Podcast appearances and mentions of amy coney barrett

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories Jim and Greg covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch. This week they discuss former First Lady Jill Biden lying to us yet again about Joe Biden's condition in 2024, the attempted swatting of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Los Angeles […]

Top headlines for Monday, June 1, 2026A Pew survey finds politics still filling America's pulpits; a California pastor faces new murder and conspiracy charges in a former member's death; a court fight continues over teachers denied religious vaccine exemptions; and the Museum of the Bible launches America 250 programming.00:11 Most churchgoers say clergy talk about politics from pulpit01:04 2nd murder charge filed against pastor in case of missing member01:56 Appeals court urged to uphold $4M verdict in favor of teachers02:47 Talarico recants past statements on sex, gender03:39 Amy Coney Barrett targeted in attempted swatting04:28 Candace Owens challenged over Charlie Kirk, TPUSA successor claim05:14 Museum of the Bible launching new exhibits ahead of America 250Subscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsMost churchgoers say clergy talk about politics from pulpit | U.S.2nd murder charge filed against pastor in case of missing member | U.S.Appeals court urged to uphold $4M verdict in favor of teachers | U.S.Talarico recants past statements on sex, gender | PoliticsAmy Coney Barrett targeted in attempted swatting | U.S.Candace Owens challenged over Charlie Kirk, TPUSA successor claim | U.S.Museum of the Bible launching new exhibits ahead of America 250 | U.S.

Welcome to Last Call, a look at the biggest stories Jim and Greg covered over the past week on the 3 Martini Lunch.This week they discuss former First Lady Jill Biden lying to us yet again about Joe Biden's condition in 2024, the attempted swatting of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass facing allegations of flouting election laws, and Virginia Democrats postponing their congressional campaigns.First, Jim and Greg hammer Jill Biden after her CBS News interview in which she claimed she thought President Joe Biden was having a stroke during his 2024 debate against President Trump. She also insisted she had never seen Biden in that condition before or after that night. Jim and Greg call out her lies as Mrs. Biden pushes her new book.Next, they condemn the latest threat targeting a U.S. Supreme Court justice after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the target of an attempted swatting - sending police to a home under false pretenses. Thankfully, police quickly recognized the hoax before it escalated. Jim and Greg also reflect on how political violence and intimidation have continued to worsen since the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh four years ago.Then, they react to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass holding a campaign event next to a ballot drop box while supporters submitted ballots during the event. Challenger Spencer Pratt has filed a complaint alleging Bass violated election laws. Jim and Greg explain why ballot drop boxes are a horrible idea and how candidates just don't seem to care if they are breaking election laws.Finally, they have fun noting several Virginia Democrats are quietly ending their congressional campaigns now that this year's elections will be held under the existing congressional map and not the egregiously gerrymandered map struck down earlier this month by the Virginia Supreme Court.Please visit our great sponsors:Fast Growing TreesBetter plants, better growing, and an extra 20% off with code MARTINI at https://FastGrowingTrees.com/Martini for a limited time; terms and conditions may apply.New episodes every weekday. 

Tonight's show covers one of the wildest news cycles yet — from Trump's proposed $250 bill and Scott Bessent's viral press conference moments to Gavin Newsom's controversial tax comments and the growing backlash surrounding the Freedom 250 event.We break down the DOJ follow-up involving E. Jean Carroll, Jill Biden's awkward stroke-related comment, JD Vance at the Air Force Academy, and the latest updates involving Antifa funding questions and IRS nonprofit guidance. Plus, Trump clashes with Caitlin Collins while Scott Bessent delivers a brutal mic-drop response to Newsom's tax threat comments.Also in this episode: chaos at an ICE facility in Newark, threats targeting Ivanka Trump and Amy Coney Barrett, the shocking Swiss train station stabbing, growing concerns over mass immigration in Europe, and a controversial Australian doctor promoting pregnancy for trans women.Later, we dive into the Freedom 250 controversy as musicians begin backing out, Sean Davis criticizes organizers, and Amy Jo discusses the Foo Fighters fallout. We also cover Candace Owens speaking in Russia, Dave Rubin discussing allegations involving Hasan Piker, Project Constitution's feud with Erika Kirk, and lighter culture topics including Rosie O'Donnell, Patricia Heaton's silver hair glow-up, and TikTok trends.SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Go to https://ChicksLoveOliveOil.com and get a FREE full-size $49 bottle of Fresh-Pressed Olive Oil for just $1 shipping—no commitmentGet your free life insurance quote at https://Ethos.com/ChicksHead to https://NoblTravel.com for up to 46% off your entire order. Let them know the Chicks sent you. Lock in under $10/meal while beef prices climb with Backyard Butchers at https://BackyardButchers.com/Chicks  Code CHICKS auto-applies for 30% off first order + 2 free 10-oz ribeyes + free shipping!For a limited time, get two FREE gifts when you buy the Pocket Hose Ballistic—a 360° rotating Pocket Pivot and a Thumb Drive Nozzle—just text CHICKS to 64000, message and data rates may apply.Subscribe and stay tuned for new episodes every weekday!Follow us here for more daily clips, updates, and commentary:YoutubeFacebookInstagramTikTokXLocalsMore InfoWebsite

Your favourite Aunties, Ak, Farrah and Nana are back with another packed episode, joined by comedian and presenter Dane Baptiste.AUNTYVENTION

