRaJOIN IT GETS BETTER FOR QUEER-A-THON live on Twitch - their year-end fundraising stream and safe celebration space for LGBTQ+ youth! On Wednesday, December 17th starting 2:15pm ET/11:15am PT - ItGetsBetter - TwitchAllison is donating $20K to It Gets Better and inviting you to help match her donations. Your support makes this work possible, Daily Beans fam.http://itgetsbetter.org/dailybeansdonate From The Good NewsThe Portland Immigrant Rights Coalition (PIRC) https://pircoregon.org/Voices United On the Road Forward - https://voicesunitedrr.orgAdopt Camila (HANNA CITY, IL  61536) - https://www.samsrescue.org/contact-us.html→Go To https://DailyBeansPod.com Click on ‘Good News and Good Trouble' to Share Yours Our Donation Linkshttps://www.nationalsecuritylaw.org/donate, https://secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwc, http://WhistleblowerAid.org/beansJoin Dana and The Daily Beans and support on Giving Tuesdayhttp://onecau.se/_ekes71Federal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Dr. Allison Gill - https://www.muellershewrote.com, https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.com, https://instagram.com/muellershewrote, https://www.youtube.com/@MSWMediaPodsDana Goldberg - https://bsky.app/profile/dgcomedy.bsky.social, https://www.instagram.com/dgcomedy, https://www.facebook.com/dgcomedy, https://danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - https://mswmedia.com/shows, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, https://www.muellershewrote.comReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:https://apple.co/3XNx7ckWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?https://patreon.com/thedailybeanshttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/https://apple.co/3UKzKt0 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On April 1, 2025, the Texas Association of Money Services Businesses filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging a Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) order that lowered the cash-transaction reporting threshold from $10,000 to $200 for money-services businesses in certain Texas border ZIP codes, arguing the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional protections.Should the government be allowed to surveil your financial transactions? Where is the line drawn between protecting privacy and conducting legal investigations? What happens when regulators set standards that can't be met? Join us for a webinar examining Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi. On this FedSoc forum, Robert Johnson and Nicholas Anthony will discuss the status of the case, its implications for the future, and the wider landscape of financial surveillance.Featuring:Nicholas Anthony, Policy Analyst, Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives, Cato Institute(Moderator) Robert Johnson, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

This Day in Legal History: SkidmoreOn December 4, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., a case interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs were firefighters employed by a private company who sought overtime pay for time spent waiting on the employer's premises, even when not actively fighting fires. The Court ruled that such “waiting time” could qualify as compensable work depending on the circumstances — a fact-intensive inquiry rather than a rigid rule. More significantly, the Court declined to treat the Department of Labor's interpretation of the FLSA as binding. Instead, Justice Jackson, writing for the Court, articulated what became known as “Skidmore deference,” explaining that agency interpretations are entitled to respect based on their “power to persuade,” not their authority.This approach emphasized judicial independence while still valuing agency expertise, setting a flexible standard for reviewing administrative interpretations. For decades, Skidmore shaped the way courts evaluated regulatory guidance, particularly where statutes were silent or ambiguous. That changed in 1984, when the Court decided Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, introducing a more deferential, two-step test that often required courts to uphold reasonable agency interpretations. Chevron effectively sidelined Skidmore, making agency interpretations more binding than persuasive.That more restrained approach to agency interpretation—Skidmore's “power to persuade”—quietly persisted in the background during the decades-long dominance of Chevron deference. But on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court formally overruled Chevron, declaring that courts must exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes, even when those statutes are ambiguous. The Court emphasized that the Administrative Procedure Act assigns to the judiciary—not agencies—the duty to “decide all relevant questions of law” and interpret statutory provisions without default deference to agency views. In doing so, the Court explicitly endorsed the Skidmore model of respect rather than deference, reaffirming that agency interpretations may still inform judicial decisions, but only to the extent they are persuasive. So, 80 years after Skidmore was decided, its modest, judge-centered vision of statutory interpretation has once again become the law of the land.A group of former federal employees filed a proposed class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Trump administration unlawfully removed them from their jobs due to their work in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plaintiffs claim the dismissals were politically motivated and violated their First Amendment rights as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.According to the complaint, the reductions in force went beyond typical administrative turnover, instead constituting a deliberate effort to punish perceived political opponents. The plaintiffs argue they were targeted because they held, or were believed to have held, roles connected to DEI initiatives, which President Trump vocally opposed. The lawsuit points to executive orders that allegedly discriminated against women, people of color, and nonbinary individuals.Defendants named include the White House, Justice Department, CIA, Defense Department, Federal Reserve, Labor Department, and Treasury. The plaintiffs are seeking reinstatement, back pay, restoration of seniority, and attorneys' fees.Trump, Agencies Hit With Ex-Federal Workers' Political Bias SuitUnder President Trump's second administration, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is on track for its lowest number of earnings fraud and auditor liability enforcement actions since the Reagan era. So far in 2025, only 20 such cases have been filed—far below the historical average of 79 per year since Trump's first term began in 2017. The decline is attributed to leadership changes, a 43-day government shutdown, shifting agency priorities, and a shrinking SEC staff due to retirements and buyouts.SEC Chair Paul Atkins has emphasized targeting only the most harmful and deliberate frauds, deprioritizing minor or technical violations. Enforcement has also slowed due to procedural constraints, including legal challenges limiting the use of in-house judges and forcing more cases into federal court. Despite the drop in formal actions, former officials and commission watchers caution that investigations continue behind the scenes and could yield future penalties.The agency did finalize some notable settlements early in the year, including $19 million from American Electric Power and $8 million from GrubMarket. However, enforcement activity has since dropped steeply, marking the largest first-year decline following a presidential inauguration since the 1980s.SEC's Earnings Fraud, Auditor Liability Cases Plunge Under TrumpU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it will stop processing green cards and related immigration benefits for individuals from 19 countries named in a June Trump administration travel ban. This expanded restriction follows a separate decision by the State Department to suspend visa processing for Afghan nationals after a deadly shooting involving two National Guard members in Washington, D.C.The new USCIS policy affects several types of applications, including those for permanent residency, green card replacements, travel documents, and requests by permanent residents to maintain status while abroad. The halt applies regardless of when the applicant entered the U.S. The agency cited national security concerns as the reason for the changes and indicated all affected individuals may face renewed interviews or screenings.The travel ban currently includes countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, and others, with reports suggesting the administration plans to expand the list to about 30 nations. The memo emphasized that individuals from these “high-risk countries of concern” who arrived in the U.S. after January 20, 2021, are subject to re-evaluation.Trump Travel Ban Limits Extend to Green Cards, Other Benefits This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Monday, November 3rd, 2025Today, three more people were murdered by the United States in a Caribbean boat strike; Venezuela seeks help from Russia as the US inches closer to war; two judges order Trump to pay SNAP benefits because it's the law; a Senate report says detainees face neglect in immigration prisons; Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers declares a state of emergency over the Republican shutdown; Obama called Mamdani to praise his campaign and offer support; the Netherlands elected its first gay and youngest prime minister; Nancy Mace has a meltdown at an airport; Trump pushes to end medical care for transgender youth nationally; a judge tosses Darrell Issa and Ronny Jackson's lawsuit over prop 50; and Allison and Dana delivers your Good News.Thank You, DeleteMeGet 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to joindeleteme.com/DAILYBEANS and use promo code DAILYBEANS at checkout. Thank You, WildGrainGet $30 off your first box + free Croissants in every box. Go to Wildgrain.com/DAILYBEANS to start your subscription.Guest: Martin SheenThe Martin Sheen Podcast - MSW MediaThe Martin Sheen Podcast (@themartinpod.bsky.social) The Martin Sheen Podcast (@themartinpod) / Posts / TwitterMartin Sheen - IMDbDana Goldberg Outrageous Tour - November 14th ChicagoStoriesThree killed in US military strike on alleged drug vessel in the Caribbean | US news | The GuardianAs U.S. ramps up pressure, Venezuela pleads with Moscow and Beijing for help | The Washington PostSenate report details dozens of cases of medical neglect in federal immigration detention centers | AP NewsWisconsin Gov. Tony Evers declares state of emergency over shutdown | Milwaukee Journal SentinelTexas federal judge dismisses Rep. Issa's Prop. 50 lawsuit | Times of San DiegoPolice report: Nancy Mace cursed and berated officers in airport altercation | NBC NewsTrump says he has asked court to 'clarify' SNAP ruling with funding set to lapse | ABC NewsTrump pushes an end to medical care for transgender youth nationally | NPRObama Calls Mamdani to Praise His Campaign and Offers to Be Sounding Board | The New York TimesDutch centrist Jetten claims victory in vote where far right lost ground | Elections News | Al JazeeraGood TroubleQuestions shall be directed to the Contracting Officer, Shayla Wray, via e-mail at shayla.b.wray@ice.dhs.gov, and the Contract Specialist, Jason Boudreaux, via e-mail at jason.boudreaux@ice.dhs.gov. Questions must be received no later than November 3rd, 2025, by 2:00 pm Eastern Time (ET).