Latin legal term meaning "friend of the court"
POPULARITY
25 episodes with amicus brief
8 episodes with amicus brief
7 episodes with amicus brief
4 episodes with amicus brief
3 episodes with amicus brief
3 episodes with amicus brief
2 episodes with amicus brief
3 episodes with amicus brief
2 episodes with amicus brief
Today, Hunter spoke with Professor Daniel Loehr to discuss his research on the Eugenics Origin of Habitual Offender Laws. While many people hear habitual offender laws and think of the three strikes laws from the tough on crime era of the 1990's, Daniel reveals that the history of these laws traces back to a much earlier and darker time in our nation's history. Daniel lays out how America's Eugenics movement wanted habitual offender laws to act as a way to stop certain populations from procreating, and what we as a society should do with these laws given their history. Guest Daniel Loehr, Professor of Law, City University of New York School of Law Resources: Contact Daniel daniel.loehr@law.cuny.edu https://www.law.cuny.edu/faculty/directory/daniel-loehr/ Daniel Files an Amicus Brief in Colorado https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/amicus-brief-offers-history-habitual-criminal-laws-and-their-origins Daniel's Article Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home
Summary: In episode 172, Tristan and Jeff discuss Donald Trump's surprising amicus brief to save TikTok and what it could mean for creators, businesses, and real estate pros in 2025. They also share personal strategies for dominating social media—covering everything from niching down on Instagram Reels to running two distinct YouTube channels (one for agents and one for consumers). Learn how they plan to stay consistent, avoid analytics overload, and scale effectively in the new year. Whether you're a real estate agent, marketer, or content creator, this episode is jam-packed with insights and actionable advice. #TikTok #DonaldTrump #AmicusBrief #SocialMediaStrategy #RealEstateMarketing #YouTube #InstagramReels #ContentCreation #Analytics #OnlineBusiness #Podcast #2025Trends #MarketingTips
Our Director of Public Policy Rebecca Delahunt joins the podcast to discuss what has already been an extremely eventful legislative session here in St. Paul. Rebecca explains Minnesota Family Council's 2025 policy priorities and breaks down the confusing situation at the Capitol. Get the facts, stand for truth! Additional resources: Age Verification of Digital Pornography Companies 1. "Pornography Industry is Profiting off Innocent Children" Star Tribune article by Renee Carlson and Brittany M. Jones: https://www.startribune.com/pornograp... 2. Amicus Brief submitted by True North Legal and Kansas Family Voice to SCOTUS supporting protection of children from digital pornography in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD... 3. "Parents Can't Fight Porn Alone" First Things article by Clare Morell and Brad Littlejohn: https://firstthings.com/parents-cant-... Recent national research on teens and pornography: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/site... "Equal Rights Amendment" 1. "In Minnesota, Push for ERA Threatens Freedoms, Equality" National Review article by Rebecca Delahunt & Renee Carlson: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/0... 2. Watch MFC Testimony: House Rules & Legislative Administration Committee, March 6, 2024: • House Rules and Legislative Administr... 3. Watch TNL Testimony: House Rules & Legislative Administration Committee, March 6, 2024: • House Rules and Legislative Administr... 4. Read MFC Testimony: House State & Local Government Finance and Policy Committee, March 2, 2023: https://www.house.mn.gov/comm/docs/or... Surrogacy 1. "What Rights Are Owed to Children?" MFC article by Rebecca Delahunt: https://www.mfc.org/familybeacon/what... 2. "Uncovering the Truth about Surrogacy" Interview with Jennifer Lahl of the Center for Bioethics & Culture: • Uncovering the Truth About Surrogacy 3. Watch MFC Testimony: House Judiciary Finance & Civil Law Committee, March 19, 2024: https://x.com/becca_delahunt/status/1...
OA1107 - Chief Justice John Roberts has used his annual end-of-the-year report to remind us that federal judges should not accept luxury vacations from billionaires, fly insurrectionist flags on any of their properties, or ever be criticized for any reason. Or, you know--at least one of those things. We also answer a patron question about what happens if Republicans can't get their House in order by the time that electoral votes are supposed to be certified on January 6th before getting to today's main story: the very real possibility that TikTok may not live to see the first day of the second Trump administration if the Supreme Court allows current law barring it from doing business in the US to take effect on January 19th. How could the US government shutting down one of our nation's favorite new ways to communicate not constitute a massive First Amendment problem? Why did a majority of Congressional Democrats, the Biden administration and pre-election Donald Trump all agree that TikTok is a threat to national security? And when is Matt going to finally release his signature TikTok dance video? We answer two of these questions before dropping a quick footnote to look back on a stupid Congressperson's idea of a smart person's legal argument in support of overturning a democratic election. DC Circuit decision in Tiktok v. Garland (12/6/24) “What If Free Speech Means Banning TikTok?,” Alan Rozhenstein, The Atlantic (12/13/24) Redacted transcript of U.S. intelligence briefing to House Energy and Commerce Committee on March 7, 2024 filed with DC Circuit ACLU amicus brief in Tiktok v. Garland (12/27/24) Donald Trump's amicus brief in Tiktok v. Garland (12/30/24) Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (signed into law 4/24/24) “2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” John Roberts (12/30/24) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!