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan SentencedOn April 23, 1969, Sirhan Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a crime that had shaken the United States the previous year. The sentencing came after a highly publicized trial in Los Angeles, where prosecutors argued that the killing was deliberate and politically motivated. Evidence presented at trial included eyewitness accounts placing Sirhan at the scene and actively firing the fatal shots. His own recorded statements, which expressed hostility toward Kennedy, played a key role in establishing intent. The defense raised questions about Sirhan's mental state, but these arguments did not overcome the prosecution's narrative of premeditation.The jury ultimately found him guilty of first-degree murder, leading to the imposition of the death penalty under California law at the time. The sentence reflected both the gravity of the crime and the broader national trauma surrounding political assassinations in the 1960s. However, the legal status of capital punishment in California soon shifted dramatically. In 1972, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Anderson, which held that the death penalty as then applied violated the state constitution. As a result, Sirhan's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment, aligning his case with others affected by the ruling.The Sirhan case remains significant in legal history for its intersection with issues of political violence and criminal accountability. It also illustrates how broader constitutional developments can reshape individual sentences long after a trial concludes. Debates about his culpability and mental state have persisted, raising ongoing questions about the standards for criminal responsibility. At the same time, the case is frequently cited in discussions about the fairness and consistency of the death penalty. It stands as a reminder of how legal systems respond to acts that carry both criminal and profound national consequences.Anthropic has asked a federal court in California to rule in its favor in a copyright lawsuit brought by major music publishers, including Universal Music Group, over the use of song lyrics to train its AI chatbot, Claude. The company argues that its use of copyrighted lyrics qualifies as “fair use” because it is transformative, meaning the material was used to help the AI understand language rather than to reproduce songs. Anthropic claims this kind of use supports innovation across fields like science, business, and education.The publishers, including Concord and ABKCO, disagree and argue that the AI system can generate outputs that resemble or compete with their lyrics, potentially harming the market for original works. They originally filed the lawsuit in 2023, alleging that Anthropic copied lyrics from hundreds of songs by well-known artists without permission. This dispute is part of a broader wave of legal challenges against AI companies, including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, over how training data is used.Anthropic is seeking summary judgment, which would allow it to win the case without a full trial if the judge agrees that its actions were legally protected fair use. The outcome could be highly influential, as courts are currently split on whether AI training on copyrighted material is permissible. The company also emphasizes that copyright law is intended to benefit the public by encouraging innovation, not just to compensate creators.At the center of the case is a key legal question: whether copying large amounts of copyrighted material to train AI systems can be considered transformative use under copyright law. This issue is likely to shape future rulings as similar cases continue to move through the courts.Anthropic seeks pivotal court win in music publisher lawsuit over AI training | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Labor has introduced a proposed rule to clarify when multiple employers can be held jointly responsible for wage and hour violations. The rule, titled Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, is designed to create a clearer and more consistent standard across federal law. Officials say the goal is to resolve conflicting interpretations among federal courts and make compliance easier for businesses.According to acting Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling, the proposal aims to both simplify regulations for employers and strengthen protections for workers. The rule would mark the agency's first formal guidance on joint employment since the prior regulation from an earlier administration was rescinded without replacement. Unlike that earlier version, the new proposal would apply to multiple statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.The Department believes a uniform standard will reduce confusion, encourage better business practices, and ensure workers can recover wages or benefits even if one employer fails to pay. Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers emphasized that clearer rules can improve enforcement and reduce litigation.The proposal is currently open for public comment through June 22 and follows earlier signals that the agency planned to revisit joint employer standards.BREAKING: DOL Unveils Joint Employer Rule Proposal - Law360The U.S. Supreme Court signaled that it may side with the Federal Communications Commission in a dispute over how the agency issues fines to wireless carriers. The case involves major companies like Verizon Communications and AT&T, which argued that the FCC's internal enforcement process violates their constitutional right to a jury trial. The fines stem from findings that the companies failed to properly protect customer location data, resulting in penalties totaling over $100 million.During oral arguments, several justices expressed doubt about the companies' claims, suggesting that the FCC's forfeiture orders are not final or binding unless enforced in court. This distinction appeared central, as it implies companies still have the option to challenge the penalties before a judge and jury. Justices, including Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, compared the process to a legal choice—either accept the penalty or contest it through litigation.Some members of the Court, however, raised concerns about whether companies may feel pressured to comply due to uncertainty or reputational harm. John Roberts suggested the issue might be more about public perception than a direct legal burden, while Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether the FCC had been fully clear about the non-binding nature of its orders.The dispute comes amid broader scrutiny of federal agency power, especially following a 2024 decision limiting enforcement proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Despite that precedent, the justices did not appear ready to apply the same reasoning to the FCC's system. Lower courts had previously split on the issue, prompting Supreme Court review.A final decision is expected by late June and could clarify how far federal agencies can go in using internal processes to impose financial penalties.US Supreme Court leans toward FCC in clash with wireless carriers over fines | 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 Kim on a Whim, Kim St. Onge raises growing speculation that Samuel Alito could soon retire from the Supreme Court, potentially giving Donald Trump the opportunity to nominate another justice during his current term. The discussion compares ages of current justices including Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett while examining how another appointment could reshape the court. Possible replacements such as Ted Cruz and other conservative legal figures are floated, alongside debate over recent decisions and disappointment among conservatives with Barrett's rulings. The segment also highlights concerns about Senate control, confirmation strategy, and the long-term ideological balance of the court, including commentary on Ketanji Brown Jackson and the importance of appointing originalist judges. Hashtags: #KimOnAWhim #SamuelAlito #SupremeCourt #Trump #TedCruz #AmyConeyBarrett #ClarenceThomas #KetanjiBrownJackson #SCOTUS #JudicialAppointments

Hawk breaks down a clip from Steve Bannon's War Room featuring MAGA attorney Mike Davis, who repeatedly misrepresents what was actually before the court, falsely framing the case as being about undocumented immigrants and Chinese birth tourists rather than the actual constitutional question. Davis, who clerked for Neil Gorsuch and helped confirm both Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, is called out for being deliberately misleading to his audience despite clearly knowing better. The 14th Amendment states plainly that anyone born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. No executive order can override that language. Meanwhile, Trump's gold citizenship cards, selling U.S. citizenship for $5 million, highlight the selective and racially motivated nature of his immigration agenda. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB

It's Friday, April 3rd, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Pakistani Christian legislator's bill would end forced conversions to Islam On March 31st, a Pakistani Christian lawmaker introduced a bill to criminalize forced religious conversions to Islam with penalties of up to five years in prison, reports Morning Star News. Falbous Christopher submitted the Punjab Protection of the Rights of Religious Minorities Bill 2026 in a renewed attempt to address a long-standing human rights challenge affecting Pakistan's religious minorities, particularly Christian and Hindu women and underage girls. No doubt his bill was inspired by stories like Maira Shahbaz, a 14-year-old Christian girl, who was abducted and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man in April 2020. Micah 6:8 urges us “to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”  Abduction of girls, forced conversion to Islam, and forced marriages are out of keeping with all three. Trump: We'll be free from Iranian wickedness and nuclear blackmail On Wednesday night, President Donald Trump addressed the nation with an update on “Operation Epic Fury,” the United States war with Iran. TRUMP: “We are on track to complete all of America's military objectives shortly. We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing. “Regime change was not our goal. We never said regime change. But regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders' deaths. They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable. “Yet, if during this period of time, no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets. If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric-generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously. We have not hit their oil, even though that's the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. “They have no anti-aircraft equipment. Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force. The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B2 Bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust. “We have all the cards. They have none. They were the bully of the Middle East, but they're the bully no longer. Tonight, every American can look forward to a day when we are finally free from the wickedness of Iranian aggression and the specter of nuclear blackmail.” War Secretary Hegseth quoted from imprecatory Psalms On March 25th, War Secretary Pete Hegseth quoted from the imprecatory Psalms and invoked divine wrath against the enemies of the United States during introductory remarks he made at the first monthly prayer service at the Pentagon since the outbreak of the war in Iran, reported The Christian Post. Hegseth read from a military chaplain's prayer used ahead of the January 3rd, 2026 operation to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro which he implied was equally relevant in the battle against the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Listen. HEGSETH: "Almighty God, who trains our hands for war and our fingers for battle, You who stirred the nations from the north against Babylon of old, making her land a desolation where none dwell: behold now the wicked, who rise against Your justice and the peace of the righteous. "Snap the rod of the oppressor, frustrate the wicked plans of the ungodly. By the blast of Your anger, let the evil perish. Let their bulls go down to slaughter, for their day has come; the time of their punishment. Pour out Your wrath upon those who plot vain things and blow them away like chaff before the wind." Psalm 17:13 says, “Rise up, LORD, confront them, bring them down; with your sword. Rescue me from the wicked.” Constitution expert predicts Supreme Court will affirm birthright citizenship Appearing on The Human Events podcast, Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to affirm “birthright citizenship” for illegal aliens.  Listen. DAVIS: “I worry this is a 7-2 case.” JACK PROSOBIEC: “Wow!” DAVIS: “I worry that the only two justices who will have the courage to follow the law here are Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito. I worry that the Chief Justice [John Roberts] and the three Trump justices [Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett] will join the three leftists [Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson]  who will always vote against President Trump. “The law is so crystal clear here. We the people, the sovereign citizens of America, get to decide who comes, who goes, get to decide who our fellow citizens are. We certainly did not give that away after the Civil War. “The 14th Amendment, the birthright citizenship clause, was to correct an egregious wrong with the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that held that the freed slaves are not citizens. We fixed that with the 14th Amendment. There is a Supreme Court case that has extended that to lawful and permanent residents of the United States. “There is no way that the proponents of the 14th Amendment ever agreed to give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens!” If the Supreme Court does affirm birthright citizenship for illegal aliens it would be a major blow to both President Donald Trump's agenda and the Constitution. President Trump, first president to hear oral arguments, walked out Remarkably, President Trump heard the oral arguments in that birthright citizenship case in person, becoming the first sitting U.S. president ever to do so. At 11:20am on Wednesday, President Trump expressed his fury in a one-sentence post on Truth Social. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!” The Western Journal reported that on the day he took office in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing that only children born to parents “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are citizens, quoting from the Fourteenth Amendment. NASA launches Artemis II to travel around the moon And finally, on Wednesday night at 6:35pm Eastern, NASA launched the long-awaited Artemis II mission from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Listen. ANNOUNCER 1: “Here we go. 10-9-8-7 RS 25 engines lift 4-3-2-1. Booster ignition and lift off. The crew of Artemis II now bound for the moon. Humanity's next great voyage begins.” ANNOUNCER 2: “Good roll pitch.” ANNOUNCER 3: “Houston now controlling the flight of Integrity on the Artemis II mission around the moon.” The crew — NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman, Christina Koch and Victor Glover, as well as Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen — were the first people to launch toward the moon since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, more than 50 years ago, reported NBC News. However, they will not land on the lunar surface. Rather, the 10-day mission is designed as a step toward a landing in 2028, building a base on the moon, and eventually, toward NASA's goal of establishing a long-term presence on the moon. Living on the moon will involve inhabiting shielded, pressurized modules or underground lava tubes to protect against radiation, extreme temperatures, and toxic lunar dust. Among other issues for those who colonize the moon: How would they get power? How would they breathe? and How would they get food? Watch a live stream from the cockpit of Artemis II through a special link in our transcript today at www.TheWorldview.com. Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, April 3rd, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara regarding President Trump's executive order issued on his first day in office, which seeks to limit birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment by denying automatic U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States if their parents are undocumented or present on a temporary basis. Justices from across the ideological spectrum asked pointed questions about the order's interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment and whether the executive branch can unilaterally alter long-standing practice and precedent on citizenship. President Trump attended the arguments in person, the first time a sitting president has done so. Lower courts previously blocked the order as unconstitutional. What will the Supreme Court's decision mean for the future of birthright citizenship in the United States? We also cover: Artemis II successful launch. U.S. Army helicopter pilot suspended for Kid Rock fly-by? President Trump delivers an Easter message. Candace Owens responds to Trump “sue” critics. President Trump addresses the nation. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:15 Artemis II Launch 04:37 Kid Excited for Artemis II 05:09 Everyday Astronaut & Low-Earth Orbit 07:44 Live Footage from Artemis II 07:59 Audio Issues 08:25 Six Day Trip & Beating China to the Moon 12:05 Trump Visits Supreme Court over Birthright Citizenship 13:13 Ketanji Brown Jackson on Birthright Citizenship 18:18 Will Cain's Immigration Fun Facts 19:31 Amy Coney Barrett on Birthright Citizenship 22:00 Discussing Birthright Citizenship 32:00 Fat Five 48:14 Pat Gray BINGO! Begins Next Monday 50:44 Mike Huckabee's April Fools' Day Post 51:57 No Palm Sunday in Israel? 52:39 Trump's Easter Message 54:01 Trump's Message to Erika Kirk 55:42 Charlie Kirk Bullet Controversy 58:58 Death Penalty & Candace Owens 1:03:24 More Jeffrey Epstein Stories 1:07:44 Candace Owens' Conspiracies 1:19:50 Trump's Update on Iran Conflict 1:27:12 Military Air Training & Vehicle Transport 1:28:49 Price of Oil 1:30:43 Shomari Figures on Voter ID 1:32:31 EPA Loosens Regulations on Gasoline 1:33:01 Fidel Castro's Grandson is a Capitalist?! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Coinage Act of 1792On April 2, 1792, the United States took a major step toward economic independence with the passage of the Coinage Act of 1792. This law created the first national mint, later known as the United States Mint, and established a standardized system of coinage for the young nation. Before this act, Americans relied heavily on foreign coins, including Spanish dollars, which made trade inconsistent and difficult to regulate. The law introduced the U.S. dollar as the official unit of currency and set its value based on both gold and silver, adopting a bimetallic standard. It also defined specific denominations, including cents, dimes, and eagles, many of which are still in use today.A key legal feature of the act was its detailed regulation of coin composition and weight, ensuring uniformity and public trust in the currency. The law imposed strict penalties for debasing coins, including severe criminal consequences, reflecting how seriously the government treated monetary integrity. It also placed the Mint under federal authority, reinforcing the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to coin money and regulate its value. By standardizing currency, the act helped stabilize commerce and supported the growth of a national economy.The Coinage Act also carried symbolic importance, as it marked a break from colonial dependence on European financial systems. It demonstrated the federal government's capacity to create and enforce complex economic regulations. Over time, the framework it established influenced later monetary policies and reforms. The act remains a foundational piece of American financial law, shaping how currency is produced and regulated even today.The Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on April 1, 2026, over President Donald Trump's effort to restrict birthright citizenship, with Trump attending part of the session in person. The case centers on an executive order directing agencies to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are not citizens or permanent residents. Several justices from both ideological wings questioned the administration's lawyer closely, signaling skepticism about the legal basis of the policy.The administration argues that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutiondoes not guarantee citizenship to all individuals born on U.S. soil, emphasizing the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Government lawyers claim this language excludes children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. However, multiple justices challenged that interpretation, noting that historical understanding and past precedent support a broader reading.Chief Justice John Roberts described the administration's argument as difficult to reconcile with the narrow historical exceptions previously recognized. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to legislative history suggesting lawmakers intended citizenship to apply broadly to those born in the country. Justice Elena Kagan also questioned whether the administration relied on weak or selective historical sources. Conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, raised practical concerns about how the policy would be enforced, especially regarding determining parental intent to remain in the U.S.The challengers argue that the Court already settled the issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. Some justices suggested that Trump's position may conflict with that precedent. The case could have wide-reaching consequences, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of births each year and requiring families to prove citizenship status.The legal dispute reflects broader tensions over immigration policy and constitutional interpretation, particularly how historical meaning should be applied to modern circumstances. The Court is expected to issue a decision by late June, which could significantly reshape the understanding of citizenship in the United States.​​With Trump present, Supreme Court questions administration's lawyer on birthright citizenship | ReutersA federal judge has allowed a lawsuit by the American Bar Association to move forward against the administration of Donald Trump. The case claims the administration created an unlawful policy to target law firms based on their past legal work, diversity efforts, and political affiliations. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali found that the ABA plausibly alleged a coordinated effort to intimidate lawyers and firms whose views the government opposed.According to the ruling, the ABA provided enough detail to suggest the policy may have discouraged firms from taking cases against the administration. The organization argues this created a “chilling effect,” causing some lawyers to avoid certain clients or legal challenges out of fear of retaliation. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the policy is illegal and an order preventing its enforcement.The dispute stems from executive orders issued by Trump that targeted specific law firms by restricting their access to federal resources, revoking security clearances, and threatening government contracts tied to their clients. Several courts previously blocked those orders, finding they likely violated constitutional protections such as free speech and due process. The administration has appealed those earlier rulings.Government lawyers argued the ABA should not be allowed to sue because it was not directly targeted and therefore lacks standing. They also denied that any broader policy to intimidate firms exists and described the claims as speculative. However, the ABA pointed to statements suggesting additional firms could be targeted and argued the effects are ongoing.Judge Ali's decision does not resolve the case but allows it to proceed, meaning the courts will continue to examine whether the administration's actions unlawfully interfered with the legal profession.Trump administration must face ABA lawsuit over law firm orders, judge rules | ReutersLuigi Mangione appeared in federal court seeking to delay his upcoming trial related to the killing of a health insurance executive. Mangione is facing federal stalking charges connected to the 2024 shooting death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers argue the trial should be postponed because he is also preparing for a separate New York state murder trial scheduled to begin earlier in the summer. They say handling two major cases at once would make it difficult for him to prepare an adequate defense.Prosecutors oppose delaying the federal trial, though they are open to adjusting parts of the pretrial process, such as juror questionnaires, to ensure fairness. Jury selection in the federal case is currently set for September, with opening statements planned for October. Mangione has been in custody since his arrest shortly after the shooting.A significant development in the case is that the federal murder charge was dismissed earlier, removing the possibility of the death penalty. The judge found that charge conflicted legally with the remaining stalking charges. Even so, Mangione could still face life in prison if convicted federally, along with a lengthy sentence in the state case.The case has drawn public attention, with some condemning the killing while others have expressed sympathy for Mangione due to broader frustrations with the U.S. healthcare system.Luigi Mangione due in court in bid to delay federal trial over CEO killing | 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