→Warigia Bowman for APS District 6 NM→NOVEMBER 4TH Taylor Rehmet For Texas→ Sign up to phone bank in Virginia.**Group Directory - The Visibility Brigade: Resistance is Possible**California! YOU have your prop 50 ballots. Fill them out and return them ASAP.**Yes On Prop 50 | CA Special Election Phone Banks - mobilize.us, Sign up to call voters in California**Vote Yes 836 - Oklahoma**How to Organize a Bearing Witness Standout**Indiana teacher snitch portal - Eyes on Education**Find Your Representative | house.gov, Contacting U.S. SenatorsFrom The Good NewsCentral Ohio sees ‘No Kings' protests against Trump administration - Columbus DispatchTrauma Survivors NetworkFind a Grocery BuddyThe Martin Sheen Podcast - MSW MediaImperial Mach Sync Web AppDana Goldberg Outrageous Tour - November 14th Chicago Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - Donate, MSW Media, Blue Wave CA Victory Fund | ActBlue, WhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - The 2025 Out100, BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comMore from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week has been nothing short of historic, and unpredictable, if you've been following the court trials involving Donald Trump. With the date ticking into November 2025, each day seems to add a new layer. I want to get you right to the heart of the action.Earlier this week, the Supreme Court docketed one of the most closely watched cases of this term: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., among others. The case comes directly from the Federal Circuit, with the Supreme Court ordering oral arguments to begin on November 5, just three days from now. This trial isn't just high stakes for Trump; it's a moment where the nation's top legal minds are converging to address questions that could redefine executive power and the limits of presidential authority. The process has been expedited, with amicus briefs from political advocacy groups and multiple parties chiming in. The Court has consolidated related cases and allotted a tight one-hour argument slot, so every moment in that courtroom will count.But the Supreme Court isn't the only bench where Trump's legal fate has been debated. Over in Rhode Island, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. made headlines when he ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to suspend funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Judge McConnell, in a tense emergency hearing, stated that stopping SNAP payments would cause not just legal harm, but immediate suffering for families, especially with the holiday season closing in. He ordered the administration to immediately deliver contingency funds for November's payments, and demanded Trump's team clarify exactly how this would be done. Legal analysts pointed out that Judge McConnell cited the Administrative Procedure Act, calling the administration's suspension arbitrary and capricious. The ripple effect reached local governments, nonprofits, and small businesses, all of whom joined a coalition lawsuit, describing how a funding lapse would devastate their communities.Meanwhile, the Brennan Center for Justice reminds us that Trump is facing three separate prosecutions, on top of the Supreme Court action and the SNAP controversy. Not to mention that just last year, in May 2024, he was convicted of felonies in New York. Each of these threads—Supreme Court showdowns, federal benefit disputes, and ongoing criminal trials—puts the former president at the center of America's legal and political storms.Before I go, I want to thank you for tuning in. Don't miss next week, as we break down the oral arguments at the Supreme Court and track every twist in Trump's legal journey. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Admitted as 36th StateOn October 31, 1864, Nevada was officially admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a move driven as much by wartime politics as by the territory's readiness for statehood. With President Abraham Lincoln seeking re-election and needing support for the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the Republican-controlled Congress saw strategic value in adding another loyal Union state. Although Nevada's population was below the threshold typically required for statehood, its vast mineral wealth and political alignment with the Union helped accelerate the process. To meet the tight timeline ahead of the 1864 election, Nevada's leaders moved quickly to draft a state constitution.Facing logistical challenges in sending the document from Carson City to Washington, D.C., Nevada officials made the unprecedented decision to transmit the entire text—over 16,000 words—via telegraph. The transmission took over 12 hours and cost more than $4,000, making it the longest and most expensive telegram ever sent at the time. The decision proved effective: the telegram reached the capital in time, and Congress formally approved Nevada's admission on the same day.The speed and cost of Nevada's telegraphic constitution became a symbol of the urgency and improvisation of Civil War-era governance. The state's motto, “Battle Born,” reflects both its literal birth during the Civil War and the political battle over slavery and Union preservation. Nevada's admission also helped secure support for Lincoln's re-election and for the 13th Amendment, which passed Congress in January 1865.In a recently disclosed legal filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought taxpayer information on over 1.28 million individuals from the IRS, though only about 47,000 records matched. The request, part of a broader effort to access data on individuals under final removal orders, was submitted under a carve-out in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits limited disclosures during criminal investigations. The IRS initially rejected ICE's requests citing legal constraints, but a memorandum of understanding in April allowed for limited data sharing. A subsequent refined request from ICE in June targeted a smaller group of 1.27 million, but again, only a small percentage matched IRS records, and many failed to meet legal standards for processing.The case arose from a lawsuit filed by taxpayer advocacy groups and unions, which argue that these disclosures violate the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt further sharing. Internal emails reveal IRS officials were concerned about the unprecedented scale and legality of the request, and officials emphasized the need to keep the data sharing confidential. The IRS typically handles about 30,000 such data requests a year, each requiring detailed justification and high-level agency approval. Critics warn that this massive data handover poses urgent threats to taxpayer privacy and due process rights.ICE Sought Records on 1.3 Million Taxpayers, Filing Shows (1)U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols praised two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, for their handling of a case against Taylor Taranto, despite both being suspended by the Justice Department the day before. The suspension followed their reference to January 6 rioters as “a mob of rioters” and mention of Donald Trump allegedly sharing Barack Obama's address in a sentencing memo. Judge Nichols commended their work as professional and exemplary, stating they upheld the highest prosecutorial standards.Taranto was sentenced to 21 months in prison for firearm and hoax-related charges after being arrested near Obama's D.C. residence in 2023. However, he will not serve additional time due to pretrial detention. Though originally charged for participating in the Capitol riot, those charges were dropped under President Trump's mass clemency order for January 6 defendants issued at the start of his second term. Taranto's defense claimed his statements about explosives were meant as “dark humor” and that he hadn't committed any violence.After White and Valdivia's suspension, a revised sentencing memo—stripped of January 6 and Trump references—was filed by two replacement prosecutors, including a senior DOJ official. The incident reflects broader tensions under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly moved to minimize references to Capitol riot violence and penalize prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases.US judge praises prosecutors who were suspended after referring to January 6 ‘mob' | ReutersA federal judge allowed the Trump administration to move forward with firing nearly all remaining employees of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency established in the 1960s to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, while denying a temporary restraining order sought by civil rights groups, noted that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm. However, she also stated that the groups are likely to succeed in proving that the executive branch cannot lawfully dissolve a congressionally created agency.The lawsuit, brought by 11 organizations including the NAACP and the Ethical Society of Police, challenges the Justice Department's recent “reduction in force” that would leave just one CRS employee. The move follows a pattern under the Trump administration, which has rejected all new requests for CRS services and proposed no funding for the agency in its budget. Plaintiffs argue that a termination notice stating the