NEW: Send us Your Comments!This Week's Topics:Opening Comments 1:00Prayer for Jan 6th Prisoners 7:00Video: Left Lied about Jan 6th 9:30The Tipping Point this Week 15:30VIDEO: WE Killed the Bill!!! 20:30The Threat to RINO's is Now REAL! 30:00Corrupt Fed. Gov goes after Musk 35:00No vote on KOSA - Bad vote on SS 39:00VIDEO: Trump is a Phenomenon 46:00Fat Fani is Gone - Media is Terrified 48:00Trump to fight Work from Home 51:30Biden was out of it BEFORE 2020! 52:00They Spent $1 Billion Pushing DEI 55:00Must Watch Jeffrey Sachs Video 56:30More Drone Facts! 1:05:30China Serious Attacks on US 1:13:00Trudeau May be Gone! 1:20:00Marijuana IS a Gateway Drug! 1:23:30Trump wants to Privatize Post Office 1:26:00Yet ANOTHER Race Hoax! 1:31:00Sen. Kennedy Drills NCAA over Trans 1:34:00Derek Chauvin must be Pardoned 1:38:00OpenAI Critic found Dead 1:40:00Ohio Cuts Regulations using AI 1:41:30OH Teacher wins $450K in Trans Case 1:45:30WTPC files Amicus Brief in CTA Case 1:49:00View our Podcast and our other videos and news stories at:www.WethePeopleConvention.orgSend Comments and Suggestions to:info@WethePeopleConvention.org
In this episode, I have the pleasure of speaking with Diana Lutfi, a bioethics and legal scholar, who recently authored an amicus brief on behalf of the detransitioners community in the Supreme Court case, United States of America v. Jonathan Skrmetti. We dive deep into the implications of this landmark case, which challenges Tennessee's prohibition on “gender-affirming care” for minors. Diana explains how this case could set a precedent affecting similar laws in 26 states, raising critical questions about the future of sex trait modification.We discuss the complexities surrounding the concept of "standards of care" in pediatric gender treatment, particularly how these standards can be influenced by political agendas rather than solid evidence. Diana emphasizes the importance of recognizing biological differences in healthcare and the inherent discrimination that occurs in medical treatment based on sex. We also explore the tension between parental rights, state regulations, and the autonomy of minors in making life-altering decisions.Throughout our conversation, we aim to uncover the broader implications of this case for healthcare policy and the ethical considerations surrounding permanent sex trait alteration for minors. Join us as we navigate these challenging topics and seek to understand the stakes involved for individuals and families facing these critical decisions.Read the amicus brief here.Donate to support Diana's work.Diana Lutfi, JD, MSHCM, CPHQ is a legal and bioethics scholar, healthcare professional, and advocate of patients' and providers' rights. Marked by a history of public service, Diana founded sustainable high school programs and pioneered a TEDx Youth movement in Southern California. She founded a large (100+ students) credit-bearing worldviews course at UC Berkeley. During the pandemic, Diana successfully challenged and changed Colorado Nursing Board rules, decreasing the red tape around reinstatements. Diana has avidly worked to protect patients' rights amidst healthcare policy, helped physicians write policy proposals, and most recently authored a Supreme Court amicus on behalf of the larger detransitioners community. In her professional career, Diana was a human subjects researcher, healthcare administrator, educator, and projects consultant. She has extensively investigated issues around access, autonomy, bodily integrity, and coercion in healthcare. Diana has consciously positioned herself to defend health freedom and protect healthcare providers seeking to reform our healthcare system.View my complete list of book recommendations, including those written by authors who have been guests on this show, at https://sometherapist.com/bookshop.As an Amazon affiliate, I earn a small commission from qualifying purchases made through affiliate links from my show notes or website. Thank you for purchases that support the show! 00:00 Start[00:02:16] Supreme Court case on gender care.[00:04:30] Access to gender-affirming care.[00:10:43] Standards of care in pediatrics.[00:12:46] Power dynamics in healthcare dissent.[00:20:45] Expanding rights and access.[00:24:01] Detransitioner community's legal advocacy.[00:26:35] Healthcare discrimination and reference ranges.[00:30:54] Testicular cancer and hormones.[00:35:54] Pediatric gender transition regulations.[00:40:51] Healthcare discrimination and exceptions.[00:47:54] Life-altering decisions in youth.[00:49:18] Autonomy in minors' healthcare decisions.[00:56:19] State prohibition on gender-affirming care.[00:57:31] Right to bodily integrity.[01:02:41] Consequences of pediatric gender-affirming care.[01:06:38] Risk factors for suicide.[01:11:08] Minor autonomy and permanent decisions.[01:17:27] Protecting individual rights through experience.[01:20:05] Future of the Skrmetti case.[01:24:17] Gender affirming care reality.ROGD REPAIR Course + Community for Parents is available now! Are you concerned about an adolescent or young adult with Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria? Join at ROGDrepair.com and get instant access to over 100 lessons designed to equip you with the psychological insights and communication tools you need to get through to your kid. Use code SOMETHERAPIST2024 to take 50% off your first month.TALK TO ME: book a discovery call.SUPPORT THE SHOW: subscribe, like, comment, & share or donate.EIGHTSLEEP: Take $200 off your EightSleep Pod Pro Cover with code SOMETHERAPIST.ORGANIFI: Take 20% off Organifi with code SOMETHERAPIST.Watch NO WAY BACK: The Reality of Gender-Affirming Care. Use code SOMETHERAPIST to take 20% off your order. Follow us on X @2022affirmation or Instagram at @affirmationgeneration. SHOW NOTES & transcript with help from SwellAI.MUSIC: Thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude & permission.PRODUCTION: Looking for your own podcast producer? Visit PodsByNick.com and mention my podcast for 20% off your initial services. To support this show, please leave a rating & review on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe, like, comment & share via my YouTube channel. Or recommend this to a friend!Learn more about Do No Harm.Take $200 off your EightSleep Pod Pro Cover with code SOMETHERAPIST at EightSleep.com.Take 20% off all superfood beverages with code SOMETHERAPIST at Organifi.Check out my shop for book recommendations + wellness products.Show notes & transcript provided with the help of SwellAI.Special thanks to Joey Pecoraro for our theme song, “Half Awake,” used with gratitude and permission.