President Trump is personally attending the Supreme Court as his executive order on birthright citizenship is argued. Experts debate whether executive action can alter the 14th Amendment, and concerns grow about a potential ruling that could expand rights to children of illegal immigrants. Meanwhile, global implications loom with foreign influence and voting concerns. Episode Summary: Trump's Supreme Court Attendance: Trump is present as his birthright citizenship executive order is debated — a rare instance of a president personally involved in litigation. Constitutional Context: The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Legal experts argue this excludes children of foreign nationals. Executive Order vs. Law: Trump's action is an executive order, not legislation. Critics warn the Court could issue a ruling favoring broader interpretations of citizenship, potentially expanding rights for children of illegal immigrants. Global Influence Concerns: Reports highlight foreign nationals, including Chinese Communist Party-affiliated parents, giving birth in the U.S., raising fears about political influence decades later. Supreme Court Dynamics: Concerns are expressed about “globalist” leanings among justices, including John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett, and how that could affect the outcome. Next Segment Tease: The show previews a story on four disappeared scientists and their surprising connections. Key Quotes: “Trump is the president, and he wrote the executive order. So he's actually a party.” “If you sneak into the country as a non-legal alien and have a child, you are still subject to a foreign power.” “I wouldn't have done it the way Trump's doing, but his heart is in the right place.” Suggested Social Media Post: ⚖️ Trump takes birthright citizenship to the Supreme Court! Can an executive order change the 14th Amendment? What this could mean for children of illegal immigrants and the future of U.S. citizenship.

2 - What will Trump announce in his speech later tonight? What are the points that Dom wants to see the president hit? 205 - What is Dom's latest thinking on Megyn Kelly and her stance on Erika Kirk? 210 - Who is this Jeopardy! Champion screwing things up with housing in Mikie Sherrill's administration? 215 - Dom's Money Melody! 225 - George Washington University announces that all-in costs for attending there will be 98,000. What did Amy Coney Barrett do today in the SCOTUS hearing? Ilhan Omar admits that the DHS shutdown is her fault, but still spouts ungrateful rhetoric about being in the US. 240 - Will the Brewers game tonight be a must watch because of CB Bucknor? Your calls. 250 - The Lightning Round!

12 - Is being against birthright citizenship racist? The SCOTUS debates the fairness of birthright citizenship. 1215 - Side - all time fools 1220 - Your calls. 1235 - Is Patriots Runningback TreVeyon Henderson “not educated” for his stance on defending Jaden Ivey for his anti NBA pride month comments? 1250 - Your calls to finish the hour. 1 - As SCOTUS decides the issue of birthright citizenship, Dom also looks at the issue of locking down the voter rolls. Will there be a draft for a war with Iran tonight? 110 - Your calls. 115 - Ketanji Brown-Jackson gives an idiotic defense of birthright citizenship, likening it to a wallet. 120 - More of your calls. Can Trump make it clear just as to why we're at war with Iran? Just how bad is MLB umpire CB Bucknor? 130 - Joe Gruters, RNC Chairman and Florida State Senator, joins us today. With birthright citizenship on the deliberations table today, what does he think of the potential ruling? What does Joe think Trump will address in his speech tonight? How good has Trump's messaging been on the economy and the midterm elections? 150 - Dom Giordano Presents: Progressive Women Gone Wild! 2 - What will Trump announce in his speech later tonight? What are the points that Dom wants to see the president hit? 205 - What is Dom's latest thinking on Megyn Kelly and her stance on Erika Kirk? 210 - Who is this Jeopardy! Champion screwing things up with housing in Mikie Sherrill's administration? 215 - Dom's Money Melody! 225 - George Washington University announces that all-in costs for attending there will be 98,000. What did Amy Coney Barrett do today in the SCOTUS hearing? Ilhan Omar admits that the DHS shutdown is her fault, but still spouts ungrateful rhetoric about being in the US. 240 - Will the Brewers game tonight be a must watch because of CB Bucknor? Your calls. 250 - The Lightning Round!

Host Corbin Barthold (TechFreedom) deconstructs Justice Barrett's surprisingly influential concurrence in Moody v. NetChoice. Or: Why the First Amendment protects algorithms and AI.  Links: Moody v. NetChoice The Post-human First Amendment Tech Policy Podcast 286: How Algorithms Can Fight Extremism Tech Policy Podcast 414: Beware the Butlerian Jihad

OA1241 - This Rapid Response Friday:* everything you need to know to explain to anyone who will listen exactly why what the US is doing in Iran is illegal. We also review oral arguments in an unusual case involving the federal statute under which Hunter Biden was  recently convicted which has brought weed, guns, and Amy Coney Barrett's illegal Ambien habit (?) before the Supreme Court at the same time. Finally, in today's footnote: A man who drinks unpasteurized milk, swims in sewage, and once left a dead bear in Central Park has some opinions about what we should be putting in our coffee--and Matt might agree with him? Can RFK Jr really stop America from running on Dunkin? --- *N.B.: this episode was recorded before the news of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's forced departure, but we'll have plenty more to say about her and replacement nominee Markwayne Mullin next week! “Top Experts' Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law,” Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman, Just Security (2/28/2026) “AUTHORITY TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN LIBYA,”DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memorandum, (4/1/2011) Certiorari petition in United States v. Hemani (6/2/2025) Audio from oral arguments in United States v. Hemani  (3/2/2026) “Six Senators Accuse Deputy Attorney General of “Glaring” Crypto Conflict, Cite ProPublica Investigation,” Corey G. Johnson, ProPublica (1/29/2026) “RFK Jr. wants Dunkin' to prove drinking its iced coffee is safe,” Tal Kopan, The Boston Globe, (3/4/2026) “Dunkin' Nutritional Facts” (2026) [PDF]  