layoffs aim to “effectuate the dissolution” of CRS confirms unlawful intent.Although Talwani's ruling allows the firings to proceed, she emphasized that the final outcome may favor the plaintiffs as the case continues. The layoffs coincide with a government shutdown that began October 1, meaning the employees would have been furloughed regardless. The DOJ claims it is merely reorganizing, not eliminating, the agency, though it concedes that only Congress has the authority to formally abolish it.Judge allows Trump administration to fire most of DOJ race-relations agency's employees | ReutersHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a prominent plaintiffs' law firm, is under scrutiny in two high-profile class actions, facing judicial criticism and potential sanctions. In Seattle, a federal judge sanctioned the firm for over $223,000 after finding it misled the court and opposing counsel about its client's withdrawal from an antitrust case against Apple and Amazon. The judge said Hagens Berman failed to disclose that their client, who later disappeared from proceedings, had expressed his intent to exit the case months earlier. The firm argues it acted ethically under client confidentiality rules and has asked the judge to revise her dismissal ruling.In a separate matter in Philadelphia, the firm faces possible new sanctions in long-running litigation over thalidomide-related birth defect claims. A special master found misconduct, including altering an expert report and advancing claims lacking legal merit. While Hagens Berman disputes the findings, calling them outside the master's authority and biased, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld the report. The firm has now requested that Diamond recuse himself, citing an appearance of bias due to his close coordination with the special master.In both cases, Hagens Berman maintains its actions were in good faith and within legal and ethical bounds, while critics and courts point to patterns of misrepresentation and overreach.Law firm Hagens Berman battles sanctions in Apple, thalidomide cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Camille Saint-Saëns.Camille Saint-Saëns was a French composer, organist, conductor, and pianist whose long career spanned the Romantic era and touched the early 20th century. Born in Paris in 1835, he was a child prodigy who began composing at the age of three and gave his first public performance at ten. Saint-Saëns was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, writing symphonies, concertos, operas, chamber music, and choral works. Though deeply rooted in classical forms, he was an early supporter of contemporary composers like Liszt and Wagner, even as he remained skeptical of more radical modernism. His music often combined technical brilliance with elegance, and his clear, structured style made him a bridge between tradition and innovation. He was also a prolific writer and amateur astronomer, and his intellectual breadth sometimes earned him criticism from those who found his music too refined or academic. Still, Saint-Saëns maintained influence across Europe, and his works remain staples of the concert repertoire.This week's closing theme is Saint-Saëns' Danse Macabre. Originally a song for voice and piano based on a poem by Henri Cazalis, Saint-Saëns later reworked Danse Macabre into a tone poem for orchestra. It depicts Death summoning the dead from their graves at midnight on Halloween for a wild, skeletal waltz. A solo violin—tuned unconventionally to evoke a harsh, eerie sound—plays Death's dance theme, while xylophone rattles mimic clacking bones. The piece was controversial at its premiere in 1875 but quickly became a concert favorite, especially around Halloween. With its vivid orchestration and playful macabre imagery, Danse Macabre is one of classical music's most iconic musical depictions of the supernatural, perfectly capturing the spirit of the season.Without further ado, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre—enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: October ManifestoOn October 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia issued the October Manifesto in response to mounting unrest and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Russian Empire. The 1905 Revolution had erupted earlier that year following the Bloody Sunday massacre, in which unarmed protesters were gunned down by imperial guards. Strikes, peasant revolts, and mutinies within the military and navy intensified public pressure for reform. The October Manifesto promised several liberalizing measures: the creation of a legislative Duma (parliament), expansion of civil liberties including freedom of speech, assembly, and conscience, and a commitment that no law would be enacted without the Duma's consent.Though revolutionary factions remained skeptical, the manifesto temporarily quelled widespread unrest and led to the formation of Russia's first constitutional structure. It marked the first time autocratic power in Russia was publicly limited by law, at least in theory. However, the tsarist regime maintained significant control: Nicholas retained the right to dissolve the Duma at will and manipulate election laws. Conservative forces viewed the manifesto as a concession made under duress, while radicals criticized it as too limited and unenforceable.The October Manifesto also split opposition forces. Some liberals, known as Octobrists, supported working within the new constitutional framework. Others, including the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, dismissed the document as a façade and continued to push for broader revolution. In legal terms, the manifesto introduced the concept of legislative consent into Russian governance, establishing a precedent for popular representation in lawmaking. Although the Duma's actual power remained constrained, the October Manifesto set the stage for future political conflicts that would culminate in the Russian Revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration's recent approvals for oil and gas leasing in Alaska and road development projects are drawing scrutiny from environmental groups, who say the decisions were made opaquely during a government shutdown, limiting their ability to challenge them in court. These projects include reopening leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), issuing permits for the 211-mile Ambler Road to mining sites, and approving a controversial land exchange to allow road construction through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge wilderness. Environmental attorneys argue that key documents and analyses justifying these decisions remain unavailable, complicating legal strategies.The Interior Department, operating with a reduced staff, has only offered links to decision documents, providing little insight into environmental protections or regulatory compliance. Although these projects have been previously contested in court, the lack of transparency surrounding the latest approvals hinders further action. Some legal experts suggest potential conflicts of interest—such as the U.S. acquiring a stake in a company tied to the Ambler Road—could be grounds for future lawsuits. Additionally, the Izembek land swap may face legal challenges for bypassing required congressional approval.Environmental Groups Challenged in Fighting Trump's Alaska MovesThree former Morgan Stanley financial advisers are suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a recent advisory opinion that they argue unlawfully shields the bank from arbitration claims related to unpaid deferred compensation. Filed in Manhattan federal court, the lawsuit alleges that the Labor Department's September 9 finding—that Morgan Stanley's deferred compensation plan does not qualify as an employee benefit pension plan under ERISA—conflicts with two prior court rulings that said it does.The plaintiffs, Steve Sheresky, Jeffrey Samsen, and Nicholas Sutro, say the opinion was “arbitrary and capricious” and would undermine their efforts, and those of other former employees, to arbitrate claims over canceled or unpaid compensation. They also claim Morgan Stanley is already using the Labor Department's stance to dismiss ongoing claims and seek reimbursement of legal costs.Though Morgan Stanley is not a defendant in the suit, the plaintiffs argue the agency overstepped its authority and are asking the court to revoke the advisory opinion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case, Sheresky et al v. U.S. Department of Labor, raises broader questions about administrative agencies issuing legal interpretations that can influence private litigation outcomes without proper judicial or legislative review.Former Morgan Stanley advisers sue US Labor Department | ReutersEli Lilly has announced a new partnership with Walmart to offer its weight-loss drug Zepbound at discounted, direct-to-consumer prices through Walmart pharmacies nationwide. This marks the first time customers using the LillyDirect platform can pick up the medication in person at a retail location. The lowest dose of Zepbound will be available for $349 per month for self-paying patients.The move is part of Lilly's broader strategy to expand access and boost market share in the competitive obesity drug space, currently valued at around $150 billion. Zepbound competes directly with Novo Nordisk's Wegovy, but recent data suggests Lilly has pulled ahead in prescriptions, despite Novo's earlier market entry.Lilly reported that around 35% of Zepbound prescriptions in Q2 came from cash-paying customers using LillyDirect. Both Lilly and Novo have also made their weight-loss drugs available through various telehealth platforms, further expanding patient access.Lilly, Walmart launch first retail pick-up option for weight-loss drug | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week looks at the escalating tensions surrounding digital services taxes (DSTs), with France once again moving to raise its DST—from 3% to 15%—primarily targeting U.S. tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon. The U.S. has responded with familiar threats of tariffs and trade retaliation, repeating a now well-worn pattern of diplomatic pushback without addressing the underlying issue. That issue is structural: the global tax framework was built around physical presence, but today's digital economy allows companies to generate profits in countries where they have no offices, employees, or infrastructure.As frustration