Title: Election Experts Warn of 'Destabilizing Unrest' amidst Trump Case: A Call to the Supreme Court A tumultuous climate of potential 'destabilizing unrest' has been forecasted by legal scholars if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) fails to arrive at a swift decision concerning the Trump case, underlining the urgency of an escalating situation that holds the potential to stir a constitutional crisis. This stark warning was issued through an Amicus Brief to SCOTUS, emphasizing that the chance of a full-blown constitutional crisis is 'disturbingly high.' The lawyers raising this warning registered their deep concerns about the directional course of the nation. Highlighting the potentiality of an unsettling clash between different arms of the government, they painted a scenario that unarguably threatens the bedrock of constitutional democracy.Former President Donald Trump, who currently finds himself in the eye of the storm, continues to be a dominant figure in American politics, with his trail of controversies tending to follow suit. The case in point, causing a significant stir among legal and political scholars alike, seeks to assess whether Trump misused his executive powers while in office, an issue that holds dire implications for American democratic institutions if left unresolved.Parallel to these developments, independent commentators like Jack Smith have also weighed in on the situation. Smith, a respected political analyst, delineates the case amongst his followers as a crucial precedent-setter. He rights that "the vigour with which this case is addressed and resolved by the Supreme Court can impart conspicuous message about the rule of law in the United States."As Smith points out, the stakes are high as the case goes beyond Trump as an individual and touches upon the broader implications for executive power and constitutional democracy in the United States.Caught between a fast-approaching constitutional crisis and the need to uphold democratic norms, commentators, legal scholars and the general public alike wait with bated breath for the SCOTUS ruling. The case underscores the delicate balance that the country's top court is mandated to maintain – safeguarding democratic institutions while resolving fiercely contested issues in the fabric of the nation's politics.As the tension mounts, the nation braces for a landmark judgment that will shape the course of American democratic practice in the years to come. From political celebrities to common citizens, all eyes rest on SCOTUS, underscoring the urgency of a swift, fair, and just ruling.
FAIR News Weekly | 10/30/24
Head to https://factormeals.com/edb50 and use edb50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next box!Get 20% OFF @honeylove by going to https://www.honeylove.com/LAWNERD! #honeylovepod #adControl Body Odor ANYWHERE with @lumedeodorant and get 15% off with promo code LAWNERD at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod #adSean Diddy Combs requests a gag order to limit what is being said while more civil cases are filed against him. He doesn't want the civil case to poorly affect his criminal case as witnesses make so called “inflammatory statements” about him. The ACLU of MA filed an Amicus Brief in support of Karen Read echoing many of the sentiments that her attorneys have made. As of October 20th, 2024, Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully will no longer serve as unit commander of the state Police Detective Unit.New evidence in the Menendez Brothers case might get them resentenced. Roy Rossello, a member of the Menudo, came forward about being sexually assaulted by the Menendez Brothers' father at their home. Their cousin also wrote a letter stating that he knew about the Menendez Brothers' abuse before the first trial that didn't come into evidence on the second trial.RESOURCESTom Girardi - https://youtu.be/9ohW1KIMgh8 Menendez Brothers - https://youtu.be/BSvbXei7k1wThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy
On December 4th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that could decide the fate of gender-affirming care for trans people across the country. Outward's own Jules Gill Peterson contributed to an amicus brief for the case, a document that provides expertise and historical context to assist the court in making it's decision. In this episode, Bryan and Christina reunite with Jules to break down her contributions to the document and dive into the history of transition and the powerful voices of trans youth from across time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dear Prudence | Advice on relationships, sex, work, family, and life
On December 4th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that could decide the fate of gender-affirming care for trans people across the country. Outward's own Jules Gill Peterson contributed to an amicus brief for the case, a document that provides expertise and historical context to assist the court in making it's decision. In this episode, Bryan and Christina reunite with Jules to break down her contributions to the document and dive into the history of transition and the powerful voices of trans youth from across time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On December 4th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that could decide the fate of gender-affirming care for trans people across the country. Outward's own Jules Gill Peterson contributed to an amicus brief for the case, a document that provides expertise and historical context to assist the court in making it's decision. In this episode, Bryan and Christina reunite with Jules to break down her contributions to the document and dive into the history of transition and the powerful voices of trans youth from across time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On December 4th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that could decide the fate of gender-affirming care for trans people across the country. Outward's own Jules Gill Peterson contributed to an amicus brief for the case, a document that provides expertise and historical context to assist the court in making it's decision. In this episode, Bryan and Christina reunite with Jules to break down her contributions to the document and dive into the history of transition and the powerful voices of trans youth from across time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On December 4th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for U.S. v. Skrmetti, a case that could decide the fate of gender-affirming care for trans people across the country. Outward's own Jules Gill Peterson contributed to an amicus brief for the case, a document that provides expertise and historical context to assist the court in making it's decision. In this episode, Bryan and Christina reunite with Jules to break down her contributions to the document and dive into the history of transition and the powerful voices of trans youth from across time. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts have submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts in support of Karen Read's ongoing legal battle. Read, a former adjunct professor from Mansfield, is appealing to have two charges dismissed in her murder case. The ACLU's brief was accepted by the court but did not immediately reveal their stance or include a summary of their position. Karen Read faces accusations related to the death of Boston police officer John O'Keefe, who prosecutors claim was struck by Read's SUV and left to die in the snow following a night out in Canton. Read, however, maintains her innocence, contending that O'Keefe was assaulted inside the house of another Boston officer, Brian Albert, before being left outside. Her first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury, comprising six men and six women, reached a deadlock. Some jurors have since come forward, stating they had reached a consensus to acquit her of the charges of second-degree murder and leaving the scene. Following the mistrial, Read's defense sought to have these two charges dismissed. Judge Beverly Cannone denied this motion, leading to the appeal now before the SJC. Read's legal team contends that the jury's alleged agreement should constitute an acquittal on these counts and argues that protections against double jeopardy should prevent a retrial on the charges. “The court relied solely upon the lack of an ‘open and public verdict affirmed in open court,'” the defense wrote, referencing Judge Cannone's decision. “This reasoning is rooted in a formalism that has been consistently rejected by the United States Supreme Court and this Court in a string of precedents spanning more than one hundred years.” The defense also believes that the Supreme Judicial Court should allow a post-trial inquiry into the jury's statements, which they argue constitutes an “overt factor” that should prompt further investigation. Additionally, they are questioning Judge Cannone's decision to declare a mistrial when she did, given the alleged consensus from the jurors. District Attorney Michael Morrissey, responding to the appeal, has appointed Attorney Hank Brennan as special prosecutor for Read's case. Brennan, known for his work in other high-profile cases, will lead the prosecution when Read's second trial, currently scheduled for January 27, begins. The Norfolk District Attorney's Office stated that their response to Read's appeal will be submitted by the court's deadline, with Read's attorneys expected to reply shortly after. Should the Supreme Judicial Court side with Read's defense and dismiss the charges, it would mark a significant development in a case that has drawn extensive public and media attention. If the charges are upheld, Read faces up to life in prison for second-degree murder, as well as significant penalties on charges of manslaughter while operating under the influence and leaving the scene of a personal injury and death. Throughout the trial, prosecutors faced setbacks, including complications with surveillance footage and misconduct among investigators, which has contributed to the intense scrutiny of the case. The defense has also raised these issues in their appeal, seeking to underscore what they argue are critical flaws in the prosecution's case. With oral arguments scheduled to take place before the SJC, Read and her legal team are preparing for a pivotal hearing that could determine the course of the upcoming trial. For now, the court's decision will hinge on whether the defense's arguments regarding jury consensus, double jeopardy, and procedural conduct are persuasive enough to merit the dismissal of charges or, at the very least, a re-evaluation of the trial's conduct. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
In This Episode Erin and Weer'd discuss: Operation Blazing Sword - Pink Pistols joining an Amicus Brief for the plaintiffs in the case of Commonwealth v. Donnell, and how that may affect gun owners traveling through Massachusetts; two court wins for concealed carry in New York and Maryland; a win against New Jersey's assault weapons bans and a similar pending case in New York. Xander talks about the benefits of training, both for cyber security and for firearm ownership; and David continues his series on zeroing guns, this time for red dots and pistols. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Main Topic Amici Brief filed in Commonwealth v Donnell Commonwealth v. Donnell case (PDF) AC Brief (PDF) Federal Court Declares Maryland Gun Carry Restrictions Unconstitutional in Landmark Ruling New York County Tries to Tap Out of Lawsuit Challenging Its Carry Policies Lane v. Rocah - FPC-Backed Challenge to New York's "Assault Weapons" Ban N.J.'s ban on AR-15 ‘assault' rifles is unconstitutional, federal court rules Independent Thoughts with Xander Darknet Diaries Social Engineer Podcast Jayson Street Defcon Talk The Dadvocate Gun Lovers and Other Strangers ACP Episode 307 Analog Collimator Boresight - Spud Analog Collimator Boresight - Magnet Laser Boresight Cartridge Laser Boresight Co-Witness Ransom Rest Rifle Bench Rest Assembly Forgotten Weapons: Cheap vs Expensive Red Dots Brena Bock Author Page David Bock Author Page Team And More
NCLA, with its founder Professor Philip Hamburger, has filed a crucial amicus curiae brief in the case of New York v. Donald Trump. They are challenging a New York law used by Attorney General Letitia James to prosecute Trump for alleged fraud. Unlike typical fraud cases, New York Executive Law § 63.12 allows for penalties simply for making incorrect business statements, without needing to prove intent or harm. NCLA argues that this law infringes on First Amendment rights and is urging the court to overturn it to safeguard free speech for everyone. In this episode, Mark, Vec, and Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin discuss the case and its broader implications.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
ALSO - Free speech, paid speech, forced speech and those who don't speak!