Today, Allie sits down with Shannon Bream, host of "Fox News Sunday" and Fox News Supreme Court correspondent, to discuss her new book, “Nothing Is Impossible with God," which explores biblical stories of overcoming challenges with faith. Bream shares her personal struggle with chronic eye pain and her journey to finding a specialist while clinging onto the Lord in the midst of suffering. She also shares the importance of maintaining objectivity in journalism and the significance of empathy in her work. Bream emphasizes key Supreme Court cases that will be making headlines soon, including redistricting, free speech issues, and transgender sports participation. Tune in for this engaging discussion! Share the Arrows 2026 is on October 10 in Dallas, Texas! Tickets are on sale now at: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://sharethearrows.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Buy Allie's book "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.toxicempathy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ — Timecodes: (00:00) Intro (04:30) Inspiration from Biblical Stories (14:45) God Uses Misfits (21:20) Chronic Eye Pain (27:00) Finding a Diagnosis and Therapy (38:25) Pain Comes with Purpose (47:40) The State of Journalism (51:40) Reporting on SCOTUS — Today's Sponsors: Good Ranchers | If you go to ⁠⁠⁠⁠GoodRanchers.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ and subscribe to any of their boxes of 100% American meat, you'll save up to $500 a year! Plus, if you use code ALLIE, you'll get an additional $25 off your first order. Alliance Defending Freedom | Go to ⁠JoinADF.com/Allie⁠ or text ALLIE to 83848 to encourage Gabby today. PreBorn | 100% of your donation will go toward saving babies. Will you help us? Just dial #250 and say the keyword BABY. Or donate securely at ⁠⁠⁠⁠PreBorn.com/ALLIE⁠⁠⁠⁠. Geviti | Go to ⁠⁠⁠GoGeviti.com/Allie⁠⁠⁠ and use code ALLIE for 20% off. Taking care of yourself isn't selfish. It's stewardship. Patriot Mobile | Go to ⁠⁠PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE⁠⁠ or call 972-PATRIOT and use promo code ALLIE for a free month of service! — Related Episodes: Ep 314 | The Monumental Importance of the Supreme Court | Guest: Sen. Ted Cruz ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-314-the-monumental-importance-of-the-supreme/id1359249098?i=1000494960221⁠ Ep 306 | Amy Coney Barrett & Trump's Battle for the Presidency ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-306-amy-coney-barrett-trumps-battle-for-the-presidency/id1359249098?i=1000492842228⁠ Ep 587 | Biden's SCOTUS Pick: Soft on Child Abuse & Clueless on Biology | Guest: Steve Deace ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-587-bidens-scotus-pick-soft-on-child-abuse-clueless/id1359249098?i=1000555020884⁠ — Buy Allie's book "You're Not Enough (and That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love": ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.alliebethstuckey.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Relatable merchandise: Use promo code ALLIE10 for a discount: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in late February 2026, and President Donald Trump's legal showdowns have dominated the headlines for days. It started heating up last Friday, February 20th, when the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., dropped a bombshell in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA from 1977, does not authorize the president to impose those sweeping tariffs Trump had slapped on imports from Canada, Mexico, and dozens of other countries. Trump had declared national emergencies over drug trafficking and massive trade deficits, calling them unusual and extraordinary threats, then hit Canada with a 25% duty on most goods to combat fentanyl flows. But the justices, including Trump's own appointees like Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in the majority on key parts, said no—the law lets the president investigate, block, regulate, or prohibit imports during emergencies, but not straight-up tariffs. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts fully, while Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing IEEPA's text and history gave Trump broad power, especially under the major questions doctrine for foreign affairs.The ruling, covered everywhere from SCOTUSblog to The New York Times and Fox News, was a huge check on executive power. Vox called it a Republican court reining in Trump, while The Guardian labeled it the end of his one-man tariff war. Trump didn't take it lying down. That same day, February 20th, he spoke to a packed crowd, as captured in the CNBC Television video, ripping into the justices: "I'm ashamed of certain members of the court... they're a disgrace to our nation, very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution." He accused them of being swayed by foreign interests and even his own picks of lacking loyalty, though he praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius." Axios reported him calling the court an embarrassment, and Politico noted his fierce pushback with vows for new levies.By Tuesday's State of the Union, Trump dialed it back, calling the decision disappointing but complying—no defiance, as senior writer Ankush Khardori pointed out in Politico Magazine. He signed an order for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in days later for up to 150 days or longer, plus Section 301 probes into unfair practices. Meanwhile, just yesterday on Thursday, February 26th, SCOTUSblog reported the Trump administration, via U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, petitioned the Supreme Court again. This time, it's over Temporary Protected Status for Syrian nationals. A federal judge in New York had blocked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's move to end the program, which lets Syrians stay and work here amid their country's chaos. Sauer called it an easier case than recent Venezuelan TPS wins, urging the justices to stay the ruling by March 5th, arguing courts can't second-guess national security calls or consultation requirements.These past few days have been a whirlwind of executive power tests—from tariffs crashing down to immigration fights heating up. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker shows dozens more cases bubbling, but this week's rulings remind us the courts are holding the line.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.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

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a gut punch on live tariffs, but here we are, listeners, just days after their bombshell ruling on Friday, February 20, 2026. Picture this: I'm in my living room in Washington, D.C., coffee in hand, when the news breaks from SCOTUSblog and The New York Times—Justices Strike Down Trump's Tariffs. In the consolidated cases Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, a 6-3 majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president the green light to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies.Trump had declared emergencies over drug trafficking from Canada and massive trade deficits, hitting Canadian goods with 25% duties and more worldwide. But Roberts' opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said IEEPA lets the president regulate, block, or prohibit imports—not tax them with tariffs. The Court vacated one lower court ruling and affirmed another from the Federal Circuit, sending shockwaves through Wall Street and the heartland. Even among conservatives, there was drama: Justice Neil Gorsuch and Barrett concurred but split on details, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, arguing IEEPA's text and history backed Trump's power, and slamming the majority for ignoring the major questions doctrine in foreign affairs.By evening, Trump stormed to the podium outside the White House, as captured in that fiery CNBC Television clip. "I'm absolutely ashamed of certain members of the court," he thundered, calling some justices "disloyal to the Constitution" and "unpatriotic," swayed by "foreign interests." He ripped his own appointees—praising Kavanaugh's "genius" but blasting others as an "embarrassment to their families." No backing down, though. Trump vowed revenge, signing an executive order that very day titled "Ending Certain Tariff Actions," but pivoting to new weapons: a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, set to kick in within days for up to 150 days or longer. He teased Section 301 investigations for unfair practices by China and others, plus fresh Section 232 probes on steel, aluminum, cars, copper—you name it.Fast-forward to Tuesday, February 24, in his State of the Union address, as ABC World News Tonight reported, Trump doubled down, framing the ruling as a bump in his America First road. Politico and Axios chronicled the fallout: lawmakers from both parties reacted, businesses cheered lower costs, but Trump's base roared approval online. The Washington Times noted his promise of "other authorities" to fight back, while Fox News called it a "major test of executive branch powers." Even The Guardian dubbed it the end of Trump's "one-man tariff war."Here I am on February 25, still buzzing. This isn't just legalese—it's a clash reshaping trade, presidential power, and maybe the Court itself. Will new tariffs survive in the D.C. Circuit or Federal Circuit? Trump's already hinting at years of fights. Clark Hill and DLA Piper analysts say uncertainty reigns, but Trump's playbook is thick.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.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