builds in countries watching tech firms reap profits without corresponding local tax contributions, DSTs have become a tool to reclaim taxing rights. In response, nearly 140 countries have worked through the OECD to build a two-pillar international solution. Pillar One aims to reallocate taxing rights based on where users are located; Pillar Two introduces a global minimum tax. Yet, while other countries move forward, the U.S. continues to resist fully embracing Pillar One—out of concern for political optics and revenue loss.That resistance is counterproductive. By refusing to commit to a multilateral framework, the U.S. is guaranteeing the very outcome it opposes: a fragmented global tax landscape where each country sets its own rules. The current whac-a-mole strategy—reacting to every unilateral move with threats—offers no long-term protection for U.S. companies and only heightens global instability. It's time for the U.S. to stop playing defense and help finalize a framework that reflects the realities of the digital economy.Whac-A-Mole Taxation Battles Will Persist Without A Global Deal This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg ExecutionsOn October 16, 1946, ten prominent Nazi war criminals were executed by hanging in the aftermath of the landmark Nuremberg Trials, held to prosecute key figures of the Third Reich for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace. The executions marked the culmination of months of legal proceedings conducted by an international military tribunal composed of judges from the Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. Among those hanged was Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler's former Foreign Minister, convicted for his role in orchestrating Nazi foreign policy and enabling the Holocaust.The trials had concluded in late September 1946, with 12 of the 22 main defendants receiving death sentences. However, Hermann Göring, one of the most high-profile defendants and head of the Luftwaffe, committed suicide by cyanide just hours before his scheduled execution. The hangings took place inside the gymnasium of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the tribunal had convened, and were carried out in the early morning hours.The executions were overseen by U.S. Army personnel, and steps were taken to document them for historical record. The event was viewed by many as a pivotal moment in the establishment of international criminal law, affirming that individuals—even heads of state and high-ranking officials—could be held personally accountable for war atrocities. These proceedings laid the groundwork for future tribunals, including those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.Some criticized the process as “victor's justice,” pointing to perceived inconsistencies in sentencing and legal procedures. Nevertheless, the trials represented a significant shift from the post-World War I approach, which had failed to adequately prosecute war crimes. The executions on October 16 symbolized not only the end of an era of unchecked totalitarian violence but also the beginning of a new international legal order based on accountability and the rule of law.A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's latest wave of federal layoffs, calling the move likely “illegal and in excess of authority.” In a sharply worded order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston halted terminations that began last week, siding with a coalition of federal worker unions. Illston criticized the administration's approach as “ready, fire, aim” and warned that the human cost of such abrupt cuts is unacceptable.The layoffs—over 4,100 in total—targeted several federal agencies, with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury seeing the bulk of cuts. Judge Illston's order requires the administration to report all completed and planned layoffs by Friday and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on October 28. She also rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to steer the case toward procedural issues, stating that the legal merits were too concerning to ignore.President Trump has framed the cuts as politically motivated, stating they were aimed at eliminating programs he called “egregious socialist, semi-communist.” He added that Republican-backed programs would be spared. The administration recently lifted a long-standing hiring freeze but is now requiring agencies to submit staffing plans for approval.Union plaintiffs argue that the layoffs violate the Antideficiency Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, citing the administration's use of the government shutdown as an arbitrary justification. This case, AFGE v. OMB, marks another legal confrontation over workforce reductions, following an earlier freeze issued by Judge Illston that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.Trump's Shutdown-Linked Layoffs Paused by California Judge (4)The 2026 U.S. law school admissions cycle is off to an intense start, with applications up 33% compared to this time last year, according to new data from the Law School Admission Council. This surge follows last year's admissions boom and signals another highly competitive year for aspiring law students. Admissions consultant Mike Spivey noted he's never seen such a sharp early increase in over two decades of reviewing application data, predicting a likely total rise of around 20% once the cycle concludes.Several factors are driving the spike, including a tough job market for recent college graduates—whose unemployment rate now surpasses that of the broader labor force—and growing political instability. Law School Admission Council President Sudha Setty also cited concerns about the impact of AI and broader economic uncertainty as motivators for many applicants. Additionally, more people are taking the LSAT this year, up nearly 22% over 2025 levels.A recent Kaplan survey found 56% of law school admissions officers pointed to politics as a major factor behind last year's surge, with 90% expecting this cycle to be just as competitive, if not more so. Some applicants are likely reapplying after being rejected last year, or returning after delaying applications due to last year's high volume. While law schools will benefit from a deeper pool of candidates, Spivey warned the sharp increase means tougher odds for acceptance across the board.US law school applicants increase 33%, boosting competition | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to fund military pay during the ongoing government shutdown is only a short-term solution, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson. On Wednesday, Johnson confirmed that 1.3 million active-duty service members, along with tens of thousands of National Guard and reservists, were paid using $6.5 billion in unused military research and development funds. However, he warned that unless Democrats act to reopen the government, troops are unlikely to receive their next paycheck on October 31.The White House has not explained its legal rationale for this funding maneuver, and it hasn't requested the required congressional approvals to shift funds between accounts. Federal law caps such transfers at $8 billion annually and only allows them if the funds are used for their legally designated purposes. Without further funding authority, it's unclear how the administration could cover future military pay. While many lawmakers support a standalone bill to guarantee troop pay, Republican leaders—including Johnson and Senate Majority Whip John Thune—are resisting that option. They argue that doing so would reduce pressure to end the shutdown overall.Some Republicans, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, say the move has reduced urgency in Congress while leaving other federal workers unpaid. The political optics are further complicated by Trump's claim that only Democrat-backed programs are being cut, as he seeks to frame the issue as partisan. Internally, GOP leaders worry that passing targeted funding bills could open the door to broader demands for agency-by-agency funding relief, weakening their leverage in shutdown negotiations.By way of brief background, the move likely violates the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which bars federal officials from spending money before or beyond congressional appropriations. Trump reportedly ordered the Department of Defense to divert funds from the RDT&E account—meant for weapons research—to cover military payroll. That account is not legally authorized for such use, and the funds may have also exceeded their availability period.This raises two major legal issues. First, under the Appropriations Clause (Article I, § 9, cl. 7), only Congress may authorize government spending. The president cannot repurpose funds without specific legislative approval. Second, the ADA prohibits both misappropriation of purpose (spending money on unauthorized functions) and misappropriation of timing (using expired funds). If proven willful, such violations can carry criminal penalties, though prosecutions are rare.Beyond the legal breach, this act could set a dangerous precedent. If courts decline to intervene, it could signal that future presidents—regardless of party—can redirect federal funds without congressional consent. This would erode legislative power and potentially turn the presidency into a de facto appropriations authority, undermining the Constitution's separation of powers.Special thanks to Bobby Kogan, the Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy for the Center for American Progress, for his instructive Bluesky post explaining the deficiency issue in a way much clearer and more succinctly than I otherwise would have been able to.Trump's troop pay move is a ‘temporary fix,' Johnson says - Live Updates - POLITICOPost by @did:plc:drfb2pdjlnsqkfgsoellcahm — BlueskyA piece I wrote for Forbes this week looks at how Norway is showing the rest of the world how to end EV subsidies without wrecking the market. The country announced in its latest budget that it will phase out its long-standing value-added tax (VAT) exemption for electric vehicles—partially in 2026, and fully by 2027. This might seem like a policy retreat, but the timing is deliberate: EVs now make up 95–98% of new car sales in Norway. The market has matured, and the subsidy is no longer essential.I argue that this is what smart policy looks like—temporary support that steps aside when it's no longer needed. The U.S., by