We look at the Amicus Brief by TxValues and 30 other Pro-Life orgs. CONGRATULATIONS to Fredericksburg, Texas - They now have decided that mass surveillance is the answer! Cameras going up in town! You get the government you deserve.
For a long time, the Court operated under what was called Legal Formalism. Legal formalism said that the job of any judge or justice was incredibly narrow. It was to basically look at the question of the case in front of them, check that question against any existing laws, and then make a decision. Unlike today, no one was going out of their way to hear what economists or sociologists or historians thought. Judges were just sticking to law books. The rationale for this way of judging was that if you always and only look at clean, dry law the decisions would be completely objective.In the late 19th, early 20th century a movement rose up to challenge legal formalism. They called themselves the legal realists. Fred Schauer, professor of law at University of Virginia. says the Realists felt that the justices weren't actually as objective as they said they were. "Supreme Court justices were often making decisions based on their own political views, their own economic views, and would disguise it in the language of precedence or earlier decisions," says Schauer. The realists said lets just accept that reality and wanted to arm the judges with more information so those judges could make more informed decisions.For a long time the debate between realists and formalists had been mostly theoretical. That is until the arrival of the Brandeis Brief. The Brandeis brief came during a pivotal court case in the early 20th century. And the man at the center of that case was a legal realist and progressive reformer named Louis Brandeis.Fact Checking the Supreme Court
6/04/2024 PODCAST Episodes #1398 - #1400 GUEST: Brian Glenn, Michael Faulkender, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, Christine Serrano-Glassner, Rep. Andy Ogles, Charles Roberts, Jonathan Emord, Chris Rohland, Steve Stern + YOUR CALLS! at 1-888-480-JOHN (5646) and GETTR Live! @jfradioshow #GodzillaOfTruth #TruckingTheTruth Want more of today's show? Episode #1398 Fauci and Biden Illegal Amnesty Rocks House GOP Episode #1399 Andy Ogles Defends and Explains His Financial Disclosure Debacle Episode #1400 VA Lawyers Go On Offense-Launch Trump Scam Trial Amicus Brief https://johnfredericksradio.libsyn.com/
NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief in Cigar Association of America v. FDA, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the “remand without vacatur” legal doctrine. This dubious practice allows administrative agencies to continue enforcing rules the court has just declared unlawful. The doctrine creates a legal category unknown to the law: Unlawful but enforceable rules. Instead of sending them back, courts must set aside unlawful rules.Mark and Vec discuss the case in this episode. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
NCLA filed an amicus curiae brief in U.S. v. Pheasant, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to affirm a decision barring the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from wielding legislative power to criminalize activity on public lands. Gregory Pheasant was charged with three violations of BLM rules for allegedly failing to use a taillight on his dirt bike at night on federal land in Nevada. A federal district court dismissed the charges, ruling that Congress unconstitutionally delegated “virtually unfettered” legislative power to criminalize activities on BLM-managed lands. NCLA asks the Ninth Circuit to uphold this decision and reasoning. In this episode, Mark and Vec are joined by NCLA's Kara Rollins to discuss the case. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Join hosts Justice Rhonda Wood of Arkansas and Justice Beth Walker of West Virginia as they delve into the recent Supreme Court of the United States decision in Lindke v. Freed. Their discussion shines a light on how this ruling affects the public, public officials, and state court judges. Special guest Caroline Mackie, Partner at Poyner Spruill, LLP, provides an insightful, in-depth analysis of the case. They explore the delicate balance between promoting public confidence and education via social media while upholding the First Amendment rights of the public and public officials. Discussion Points: -Analysis of Kevin Lindke's Lawsuit Against James Freed for First Amendment Violation -Impact of Lindke v. Freed Decision on Public Officials and First Amendment Rights -Caroline Mackie's Amicus Brief: Advocating for Clear Social Media Guidelines for Public Figures -Examining the Intersection of Private and Public Life on Social Media Platforms for Public Officials -Tips for Navigating Social Media for Public Figures, as outlined by Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett's Opinion Resources: - Supreme Court Case https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/22-611.html - Amicus Brief https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-611/270245/20230630170439817_22-611%20Amicus%20BOM%20IMLA.pdf
This week; a long list of retired Admirals and Generals filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Trump's upcoming absolute immunity argument.In Florida, Judge Cannon grants, in part, Smith's motion to reconsider releasing witness names and statements. Cannon also set an April 12th hearing for Nauta's and de Oliveira's Motions to Dismiss. Andy has some fun going over the transcript of Nauta's FBI interview.Plus, a couple of listener questions, and more!Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCould the Special Counsel Challenge Judge Cannon's Jury Instructions Before They're Delivered? | Lawfarehttps://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/could-the-special-counsel-challenge-judge-cannon-s-jury-instructions-before-they-re-delivered Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ Brian Greer's Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P
On this week's show Patrick and Adam discuss the week's security news, including: Weather forecast in Redmond is still for blizzards at midnight Maybe Change Healthcare wasn't just crying nation-state wolf Hackers abuse e-prescription systems to sell drugs CISA goes above and beyond to relate to its constituency by getting its Ivantis owned VMware drinks from the Tianfu Cup Much, much more This week's feature guest is John P Carlin. He was principal associate deputy attorney general under Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco for about 18 months in 2021 and 2022, and also served as Robert Mueller's chief of staff when he was FBI director. John is joining us this week to talk about all things SEC. He wrote the recent Amicus Brief that says the SEC needs to be careful in its action against Solarwinds. He'll also be talking to us more generally about these new SEC disclosure requirements, which are in full swing. Rad founder Jimmy Mesta will along in this week's sponsor segment to talk about some really interesting work they've done in baselining cloud workloads. It's the sort of thing that sounds simple that really, really isn't. Show notes Risky Biz News: The aftermath of Microsoft's SVR hack is rearing its ugly head