Today's top stories, with context, in just 15 minutes.On today's podcast:1) Addressing one of his biggest audiences at perhaps the lowest moment of his second term, President Trump returned again and again in his State of the Union speech to the same message on the economy: Everything is going great. A resolute Trump was determined to will Americans into a better economic mood, seeking to paint over the affordability concerns at the center of upcoming midterm elections with statistics and self-congratulation. “Inflation is plummeting. Incomes are rising fast. The roaring economy is roaring like never before,” Trump boasted early in the nearly two-hour speech. The US president didn’t even feel compelled to roll out fresh policy ideas to address the cost of living. And where he did allow that voters might have some misgivings about cost of living, he followed his well-worn playbook of pinning blame elsewhere. Ahead of the speech, Trump’s advisers had framed the evening as an opportunity to lay out a forward-looking economic agenda that could serve as a reset ahead of the midterms. But he focused more on touting his signature tax legislation and trade policies than major new cost-of-living proposals — a hint that the issue is still vexing the White House. 2) Four days after deriding the US Supreme Court justices who struck down most of his signature tariffs, President Trump was far milder in his criticism with some of them in the room. Delivering his State of the Union address Tuesday, Trump criticized Friday’s 6-3 ruling against his sweeping global tariffs as “very unfortunate” and “disappointing.” The four justices who attended — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — sat stoically in their front-row seats. Even in their relatively mild form, Trump’s comments marked a rare instance of high court criticism during a State of the Union address. In 2010, then-President Barack Obama criticized the just-issued Citizens United campaign-finance ruling, accusing the court of ignoring a century of precedent.3) Nvidia Corp. is facing a high-stakes moment with its latest quarterly results on Wednesday, with the world waiting for fresh evidence that the AI spending boom remains on track. To satisfy investors, Nvidia likely needs to deliver another blockbuster report. That means easily topping the forecasts it gave three months ago and setting new targets that are above current Wall Street estimates. The company has done this repeatedly, but concerns have grown that the AI spending frenzy isn’t sustainable. Nvidia is the dominant supplier of processors used to develop and run AI models, making it the biggest bellwether of the artificial intelligence economy. Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang has assured investors in public appearances that demand remains high and customers such as Meta Platforms Inc. and Alphabet Inc. have rolled out more aggressive spending plans. Investors also will be looking for additional ways for Nvidia to accelerate growth. That may include pushing further into China, where US export curbs — and Chinese pushback — have limited sales.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's tariffs, he detonated. He targeted justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, fuming that the ruling was an “embarrassment to their families.” He doubled down on the idea that he has unilateral tariff power. He tacitly threatened to investigate the high court for foreign influences. He called the ruling a “disgrace to our nation.” Yet this is backfiring: It prompted GOP Representative Don Bacon to declare that this might prompt more GOP votes to constrain him, remarking that Trump “didn't do himself any favors.” Indeed, after we recorded this episode, Senator Mitch McConnell pointedly noted that Congress is “not an inconvenience to avoid,” suggesting more Congressional action ahead, and other Republicans celebrated the ruling.  We talked to legal scholar Matthew Seligman, a lawyer for some of the businesses looking for tariff refunds. He explains why the ruling was such a major rebuke, why Trump's efforts to revive the tariffs might encounter turbulence, and how his impotent fury—and the GOP response to it—undermine his political mystique in a deeper sense.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A bit about the recent Court decision, with a note about the concurrences of Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, which agreed with each other on the decision merits but warred on the reasons why. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's tariffs, he detonated. He targeted justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, fuming that the ruling was an “embarrassment to their families.” He doubled down on the idea that he has unilateral tariff power. He tacitly threatened to investigate the high court for foreign influences. He called the ruling a “disgrace to our nation.” Yet this is backfiring: It prompted GOP Representative Don Bacon to declare that this might prompt more GOP votes to constrain him, remarking that Trump “didn't do himself any favors.” Indeed, after we recorded this episode, Senator Mitch McConnell pointedly noted that Congress is “not an inconvenience to avoid,” suggesting more Congressional action ahead, and other Republicans celebrated the ruling.  We talked to legal scholar Matthew Seligman, a lawyer for some of the businesses looking for tariff refunds. He explains why the ruling was such a major rebuke, why Trump's efforts to revive the tariffs might encounter turbulence, and how his impotent fury—and the GOP response to it—undermine his political mystique in a deeper sense.  Looking for More from the DSR Network? Click Here: https://linktr.ee/deepstateradio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After the Supreme Court struck down Donald Trump's tariffs, he detonated. He targeted justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, fuming that the ruling was an “embarrassment to their families.” He doubled down on the idea that he has unilateral tariff power. He tacitly threatened to investigate the high court for foreign influences. He called the ruling a “disgrace to our nation.” Yet this is backfiring: It prompted GOP Representative Don Bacon to declare that this might prompt more GOP votes to constrain him, remarking that Trump “didn't do himself any favors.” Indeed, after we recorded this episode, Senator Mitch McConnell pointedly noted that Congress is “not an inconvenience to avoid,” suggesting more Congressional action ahead, and other Republicans celebrated the ruling.  We talked to legal scholar Matthew Seligman, a lawyer for some of the businesses looking for tariff refunds. He explains why the ruling was such a major rebuke, why Trump's efforts to revive the tariffs might encounter turbulence, and how his impotent fury—and the GOP response to it—undermine his political mystique in a deeper sense.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on The Necessary Conversation, Trump takes hits from every direction — the Supreme Court, international investigators, the polls, and even his own economic reality — while still trying to grab more power, more money, and more control.⚖️ Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's TariffsIn a major loss for Trump, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that most of his tariffs are illegal, saying the president does not have unilateral authority to impose them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Two Trump-appointed justices — Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the majority. Trump responded by attacking the Court, accusing his own judges of bias and disloyalty, and is now scrambling to impose a new 15% global tariff through other legal loopholes.We ask:Should Trump have to obey rulings from judges he appointed?Does this restore any faith in the Supreme Court?Is the economy actually better after Trump's tariffs?

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.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

The US Supreme Court on Friday struck down President Trump's tariffs in a 6-3 decision. Chief Justices Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch sided with the three liberal justices. The high court did not address the billions of dollars collected from the tariffs. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a scathing dissent and warned that the Court's decision has created a big mess. Trump slammed the liberal justices and praised Justice Kavanaugh for writing a ‘brilliant' dissent. He also doubled down by enacting a brand new 10% tariff!Guest: Professor William Jacobson - Cornell University and Founder of Equal Protection ProjectSponsor:My PillowWww.MyPillow.com/johnSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump called Amy Coney Barrett a "disgrace" to her family because she dared to rule in a way that made his life slightly more difficult