contrast, killed its federal EV tax credit abruptly and politically, without phasing it out or adapting it for current market conditions. In doing so, it treated the credit as a political symbol rather than a market tool. Norway, on the other hand, used the exemption strategically, aligning it with broader policy goals and allowing it to sunset once those goals were met.The piece highlights how the U.S. often fears both removing and maintaining subsidies, caught in a cycle where incentives become political footballs. Norway's approach offers a model for how to responsibly end subsidies: gradually, rationally, and only once the market no longer needs them. This isn't anti-EV or anti-climate policy—it's a sign that the original policy worked.Norway Shows How To End EV Subsidies Without Killing The Market This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 2 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we released last Thursday, September 25, cover these critical topics: ·        The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·        A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·        The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·        The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·        The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·        The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·        The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·        The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 1 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we release one week from today cover these critical topics: ·         The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·         A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·         The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·         The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·         The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·         The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·         The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·         The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation's first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department's “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin's involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin's actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization' Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration's statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the second of a two part series on the impact of administrative law in the health care industry, hosts Payal Nanavati and Savanna Williams talk to Dan Wolff about the practicalities of seeking judicial review to challenge agency actions, the impact of Loper Bright, and the major questions doctrine. This podcast episode features the following speakers: Dan Wolff is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and leads the firm's administrative law litigation practice. Dan's practice encompasses litigation arising under the Administrative Procedure Act or as a result of government enforcement actions or commercial disputes. He regularly appears in federal district and appellate courts around the country and before a host of agency tribunals, and counsels clients on their rights and obligations under a number of federal regulatory programs. Payers, Providers, and Patients – Oh My! is Crowell & Moring's health care podcast, discussing legal and regulatory issues that affect health care entities' in-house counsel, executives, and investors.

This Day in Legal History: Certiorari Granted in WindsorOn September 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Windsor, setting the stage for one of the most consequential civil rights decisions of the decade. The case challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been legally married to her same-sex partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada. When Spyer died, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, resulting in a tax bill exceeding $350,000.Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. The Obama administration, though initially defending DOMA, reversed course and declined to continue doing so, prompting the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives to intervene. The DOJ's September 11 petition reflected the administration's desire to have the Supreme Court resolve the constitutional question as quickly as possible.In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the federal government could not single out same-sex marriages for unequal treatment under the law. The ruling granted same-sex couples access to hundreds of federal benefits and marked a turning point in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.The Windsor decision laid the constitutional groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges two years later, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The filing on September 11, 2012, was a procedural but critical moment that pushed the case toward the highest court in the land. It also signaled a shift in the federal government's posture toward LGBTQ+ equality—moving from defense of discriminatory laws to active legal opposition.The trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate then former President Donald Trump, begins this week in Fort Pierce, Florida. Routh, 59, is facing five federal charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, and has chosen to represent himself. Prosecutors allege that Routh hid with a rifle near the sixth hole of Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach last September, intending to kill Trump. He fled after a Secret Service agent spotted him before any shots were fired and was arrested the same day.The trial opens amid rising concerns about political violence in the U.S., underscored by the recent killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in Utah. Trump himself has been targeted multiple times, including a shooting in Pennsylvania in July 2024 that left him wounded. Routh, a former roofing contractor with a history of erratic behavior, had expressed political views supporting Taiwan and Ukraine and previously outlined a bizarre plan involving Afghan refugees.The case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, the same judge who previously dismissed a separate criminal case against Trump involving classified documents. Cannon has already expressed frustration with Routh during jury selection, rejecting several of his proposed questions as irrelevant. The jury consists of seven women and five men. The trial is expected to spotlight the ongoing increase in politically motivated violence in the U.S.,Trial begins for man accused of trying to assassinate Trump, spotlighting US political violence | ReutersFive former federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully dismissed their complaints after being fired early in President Trump's second term. Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs claim OSC failed to investigate over 2,000 complaints from probationary employees terminated en masse in February 2025, despite earlier findings that the firings may have violated federal law. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, seeks a ruling that OSC's blanket dismissal of the complaints was arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.Probationary federal employees—often in their first year or newly assigned roles—have fewer job protections, making them vulnerable to politically motivated purges. In this case, the Trump administration dismissed roughly 25,000 such employees, sparking multiple legal challenges. Some courts briefly reinstated the workers, but appeals courts ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing or needed to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.OSC, under former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, had suggested the mass terminations were unlawful. However, after Trump fired Dellinger, his replacement, Jamieson Greer, dismissed all the pending complaints, citing alignment with new administrative priorities. The plaintiffs argue this abrupt shift was politically driven and undermined OSC's duty to safeguard merit-based civil service protections.The lawsuit aims to compel OSC to reopen investigations into the firings and reassert that probationary employees still retain legal protections from unlawful dismissals.US Special Counsel sued for dismissing fired federal workers' complaints | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, aiming to fire her before the central bank's next interest rate meeting on September 16. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that President Trump's claim—alleging Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office—likely does not meet the legal threshold to justify her dismissal. The administration's brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit did not include arguments, but signaled urgency given the upcoming monetary policy meeting.Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, filed suit in August claiming that the fraud allegations were a pretext for removing her due to her policy positions. She argues that the law governing the Federal Reserve allows a governor to be removed only “for cause,” a term not clearly defined in the statute and never previously tested in court. Cobb agreed that the case raises new and important legal questions, emphasizing the public interest in shielding the Fed from political pressure.The DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into the alleged mortgage fraud, with grand jury subpoenas issued in Georgia and Michigan. The case could have broader implications for the independence of federal agencies, especially those like the Fed that have traditionally operated free from executive interference. This follows other high-profile cases in which courts have temporarily blocked Trump from firing leaders of independent agencies, including the U.S. Copyright Office.Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates and criticized Chair Jerome Powell, though Cook has consistently voted with the Fed majority on rate decisions. Her continued presence at the Fed could influence upcoming policy moves.Trump administration appeals ruling blocking removal of Fed Governor Cook | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld most provisions of a New Jersey law restricting firearms in designated “sensitive places,” such as parks, hospitals, beaches, libraries, and casinos. The 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court concluded the restrictions aligned with historical firearm regulations in places traditionally considered sensitive due to their civic or public safety function.The ruling is a setback for gun rights advocates, following similar decisions by appeals courts in California, Hawaii, and New York. These rulings come in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating gun laws—requiring that modern regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm control. While Bruen expanded gun rights, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of restrictions in sensitive locations.Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, writing for the majority, emphasized that U.S. history supports limiting firearms in specific public areas to preserve peace and safety. Judge Cindy Chung concurred, while Judge David Porter dissented, arguing the government shouldn't be able to arbitrarily declare places “sensitive” to limit gun rights.The New Jersey Attorney General praised the decision, while gun rights groups criticized it as an overly deferential interpretation of the Second Amendment.US appeals court largely upholds New Jersey gun restrictions | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's been a whirlwind few days in courtrooms across Washington and beyond, as legal battles tied to former President Donald Trump have dominated headlines. I'll jump right into it. The most closely watched case right now is Taylor v. Trump, which is being heard in the District Court. This one centers on Trump's executive order restoring the death penalty and toughening conditions of imprisonment, a direct move under Executive Order 14164. The trial kicked off on August 11, lasted three days, and legal experts have been watching for how the judge will interpret civil liberties claims versus federal power.At the same time, the National Association of the Deaf is suing Donald Trump along with White House officials like Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt. Their core argument? By ending ASL interpretation at federal press briefings and events, Trump is violating not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects disability rights, but also key First and Fifth Amendment protections. Plaintiffs have asked the court to order the administration to restore these services, arguing it's essential for equal protection and free speech.Meanwhile, legal teams on both sides have been busy in appellate courts and even the Supreme Court. Just a few nights ago, Judge Florence Pan on the D.C. Circuit wrote a pivotal opinion that reshaped how grantees could challenge Trump's actions on foreign aid payments. The panel's revision sent the case back to district court, offering a pathway for the groups involved to seek relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. In the wake of these moves, counsel for the government officially withdrew the request for emergency Supreme Court intervention, meaning Congress will now weigh in on Trump's proposed rescissions for a $15 billion foreign aid package.Immigration issues also remain front and center. A federal court has blocked Trump's fast-track deportation policy after a lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ruling states this expansion denied immigrants their due process, and the court made clear: during litigation, the policy is halted.And one more headline out of the Court of Appeals—V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump is on hold pending a possible Supreme Court review. The appellate court ordered the mandate withheld until October 14, giving either side time to seek a writ of certiorari from the highest court.Each one of these cases underscores the ongoing tension between presidential authority and individual rights, as well as the ability—and the limits—of the courts to check executive orders. Thanks for tuning in to this special update. Be sure to come back next week for the latest developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In the first of a two part series on the impact of administrative law in the health care industry, hosts Payal Nanavati and Savanna Williams talk to Dan Wolff about how administrative law manifests itself on a day-to-day basis and how to interact with agency officials in a heavily regulated industry. This podcast episode features the following speakers: Dan Wolff is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and leads the firm's administrative law litigation practice. Dan's practice encompasses litigation arising under the Administrative Procedure Act or as a result of government enforcement actions or commercial disputes. He regularly appears in federal district and appellate courts around the country and before a host of agency tribunals, and counsels clients on their rights and obligations under a number of federal regulatory programs. Payers, Providers, and Patients – Oh My! is Crowell & Moring's health care podcast, discussing legal and regulatory issues that affect health care entities' in-house counsel, executives, and investors.

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.Featuring:John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for ImpactJonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

In this episode of Full Spectrum, Kelley Drye's Communications team provides a detailed “First Take” on the Federal Communications Commission's July 24, 2025 Open Meeting. Special Counsel Mike Dover is joined by partners Chip Yorkgitis and Hank Kelly, and senior associates Jennifer Wainwright and Winafred Brantl, to break down the Commission's major actions and rulemakings, including: • A multi-part Report and Order on pole attachments that introduces new application timelines, advance notice requirements, meet-and-confer obligations, and expanded self-help rights for attachers • Updates to designated entity eligibility rules ahead of the AWS-3 spectrum auction (Auction 113), including revised bidding credits for small and rural service providers • A direct final rule eliminating 11 outdated regulations—such as rules for analog TV, payphones, and telegraphs—while outlining a broader FCC strategy to streamline future rulemaking • A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to modernize rules for network transitions, including proposals to reduce or eliminate certain network change disclosures and streamline Section 214 discontinuance processes • Another NPRM revisiting the FCC's slamming, cramming, and truth-in-billing rules, asking whether current protections are still necessary and proposing a simplified, unified framework The episode also touches on broader themes like AI-driven fraud, transparency in billing, and the agency's increased use of the Administrative Procedure Act's direct final rule mechanism. Whether you work in broadband, wireless, telecom, or policy, this recap offers a sharp, practical rundown of where FCC priorities are headed next.

Our podcast show being released today commemorates the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises - the opinion in which the Court overturned the Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevron Deference Doctrine stems from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision basically held that if federal legislation is ambiguous the courts must defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation if the regulation is reasonable. My primary goal was to identify a person who would be universally considered one of the country's leading experts on administrative law and, specifically the Chevron Deference Doctrine and how the courts have applied the Roper opinion. I was very fortunate to recruit Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law at Penn Law School and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. In this episode we explore two of his recent and widely discussed papers, titled “Loper Bright's Disingenuity” and “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright” Here are the questions that we discussed with Professor Coglianese: Let's start at the beginning. What is the Chevron case all about? How did the Court in Loper Bright explain why it was overruling Chevron? You have a new article coming out later this year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review called “Loper Bright's Disingenuity,” co-authored with David Froomkin of the University of Houston. What do you and Professor Froomkin mean by the title of your article?  In your article, you critique what you call the Court's “facile formalism.” What do you mean by that? You also criticize the way the Court based its decision in Loper Bright on the Administrative Procedure Act or APA. What exactly was problematic about the Court's APA analysis?  Let's shift gears from your analysis of the logic of the Loper Bright opinion to talk about what the decision's effects have been so far and what its effects ultimately might be on the future of administrative government in the United States. You have another article on Loper Bright that was recently published in the Administrative Law Review and coauthored with Dan Walters of Texas A&M Law School. It has another provocative title: “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright.”  What do you mean by the “Great Unsettling”?  Although you say that it is hard to predict exactly what impact Loper Bright will have on the future of administrative government, you also acknowledge that the decision has created a “symbolic shock” and is likely to “punctuate the equilibrium of the administrative governance game as we have come to know it.”  Can we see any effects so far in terms of how Loper Bright is affecting court decisions?  For example, let's start with the Supreme Court itself. Has it had anything more to say about Loper Bright in decisions it's handed down this past year? If we look at the lower courts, what can we discern about how Loper Bright has been received in federal district courts or courts of appeals?  Are there any trends that can be observed? I'd like to bring things full circle by raising a metaphor you and Professor Walters use in your article, “The Great Unsettling.” You say there that the Loper Bright “decision might best be thought of as something of a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball.” What do you mean? Can you tell us what you see inside your crystal ball? Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast show.  