Swindled Blackcat affiliate wants money from Change Healthcare ransom - Blog | Menlo Security BlackCat Ransomware Group Implodes After Apparent $22M Payment by Change Healthcare – Krebs on Security Change Healthcare systems expected to come back online in mid-March | Cybersecurity Dive LockBit takes credit for February shutdown of South African pension fund Ransomware gang claims to have made $3.4 million after attacking children's hospital Jason D. Clinton on X: "Fully automated vulnerability research is changing the cybersecurity landscape Claude 3 Opus is capable of reading source code and identifying complex security vulnerabilities used by APTs. But scaling is still a challenge. Demo: https://t.co/UfLNGdkLp8 This is beginner-level… https://t.co/mMQb2vYln1" / X Jason Koebler on X: "Hackers are hacking doctors, then using their digital prescription portals to "legitimately" prescribe themselves & their customers adderall, oxy, and other prescription drugs https://t.co/6elTKQnXSB" / X How Hackers Dox Doctors to Order Mountains of Oxy and Adderall CISA forced to take two systems offline last month after Ivanti compromise VMware sandbox escape bugs are so critical, patches are released for end-of-life products | Ars Technica A Close Up Look at the Consumer Data Broker Radaris – Krebs on Security Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials Securities and Exchange Commission v Solarwinds Corp
On this week's show Patrick and Adam discuss the week's security news, including: Weather forecast in Redmond is still for blizzards at midnight Maybe Change Healthcare wasn't just crying nation-state wolf Hackers abuse e-prescription systems to sell drugs CISA goes above and beyond to relate to its constituency by getting its Ivantis owned VMware drinks from the Tianfu Cup Much, much more This week's feature guest is John P Carlin. He was principal associate deputy attorney general under Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco for about 18 months in 2021 and 2022, and also served as Robert Mueller's chief of staff when he was FBI director. John is joining us this week to talk about all things SEC. He wrote the recent Amicus Brief that says the SEC needs to be careful in its action against Solarwinds. He'll also be talking to us more generally about these new SEC disclosure requirements, which are in full swing. Rad founder Jimmy Mesta will along in this week's sponsor segment to talk about some really interesting work they've done in baselining cloud workloads. It's the sort of thing that sounds simple that really, really isn't. Show notes Risky Biz News: The aftermath of Microsoft's SVR hack is rearing its ugly head Swindled Blackcat affiliate wants money from Change Healthcare ransom - Blog | Menlo Security BlackCat Ransomware Group Implodes After Apparent $22M Payment by Change Healthcare – Krebs on Security Change Healthcare systems expected to come back online in mid-March | Cybersecurity Dive LockBit takes credit for February shutdown of South African pension fund Ransomware gang claims to have made $3.4 million after attacking children's hospital Jason D. Clinton on X: "Fully automated vulnerability research is changing the cybersecurity landscape Claude 3 Opus is capable of reading source code and identifying complex security vulnerabilities used by APTs. But scaling is still a challenge. Demo: https://t.co/UfLNGdkLp8 This is beginner-level… https://t.co/mMQb2vYln1" / X Jason Koebler on X: "Hackers are hacking doctors, then using their digital prescription portals to "legitimately" prescribe themselves & their customers adderall, oxy, and other prescription drugs https://t.co/6elTKQnXSB" / X How Hackers Dox Doctors to Order Mountains of Oxy and Adderall CISA forced to take two systems offline last month after Ivanti compromise VMware sandbox escape bugs are so critical, patches are released for end-of-life products | Ars Technica A Close Up Look at the Consumer Data Broker Radaris – Krebs on Security Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials Securities and Exchange Commission v Solarwinds Corp
The Attorneys General of 8 states have filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit against Kraken by the SEC, effectively arguing that the SEC is way overstepping its bounds. Today's Show Brought To You By Kraken - Go to https://kraken.com/thebreakdown and see what crypto can be Ledger - 5% to Bitcoin Developers When You Buy https://shop.ledger.com/pages/bitcoin-hardware-wallet Enjoying this content? SUBSCRIBE to the Podcast: https://pod.link/1438693620 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/nathanielwhittemorecrypto Subscribe to the newsletter: https://breakdown.beehiiv.com/ Join the discussion: https://discord.gg/VrKRrfKCz8 Follow on Twitter: NLW: https://twitter.com/nlw Breakdown: https://twitter.com/BreakdownNLW
Should the government be able to order social media platforms to host political speech? Does the First Amendment even exist any more? And do we really have to side with Justice Kavanaugh on this one? Liz talks to TechFreedom's Corbin Barthold about the Netchoice cases. Links: Tech Policy Podcast https://podcast.techfreedom.org/ Moody v. Netchoice (Texas Docket) https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-555.html Moody v. Netchoice (Florida Docket) https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-277.html TechFreedom's Amicus Brief in Netchoice https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-555/292534/20231207074245073_TechFreedom%20VIDED%20amicus%20brief%2022-277%2022-555.pdf Oral Argument Moody v. Netchoice (Florida case) https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-277 Oral Argument Moody v. Netchoice (Texas case) https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-555 Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, which involved challenges to attempts by Texas and Florida to prevent social media sites from banning viewpoint discrimination. The challenges were brought by NetChoice, which argues that the laws' content-moderation restrictions and must-carry provisions violate the First Amendment. The case could determine the future of our most important platforms, from Facebook to X to YouTube. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School recap the key issues in both cases; discuss the ideas raised in oral arguments; and preview the wide-ranging impacts these cases may bring. Resources: Moody v. NetChoice (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) NetChoice v. Paxton (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Larry Lessig, Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents Alex Abdo, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party Lochner v. New York (1905) PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel (1985) Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook, X, and TikTok using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Frontier Institute, a Montana grassroots research and policy organization, has filed an Amicus Brief to the Montana Supreme Court as the high court considers the state's appeal of the Held Vs. Montana decision, where a district judge ruled the state […] The post Court Authority, Standing Challenged in Held v. MT Amicus Brief first appeared on Voices of Montana.