This Day in Legal History: Roe v. WadeOn January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, fundamentally reshaping American constitutional law and reproductive rights. In a 7–2 ruling, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to privacy, which includes the right to choose to have an abortion. The case arose after a Texas woman, known under the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” challenged state laws that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother. Writing for the majority, Justice Harry Blackmun articulated a constitutional framework that balanced the state's interest in regulating abortions with an individual's right to privacy.The Court introduced a trimester system, giving states greater regulatory power as pregnancy progressed but prohibiting outright bans on abortion in the first trimester. This decision effectively invalidated abortion restrictions in dozens of states and became one of the most politically and legally contentious rulings in American history. Roe expanded the constitutional interpretation of the right to privacy, which had been previously recognized in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, but its grounding in substantive due process quickly became a lightning rod for critics.Opponents of the ruling argued that the Constitution did not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, while supporters saw it as a critical protection of bodily autonomy and gender equality. Over the next five decades, Roe faced continual challenges and legislative efforts aimed at narrowing its scope. Ultimately, in 2022, the Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning authority to regulate abortion back to individual states and ending federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The legacy of Roe v. Wade continues to shape legal discourse, political identity, and reproductive healthcare policy in the United States.A federal appeals court has lifted a temporary order that had limited immigration agents from using tear gas and force against peaceful protesters in Minneapolis, a city currently at the center of a legal and political clash over immigration enforcement. The lower court's injunction—issued by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez—had aimed to protect demonstrators as they protested President Trump's mass deployment of ICE and Border Patrol agents throughout the area. The Biden-era precedent of restrained enforcement has been upended by Trump's aggressive tactics, which now include militarized agents patrolling streets and confronting U.S. citizens, particularly people of color, demanding identification and sometimes using force.The protests intensified after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, an American citizen monitoring ICE activities. In response to mounting legal challenges, including a suit from the Minnesota state government and its largest cities, the Trump administration has doubled down. Not only did the Department of Homeland Security appeal the injunction, but the Justice Department has also launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, accusing them of obstructing federal law enforcement.The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a temporary stay of the injunction while it considers a longer-term ruling, effectively allowing ICE to resume more aggressive tactics in the meantime. Critics, including Walz and Frey, warn that the Trump administration is intentionally provoking unrest to justify escalated federal intervention. The administration defends its actions as necessary to combat fraud, particularly among Minnesota's Somali community, which Trump has disparaged in stark terms. The legal and political standoff continues, with lawsuits and investigations adding to the tension.US appeals court lifts order curbing immigration agents' tactics against Minnesota protesters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant to endorse President Trump's unprecedented attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling concern over the potential threat to the central bank's independence. During oral arguments, justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had the authority to remove Cook without due process, especially given the lack of precedent and the vague legal standard for removing Fed officials “for cause.”The administration cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations—claims Cook denies—as grounds for dismissal. However, several justices, including conservatives like Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, expressed concern that firing a Fed governor without a hearing or judicial review could set a dangerous precedent and politicize the central bank. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether minor or disputed past conduct could justify removal without any formal process.Cook argued the allegations were merely a pretext for her removal over policy disagreements, particularly her resistance to Trump's pressure to cut interest rates. The Court's skepticism reflects unease about weakening safeguards designed to insulate the Fed from political interference. District Judge Jia Cobb previously blocked Cook's removal, citing due process concerns and insufficient legal cause.A decision from the Court is expected by June. If the justices rule in Cook's favor or remand the case for further proceedings, it could reinforce limits on presidential power over independent agencies.US Supreme Court appears reluctant to let Trump fire Fed's Lisa Cook | ReutersThe Trump administration has launched a new immigration enforcement campaign in Maine, dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” with a focus on targeting criminal offenders—though internal sources indicate the true emphasis is on refugee populations, especially Somalis. Over 100 federal immigration agents have been deployed to the state, intensifying fears in immigrant communities and sparking political backlash.Maine Governor Janet Mills, a Democrat currently running for a U.S. Senate seat, criticized the operation as unwelcome and politically motivated. This mirrors broader national trends, with Trump having already surged thousands of agents into other Democratic-led areas, such as Minnesota, where tensions recently escalated after ICE officers fatally shot a U.S. citizen. In Lewiston, Maine's second-largest city and home to a longstanding Somali refugee community, the mayor condemned ICE's tactics as inhumane and fear-driven.Despite Trump's framing of the effort as a crackdown on criminality, many targeted individuals have no criminal records. Critics argue the campaign serves more as political theater than public safety. Meanwhile, public support for such operations has eroded, especially as aggressive enforcement methods—including tear gas and raids—become more visible. DHS has defended its actions and criticized local leaders like Mills for not fully cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.Trump administration starts immigration operation in Maine | ReutersIn my latest piece for Forbes, I examine the absurdity of President Trump's renewed push to acquire Greenland—this time by threatening tariffs on countries that don't support the plan. Far from making foreign governments pay, these tariffs would, once again, function as a consumption tax on Americans. Drawing from the Kiel Institute's data, I show that during the 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff campaign, 96% of the costs fell on U.S. importers and consumers, not foreign exporters. This new Greenland-linked tariff threat follows the same script, only now it's not even pretending to protect American industry—it's economic coercion for a geopolitical fantasy.I describe how tariffs, sold as leverage, collapse trade volumes without lowering foreign prices. Countries like Brazil and India didn't budge on pricing; they just shipped elsewhere. Meanwhile, Americans paid more for less. I also highlight how small businesses and low-income households feel the pain first, as import costs ripple through the economy, raising prices on both foreign and domestic goods. Despite the $200 billion in customs revenue collected, it amounts to a regressive tax—not a clever policy move.The deeper issue, as I argue, is the unchecked executive power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Current law enables the president to take sweeping trade actions with little oversight, and we're now seeing that power used not for national defense or economic stability, but to punish allies for not acquiescing to a real estate deal. I call on Congress to reclaim its constitutional role in trade policy and set clear limits on executive authority in this arena. Otherwise, we're left with a precedent where tariffs become tools of vanity projects—not national strategy.Tariffs For Greenland—Or, ‘I'll Hold My Breath Until You Turn Blue' 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

Mat Staver is founder & Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He's an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith & Freedom and Freedom's Call and the TV broadcast, Freedom Alive. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated landmark cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. These cases determine whether Idaho and West Virginia can ban gender confused males from participating in female sports. The decision will likely have significant implications across America since at least 27 states have similar laws protecting women and girls. Little v. Hecox involves an Idaho law from 2020 called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act. West Virginia v. B.P.J. involves West Virginia's 2021 Save Women's Sports Act. As Mat noted, both of these, "...protect the safety and opportunities of female athletes by barring biological males from female competitive sport teams at public schools and universities." A common thread in these cases is Title IX, which Mat said was, "...to protect and provide opportunities for women in sports." However, when Title IX was established as federal law in 1972, was it based on sex or gender identity? This question is fundamental to the debate as you'll see as Jim provided audio from Justices Samuel Alito, Katanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett, along with a tense exchange between Senator Josh Hawley and Dr. Nisha Verma who is an OB/GYN.

Mat Staver is founder & Chairman of Liberty Counsel. Mat is a constitutional attorney with three landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He's an author and the host of the radio broadcasts Faith & Freedom and Freedom's Call and the TV broadcast, Freedom Alive. On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two consolidated landmark cases: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. These cases determine whether Idaho and West Virginia can ban gender confused males from participating in female sports. The decision will likely have significant implications across America since at least 27 states have similar laws protecting women and girls. Little v. Hecox involves an Idaho law from 2020 called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act. West Virginia v. B.P.J. involves West Virginia's 2021 Save Women's Sports Act. As Mat noted, both of these, "...protect the safety and opportunities of female athletes by barring biological males from female competitive sport teams at public schools and universities." A common thread in these cases is Title IX, which Mat said was, "...to protect and provide opportunities for women in sports." However, when Title IX was established as federal law in 1972, was it based on sex or gender identity? This question is fundamental to the debate as you'll see as Jim provided audio from Justices Samuel Alito, Katanji Brown Jackson and Amy Coney Barrett, along with a tense exchange between Senator Josh Hawley and Dr. Nisha Verma who is an OB/GYN.