Da Silva Borges v. Bondi, No. 24-1695 (1st Cir. July 18, 2025) ·       DHS burden to prove alienage by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence; Woodby standard; Rosa Perez Cruz v. Bondi, No. 24-2865 (9th Cir. July 21, 2025) ·       CAT protection; Gulf Cartel; cooperation with U.S. government; presumption of regularity; considering entire record; audio issues; due process; prejudice; Mexico Singh v. Bondi, No. 23-9598 (10th Cir. July 22, 2025) ·       mental health; competency; hunger strike; continuance Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi, No. 24-1616 (1st Cir. July 24, 2025) ·       asylum; CAT protection; nexus; particular social group; generalized violence; issue exhaustion; waiver of issuesGomez-Gabriel v. U.S. Atty Gen., No. 24-2559 (3d Cir. July 24, 2025) ·       Summary affirmance; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4); issue exhaustion; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); nexus; gang violence; indigenous  Cabello Garcia v. USCIS, No. 23-35267 (9th Cir. July 22, 2025) ·       8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); U visa adjustment of status; 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m); medical exam; discretionary relief; collateral challenge; adjustment of status; Administrative Procedure Act; due process; Patel v. Garland Sponsors and friends of the podcast! Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.  Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too! Stafi "Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com   Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATION Email: kgregg@kktplaw.com Facebook: @immigrationreview Instagram: @immigrationreview Twitter: @immreview About your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego Voyager DISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200 Support the showSupport the show

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a district court issue a nationwide (universal) injunction that blocks enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in the lawsuit?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Federal courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts possess only those equitable remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at the time of the founding. The Court finds no historical precedent for universal injunctions in English equity courts or early American practice. English equity courts operated through party-specific proceedings, where relief was limited to those actually before the court. While bills of peace allowed courts to adjudicate rights of dispersed groups, these involved small, cohesive groups and bound all members—unlike universal injunctions that protect non-parties without binding them. The historical absence of universal injunctions until the mid-20th century confirms they fall outside traditional equitable authority.The complete relief principle permits courts to fashion remedies that fully redress plaintiffs' injuries, but complete relief does not equal universal relief. Courts may award relief that incidentally benefits non-parties when necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, such as in nuisance cases where divisible relief is impossible. However, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against individual plaintiffs' children provides them complete relief without requiring nationwide application. For state plaintiffs claiming administrative and financial harms, the Court remands for lower courts to determine whether narrower injunctions could provide complete relief, such as prohibiting enforcement within plaintiff states or treating affected children as eligible for federally funded benefits.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasizing that courts must not expand the complete relief principle to recreate universal injunctions under a different name and that relief should be tailored to redress only plaintiffs' particular injuries.Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, warning that lax enforcement of third-party standing requirements and class certification procedures could create loopholes that undermine the Court's holding against universal injunctions.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion explaining that while universal injunctions are improper, plaintiffs may still seek classwide preliminary relief under Rule 23(b)(2) or ask courts to set aside agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, and emphasizing that the Court will continue to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the interim legal status of major federal actions.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that universal injunctions have deep roots in equity's history through bills of peace and taxpayer suits, that the Executive Order is patently unconstitutional under the Citizenship Clause, and that limiting injunctive relief will leave constitutional rights meaningful in name only for those unable to sue.Justice Jackson authored a separate dissenting opinion arguing that the majority's decision creates an existential threat to the rule of law by allowing the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not sued, effectively creating zones where executive compliance with law becomes optional rather than mandatory.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Mere days after SCOTUS enjoins universal injunctions, judges find other way to afford “complete relief.” A big one: The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to enjoin agency actions.Also:What if a defendant does not want a co-defendant dismissed and relieved of liability? The California Supreme Court says co-defendants can oppose each other's MSJs in R&D Contractors v. Superior Court.The Climategate saga continues: when 12-years of anti-SLAPP litigation does not end Dr. Michael Mann's lawsuit defending his “hockey stick” temperature graph, the D.C. court reverses on punitive damages: with a mere $1 nominal damages award, $1M in punitives is too high. Dr. Mann's total result after a dozen years of litigation: $6,002 (and a bill for $9,000 in discovery sanctions).You snooze, you pay: Employer gets sanctioned $183k for late arbitration fee payment in Guffey v. Bokeet.Family law FC 2030 fee denial reversed for considering improper, extra-statutory equitable factors in Marriage of Sadie v. Cativar.Georgia appellate court sanctions lawyer for ChatGPT-cited fake cases, citing study showing AI makes mistakes 75% of the time.Can you hand up exhibits during appellate argument? Maybe in Texas.The Third District new program delays record deadlines pending mediation.Tune in for insights on trial prep, appeals strategy, and the increasingly blurred lines between branches of government.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Climate Change Trial Update: Jury awards $1 plus $1M punitives for hockey-stick criticismAlex Anteau 'Don't Be Dumb': Ga. Court of Appeals Sanction Gives Insight...Law360 The Funniest Moments of The Supreme Court's Term - Law360

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.Featuring:John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for ImpactJonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

In today's all-new episode, our hosts Renato Mariotti and Asha Rangappa discuss Trump's attempt to dismantle Voice of America, a government-funded international broadcasting agency created during World War II to counter foreign propaganda. They analyze the legal challenges to Trump's executive order, highlighting the First Amendment implications and the Administrative Procedure Act violations. Before diving in, remember to subscribe to our Patreon for exclusive insights and behind-the-scenes content: patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia. Asha kicks off the discussion by emphasizing the indispensable role Voice of America has long played in countering disinformation and delivering unbiased news around the world. Now, under the Trump administration, this vital institution is under attack—disguised as a routine executive order. Renato delves into the unfolding legal battle, explaining how this overreach not only threatens First Amendment rights but also sidesteps congressional oversight in violation of established law. The conversation then expands as Renato and Asha examine Trump's persistent pattern of undermining key institutions. His assault on Voice of America is just one front in a broader campaign—one that has also targeted agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—eroding the checks and balances that hold our government accountable. Asha warns that such unilateral decisions create dangerous vulnerabilities in our democratic framework. Moving into in-depth legal analysis, our hosts question whether these executive actions effectively usurp Congress's legislative authority and destabilize the separation of powers essential to our democracy. They examine the societal fallout from unchecked executive overreach and lay bare the threat posed to the core values that guide our nation. In a notable twist, the episode highlights an emerging legal precedent. A Reagan-appointed judge recently blocked Trump's action via an injunction—revealing deep tensions within the judiciary as it grapples with the limits of executive power. The subsequent appeal and full court review underscore both the urgency and the high stakes involved, with the livelihoods of over 1,300 journalists hanging in the balance. Wrapping up, the discussion widens to the global stage. Voice of America is not just a news outlet; it symbolizes America's unwavering commitment to truth and free speech. The attempt to silence it represents a serious blow to our nation's reputation as a defender of democracy worldwide. Renato and Asha passionately call for vigilance and collective action. They urge every branch of government—and all of us—to stand up for democratic principles and resist efforts to curtail our freedoms. Their incisive exploration of these legal and political battles reminds us that democracy thrives on transparency and accountability. Don't miss this crucial episode as Renato and Asha dive deep into the pressing issues threatening our media landscape and democratic institutions. Join the discussion and subscribe for more thought-provoking conversations on the topics that matter most. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our podcast show being released today is Part 1 of a repurposed interactive webinar that we presented on March 24, featuring two of the leading journalists who cover the CFPB - Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg. Our show began with Jon and Evan chronicling the initiatives beginning on February 3 by CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent, Russell Vought and DOGE to shut down or at least minimize the CFPB. These initiatives were met with two federal district court lawsuits (one in DC brought by the labor unions who represents CFPB employees who were terminated and the other brought in Baltimore, MD by the CFPB and others) challenging one or more of these initiatives. Jon and Evan described the lawsuits in detail. While the Baltimore lawsuit was dismissed on the basis of lack of ripeness under the Administrative Procedure Act, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a TRO freezing the CFPB from terminating more CFPB employees through the end of March while she decides whether to enter a further injunction with respect to the CFPB's initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners, Rich Andreano and John Culhane, then gave an up-to-date status report on CFPB (a) final rules being challenged in litigation and/or eligible to be challenged under the Congressional Review Act; (b) final rules not being challenged in litigation which may be repealed or amended or whose effective or compliance dates may be extended under the Administrative Procedure Act; (c) proposed rules; and (d) non-rule written guidance. Rich and John paid particular attention to the following final rules: 1.  