Former AG Edwin Meese submitted an Amicus Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing Jack Smith must be disqualified from the Trump J6 case before the prosecution can move forward.Trump's defense attorneys revealed they are planning to file 10+ major motions in the classified documents case, including possibly a motion to disqualify Jack Smith and to dismiss the case for vindictive prosecution.Letitia James revealed she is preparing to seize Trump's properties in New York if he does not comply with Judge Engoron's $450+ million order. Meanwhile, Trump's team asked the Court to follow the rules and include the Defense in the judgment process.
There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also: Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also: Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There haven't been that many insurrections in the United States, which means the case law ahead of next week's arguments in Trump v. Anderson (the 14th Amendment, Section 3 disqualification case) is pretty thin. And so we, and presumably the justices, must rely on text and history to understand the intent of the drafters of the Reconstruction Amendments. Civil war and reconstruction historian Professor Manisha Sinha, signatory of one amicus brief and cited in another, explains that the history is crystal clear. Trump must be disqualified from the ballot. After weeks of discussing concerns about the strategic, political implications of this case, this week Dahlia Lithwick tackles the text and the history head-on, in a case that's almost a natural experiment in applying originalism on its own terms. See also: Amicus Brief signed by 25 civil war and reconstruction historians (including Professor Sinha) Abraham Lincoln's Lyceum Address Sean Wilentz: The Case for Disqualification, New York Review of Books Jamelle Bouie: If It Walks Like an Insurrection and Talks Like an Insurrection... NY Times In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Slate's judicial diviner Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on abortion that really took both text and history and human rights seriously. Also, an 8th circuit decision that could put a stake in the heart of what remains of the voting rights act. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The legal world is abuzz with the impending oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson in a couple of weeks. In the forefront are the powerful arguments and compelling history that are introduced in the amicus brief from the Professors Amar. We continue to delve into the principal lines of reasoning in the brief, and how they take the starch out for some of the tropes that were found in the media. When you take the history one step at a time it is hard to escape the obvious parallels with the actions and inactions of ex-President Trump, and how they precisely align with the concerns the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had that prompted them to advocate for and ultimately author, pass, and successfully ratify Section Three. Will the Court see it this way? Time will tell, but follow the discussion as we take you through it. CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
This first half of tonight's discussion is a full briefing on the Amicus effort with the attorney who led he team that put it all together, Warren Mendenhall. He describes the process, the historical nature of the Amicus achievements, and where things go from here. He thanks the 3200 people who were able to get signed on and support the process. One state cannot eliminate everyone's right to vote for a candidate. It's not about the President, it's about the voters. The people of the United States have stood up, and we will be heard.
Tore leads the conversation on the courts, the people and what changes the Amicus strategy may generate. Other parental rights cases apply as well. On those, failure may mean another trip to SCOTUS. We're making changes so don't let anyone deny it. There are many egregious stories involving the law, the VAXXX and exemptions. Callers include Nate Cain, Representative candidate for West Virginia's District 2. More flare ups are happening within conservative media. Why are they attacking the people's efforts? Always keep your enemies close. We should all be thankful our eyes are being opened. Our country will be stronger for it.
On January 17, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce—two cases that ask whether the Court should overturn the landmark Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council case. In this episode, guests Christopher Walker of Michigan Law School and Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institue join to recap the arguments in both cases and to explore the future of Chevron and the administrative state. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Relentless v. Department of Commerce (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Christopher Walker, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Timothy Sandefur, Amicus Brief of Goldwater Institute in Support of Petitioners, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo Chevron U.S.A. Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Several cases before the Supreme Court raise important questions at the intersection of technology and law. Join legal experts Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute, and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation for a conversation exploring key tech cases, including whether Florida and Texas can regulate the platforms' content moderation policies. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Knight Institute's Amicus Brief (in support of neither party), Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton Clay Calvert, “Friends of the Court, Friends of the First Amendment: Exploring Amicus Brief Support for Platforms' Editorial Independence,” AEI (Dec. 22, 2023) Knight Institute Amicus Brief in Murthy v. Missouri (in support of neither party) Clay Calvert, “Persuasion or Coercion? Understanding the Government's Position in Murthy v. Missouri, Part I,” AEI (Jan. 8, 2024) David Greene, “In Jawboning Cases, there's no getting away from textual analysis,” Knight First Amendment Institute (Nov. 7, 2023) David Greene, EFF Amicus Brief in O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed (in support of Lindke and Garnier) Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1974) Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.