The Small Business Loan Data Collection and Reporting Rule under Section 1071 of      Dodd-Frank 2.  The Non-bank enforcement order Registry Rule 3.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act “Data Broker” Rule 4.  The Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Rule 5.  The Residential Mortgage Servicing Proposed Rule 6.  Credit Card Penalty fees under Reg Z (Late Fee Rule) 7. Personal Financial Data Rights (Open Banking) Rule under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank 8.  Overdraft Lending Rule Applicable to very large financial institutions 9. Prohibition on creditors and consumer reporting agencies reporting medical debt under Reg V Part 1 of our podcast concludes with Rich and John describing the fact that supervision and examination of banks and non-banks is apparently on hold. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the the ban on ghost guns. Is it really about the Second Amendment? Sarah and David are then joined by Gregg Costa—partner at Gibson Dunn and former Fifth Circuit judge—to explain the issue with universal injunctions and forum shopping. The Agenda: —I ain't afraid of no ghost (gun) —A big week for Justice Neil Gorsuch —Mens rea and regulation —False vs. misleading —$660 million, baby —Judiciary is politicized —Administrative Procedure Act and universal injunctions —Predicting SCOTUS outcomes Show Notes: —Gregg Costa's podcast: A View from the Bench Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The balance of power in American democracy is being tested like never before. In this episode Rick is joined by legal expert and author Tristan Snell to discuss the latest legal battles surrounding Trump, the Supreme Court's role in shaping executive power, and the broader implications for American democracy. They break down key cases, including the limits of presidential immunity, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the growing constitutional crisis if Trump defies court rulings. Visit Tristan's Substack at tristansnell.com. Timestamps: (00:01:26) Watching the legal battles unfold (00:10:59) What happens when Trump denies a court order? (00:20:24) The protection of executive action Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week: more firings — dozens of DOJ line prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. Trump's flurry of executive actions has drawn a flurry of litigation, much of it related to the Administrative Procedure Act. States and grantees are suing to stop the OMB funding pause, and finding success so far. Unions representing government workers are suing Elon Musk's access to their information. Several anonymous FBI agents are even suing to stop disclosure to Trump officials of which cases they worked on, and a lawsuit fighting Trump's executive order defunding grants related to DEI. The actions of the DOGE team seem like they might be illegal on several dimensions, and we discuss threats from acting US Attorney Ed Martin to bring bogus investigations against people who commit offenses like disclosing the names of people who work for Elon Musk.Finally, we take a look at the assist the FCC is giving Trump as he seeks to shake down Paramount, and we recognize another recipient of the Senate Twink Memorial Award for Belatedly Good Judgment. Head over to serioustrouble.show to find an episode transcript and sign up for our newsletter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

Thank you for joining us for another episode of the Low Carb MD Podcast. Dr. Mary Bowden is an otolaryngologist and sleep medicine specialist in Houston, Texas, who treated over 6,000 COVID patients during the pandemic. Her vast experience prompted her to become a fierce advocate for early treatment. After the FDA spread misinformation about ivermectin, she and Drs. Paul Marik and Robert Apter successfully sued them, forcing the agency to delete several misleading social media posts and web pages. Houston was ground zero for the COVID-19 shot mandates, and Dr. Bowden was an early outspoken critic. The first hospital in the country to implement mandates, Houston Methodist, suspended her privileges and reported her to the Texas Medical Board in response to her tweeting, “Vaccine mandates are wrong.” The ensuing attacks prompted her to fight back, and she founded a nonprofit, Americans for Health Freedom, whose foundational project is to enlist politicians and other doctors to call for the COVID shots to be pulled off the market.  In this episode, Drs. Brian, Tro, and Mary talk about… (00:00) Intro (03:23) The governmental attack on effective, affordable treatments for Covid during the vaccine rollout (11:23) The data supporting the usage of Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment for Covid (13:47) The lawsuit filed by Dr. Bowden and other doctors against the FDA for interfering with their ability to practice medicine by overstepping their authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act (17:42) Why Dr. Bowden decided she had to sue the FDA (27:02) Medical ethics, speaking out for the truth, and standing up to corruption (35:59) The quality of research for the safety of various vaccines and why we need a higher standard (41:59) The suppression of effective early treatment options and the massive promotion of  vaccines (48:15) How Drs. Bowden and Lenzkes would have respectively handled the Covid situation if they had the opportunity to run the NIH in 2020-2021 (55:23) Dr. Bowden's recent interest in the carnivore diet (01:01:39) Dr. Bowden's, Dr. Tro's, and Dr. Brian's advice for medical students and the next generation of doctors (01:09:28) R.F.K. and Jay Bhattacharya (01:13:51) Outro For more information, please see the links below. Thank you for listening! Links: Please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.lowcarbmd.com/   Dr. Mary Bowden: BreatheMD: https://breathemd.org Americans for Health Freedom: https://www.americansforhealthfreedom.org/ Vaccine Safety Research Foundation: https://www.vacsafety.org X: https://x.com/breathemd Dr. Brian Lenzkes:  Website: https://arizonametabolichealth.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrianLenzkes?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Dr. Tro Kalayjian:  Website: https://www.doctortro.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DoctorTro Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/doctortro/ Toward Health App Join a growing community of individuals who are improving their metabolic health; together.  Get started at your own pace with a self-guided curriculum developed by Dr. Tro and his care team, community chat, weekly meetings, courses, challenges, message boards and more.  Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/doctor-tro/id1588693888  Google: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.disciplemedia.doctortro&hl=en_US&gl=US Learn more: https://doctortro.com/community/ 

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump's Hud nominee lets everyone know that the government cannot fix the homelessness problem, the government is the cause. Bitcoin is going to skyrocket. Elon is showing the people the way, he is teaching people why we have inflation and what is the cause. Soon the [CB] will be restructured. The [DS] has lost the people, they have used almost all their ammunition, they are weak. They will try one more time but Trump will counter it all. Trump and Scavino send a message, its time to wake the rest of the people up, its time to unleash the lion to show the world who is really in charge, it was always the patriots.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1880983137175429558 https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1881127168631353788   https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1880854417366491452 TAKE A LISTEN   Political/Rights https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1880708707253936306 Fifth Circuit Rules DACA Unconstitutional Setting Up Another Supreme Court Challenge  A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, was illegal but stopped short of allowing a nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas to go into effect. The three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruling on the case restricted the scope of the injunction to Texas to allow further appeals. DACA is, in my opinion, the toughest part of the illegal immigration catastrophe facing the United States to solve. DACA enrollees arrived in the United States as very young children when their parents or guardians illegally immigrated. They are culturally American and frequently can't speak the language of their home country and have no family or social ties to it. There are an estimated 580,000 DACA enrollees.   DACA, as the Texas judge ruled  has no basis in law. It does not even rise to the level of a regulation. DACA started out as a 2012 memorandum signed by Obama DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. It was never an executive order. It never went through the rule-making process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. It has never been enacted into law by Congress. Ordinarily, any memo by a cabinet secretary ceases to have validity when they leave office, not so with DACA. When President Trump's DHS secretary rescinded the DACA memo based on the advice of the Attorney General of the United States, the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 vote (guess how the Chief Justice voted), that the Trump administration was required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act to withdraw a memo that was never subjected to that act, see The Supreme Court Rules Trump Can't End the Illegal DACA Program Because Nothing Matters Anymore. This is the second time this particular case has been heard by the Fifth Circuit and the second time the Fifth Circuit has ruled DACA unconstitutional; see Fifth Circuit Rules DACA Is Illegal but Somehow It Keeps on Moving – RedState, The case is headed back to the Supreme Court, minus the rather stupid issue of whether a single memo by a cabinet secretary can masquerade as the law of the land. Source: redstate.com Border Czar Tom Homan Says Raids on Sanctuary Cities to Deport Illegals May be Paused After Plan Was Leaked President Donald Trump's Border Czar, Tom Homan, has said the immigration raids on “Sanctuary Cities,” including Chicago and New York, may be placed on pause after details about the plan were leaked to the media. On Friday,