Trump gets legal support from Vivek Ramaswamy after he filed an Amicus Brief at the Supreme Court arguing against Trump's removal from the 2024 ballots in Colorado. Unlike other GOP candidates, Vivek has consistently opposed all efforts to disqualify Trump brought by partisan operators.The Fani-Wade Lovebirds are now under Congressional Investigation after Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan sent a letter to Fulton County demanding answers about illegal billing records and collusion with the January 6th Committee.Biden's DHS filed an urgent memo with the U.S. Supreme Court complaining that Texas has SEIZED control of their broken border and demanding they return access immediately.
Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State determined that President Trump “engaged in an insurrection” after taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and that he is therefore disqualified from serving as president under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In this episode, professors Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law Houston and Gerard Magliocca of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law dive into the meaning and purpose of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and the arguments for and against Trump's eligibility to run for a second term this fall. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources: Jeffrey Rosen, “The Supreme Court's Election Dilemma,” WSJ (Jan. 5, 2024) Gerard Magliocca, “Background as Foreground: Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment and January Sixth,” (Dec. 21, 2022) Gerard Magliocca, “Amnesty and Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” (July 20, 2021) Gerard Magliocca, “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump's Disqualification Case,” NY Times (Jan. 5, 2024) Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Sweeping and Forcing the President into Section Three,” (Sept. 19, 2023) Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, “Is the President an ‘Officer of the United States' for Purposes of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment?” (Dec. 20, 2021) Josh Blackman & Seth Tillman, Amicus Brief in Support of Trump in Trump v. Anderson Griffin's Case (1869) The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
27 States joined an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court to oppose Trump's removal from the Colorado ballot, arguing the people in their states should be free to vote for the candidate of their choice.House Democrats attack Clarence Thomas, demanding he recuse himself from the Colorado Trump removal case pending before the Court. Pointing to actions by Thomas' wife, Ginny, Democrats AOC and Dan Goldman say Thomas has to go.Former Capitol Hill Police Officer Harry Dunn launched his Congressional campaign with a goofy video reenacting his bizarre interpretation of January 6th. Dunn, who by many accounts has repeatedly lied about his involvement in the "insurrection", is now selling books and running for Congress.
Tuesday, January 2nd, 2024Today, Trump's response brief in the immunity case is due to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals; Israel's high court strikes down Netanyahu's judicial overhaul law; more Americans can now get insulin for $35; McKinsey will pay $78 million in a U.S. opioid settlement over its work for drug firms like Purdue Pharma; an appeals court allows California's ban on guns in most public places to take effect. Plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news.Promo CodeGo to drinkAG1.com/dailybeans to try AG1 and get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3 AND K2 AND 5 FREE AG1 Travel Packs with your first purchase.More from our Guest:Dave Aronberghttps://twitter.com/aronbergDave Aronberg - YouTubehttps://linktr.ee/davearonbergHow We Win The House 2024!https://swingleft.org/fundraise/howwewin2024Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/products/fani-t-willis-teeSubscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodhttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily BeansFrom the Good Newshttps://ridingbeyond.orgSame Old Lang Syne by Dan Fogelberghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmZ2VHSkVYYListener 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?Supercast https://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts 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?Supercast https://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts The Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts
On Tuesday, December 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. United States. The case concerns a challenge to the “mandatory repatriation tax,” and asks whether the Constitution allows Congress to tax American shareholders for the unrealized earnings of a foreign corporation. In this episode, Akhil Amar of Yale Law School and Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the arguments on both sides of the case. The conversation touches on the history of taxation in the Founding era, the extent of Congressional power, and the very meaning of the word “taxation.” Resources: Anastasia Boden, Amicus Brief for Petitioners, Moore v. United States Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar, Amicus Brief for Respondents, Moore v. United States Moore v. United States (oral argument via C-SPAN) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Jon talks about recent developments in the SBC including Brent Leatherwood's press conference representing the parents of the victims of the Nashville shooter, a recent Amicus Brief filed by three Southern Baptist entities concerning statute of limitations in abuse cases against organizations, as well as Randy Adam's brief correcting polity misunderstandings filed by NAMB at the Supreme Court. #SBC #SouthernBaptist #ERLC #NashvilleShooting #manifestoSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/conversations-that-matter8971/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
On Tuesday, October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America. Industry groups representing payday lenders brought a challenge arguing that the CFPB funding structure is unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause. The outcome of the case could have big effects not just on the future of the CFPB itself, but on the economy, markets, and the future of the administrative state. In this episode, two leading constitutional law scholars and Supreme Court experts—Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Professor Jennifer Mascot of the Antonin Scalia Law School— join Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments in the CFPB case, what questions or issues the justices were the most focused on, and predict how the Court might rule. Resources: CFPB v. CFSAA (oral argument transcript) Brianne Gorod/Constitutional Accountability Center, Amicus Brief in support of petitioners Jennifer Mascott/Separation of Power Clinic, Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Amicus Brief of 132 members of Congress in support of respondents Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) Appropriations Clause, Interactive Constitution Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