OA1225 - Jenessa is here to dig deeper into Van Buren v. United States as we explore the implications and meaning when legislative deliverables, legal analysis, work industry, and general common sense push and pull in different directions. We had a lot of questions and comments on the original Van Buren episode from the community, so we thought it would be fun to spend some more time and battle it out! Reviving Lenity - Daniel Harawa, SCOTUSBlog (Dec 26, 2025) US v Rodriguez, 628 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2010) US v Nosal, 676 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2012) US v Nosal, 844 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016) Further reading: W. Cagney McCormick, The Computer Fraud & Abuse Act: Failing to Evolve with the Digital Age, 16 SMU SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 481 (2013). Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Hey there, listeners, buckle up because the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been on fire these past few days, handing President Donald Trump and his administration a string of high-stakes wins in battles over everything from the National Guard to passports and federal spending. Just eight days ago, on December 23, 2025, the Court ruled in Trump v. Illinois, siding against the administration's bid to federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois without state consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, while Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing the move was essential for national security amid rising unrest in Chicago. The Brennan Center's Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker notes this as one of only five losses for the administration since January, out of 25 emergency decisions, with most favoring Trump at least partially and often with minimal explanation.But don't let that one setback fool you—the Court has been overwhelmingly pro-administration lately. On November 6, the justices greenlit the State Department's policy refusing passports that reflect transgender applicants' gender identity for a certified class of plaintiffs, overruling lower courts in a terse order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply, warning it tramples civil rights. This fits a pattern: back on October 3 in Noem v. National TPS Alliance, the Court forced the government to release congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds, with Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, blasting it as executive overreach. Earlier, September 22's Trump v. Slaughter let the administration dodge discovery demands from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington over DOGE Service materials under the Freedom of Information Act.Rewind a bit further into this whirlwind year, and the shadow docket explodes with immigration clashes. In Noem v. Doe on May 30, the Court allowed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to revoke parole en masse for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, skipping individual reviews—Justice Jackson dissented alongside Sotomayor. April's Trump v. J.G.G. permitted deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, despite dissents from Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and even partial pushback from Amy Coney Barrett. A.A.R.P. v. Trump on April 19 blocked removals of Venezuelan nationals, a rare check, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting.Civil service purges? Check: McMahon v. New York on July 14 okayed firing Department of Education employees, while Trump v. Boyle upheld Trump's power to boot Consumer Product Safety Commission members without cause. Even LGBTQ+ rights took hits, like United States v. Shilling in May letting the Defense Department terminate transgender service members. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker highlights ongoing suits, including a coalition of nonprofits and cities challenging the suspension of November 2025 SNAP benefits—a case that echoes lower court fights like District of Rhode Island's order to fully fund them.Since Inauguration Day, the Supreme Court's emergency docket—mostly Department of Justice filings—has tilted 20-to-5 toward Trump, per SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch data. Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh often push back against blocks, while the liberal trio fights rearguard actions. As 2025 wraps, two applications still pend, promising more drama.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.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

OA1220 - What's an FBI agent to do when a notorious low life reports a local cop is asking for a bribe? Turn him into a confidential information of course, and see how far you can get that dirty cop to go. A tale of two assholes, steadily making each others' lives worse and worse, while one is wearing a wire. Now, why does the Supreme Court care about any of this? Half the conviction hinges on whether this cop “exceeded authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and no one can agree what that means… including your cohosts. Hear Thomas try to figure out why Amy Coney Barrett is so obsessed with the definition of the word “so”, and Jenessa… defend Clarence Thomas?! This case is a hot mess, but the good news is everyone sucks here and no one wins. The relevant language: “The Act subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,” and thereby obtains computer information. 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). It defines the term “exceeds authorized access” to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” §1030(e)(6).” Barrett's ruling: “In sum, an individual “exceeds authorized access” when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer—such as files, folders, or databases—that are off limits to him.” Van Buren v. United States, 593 U.S. 374 (2021) United States v. Van Buren, 940 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2019) Full text of the CFAA: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

I'm reading Amy Coney Barrett's book, Listening to the Law, and it struck me that instead of writing using AI, we should write more like the Supreme Court…at least if we care about our audience.  ★ Support this podcast ★

Mike Maughan was serving in a YSA bishopric when he heard Blake Roney, now the president of the Provo City Center Temple say, "We are not the gatekeepers, we are the welcoming committee." That single statement changed the way Mike has lived in the years since and it changed the culture of the YSA ward in which he was serving. On this week's episode, Mike discusses the transformative nature of that experience. 2:26- Freed From the Burden of Judgment 7:53- Take Them By the Hand 18:52- Application 26:01- Changing the Tune, Not the Lyrics 31:38- Never Burn a Bridge and Always Be Kind 35:37- The Power of Experience 44:08- Committing Completely 51:52- What Does It Mean To Be All In the Gospel of Jesus Christ? "Life is long and the world is small." Links: Annette Dennis- "We are commanded to love others, not to judge them. Let's lay down that heavy burden; it isn't ours to carry. Instead, we can pick up the Savior's yoke of love and compassion." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2022/11/18-dennis?lang=eng "Nothing is so much calculated to lead people to forsake sin as to take them by the hand, and watch over them with tenderness. When persons manifest the least kindness and love to me, O what power it has over my mind, while the opposite course has a tendency to harrow up all the harsh feelings and depress the human mind" (History of the Church, 5:23–24). Elder Kearon's general conference talk mentioned- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2024/04/45kearon?lang=eng Elder S. Mark Palmer general conference talk mentioned- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2017/04/then-jesus-beholding-him-loved-him?lang=eng Amy Coney Barrett's Book, "Listening to the Law"- https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868

How are the federal courts faring during these tumultuous times? I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this important subject with a former federal judge: someone who understands the judicial role well but could speak more freely than a sitting judge, liberated from the strictures of the bench.Meet Judge Nancy Gertner (Ret.), who served as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 until 2011. I knew that Judge Gertner would be a lively and insightful interviewee—based not only on her extensive commentary on recent events, reflected in media interviews and op-eds, but on my personal experience. During law school, I took a year-long course on federal sentencing with her, and she was one of my favorite professors.When I was her student, we disagreed on a lot: I was severely conservative back then, and Judge Gertner was, well, not. But I always appreciated and enjoyed hearing her views—so it was a pleasure hearing them once again, some 25 years later, in what turned out to be an excellent conversation.Show Notes:* Nancy Gertner, author website* Nancy Gertner bio, Harvard Law School* In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, AmazonPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat.substack.com. You're listening to the eighty-fifth episode of this podcast, recorded on Monday, November 3.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.Many of my guests have been friends of mine for a long time—and that's the case for today's. I've known Judge Nancy Gertner for more than 25 years, dating back to when I took a full-year course on federal sentencing from her and the late Professor Dan Freed at Yale Law School. She was a great teacher, and although we didn't always agree—she was a professor who let students have their own opinions—I always admired her intellect and appreciated her insights.Judge Gertner is herself a graduate of Yale Law School—where she met, among other future luminaries, Bill and Hillary Clinton. After a fascinating career in private practice as a litigator and trial lawyer handling an incredibly diverse array of cases, Judge Gertner was appointed to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts in 1994, by President Clinton. She retired from the bench in 2011, but she is definitely not retired: she writes opinion pieces for outlets such as The New York Times and The Boston Globe, litigates and consults on cases, and trains judges and litigators. She's also working on a book called Incomplete Sentences, telling the stories of the people she sentenced over 17 years on the bench. Her autobiography, In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate, was published in 2011. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Judge Nancy Gertner.Judge, thank you so much for joining me.Nancy Gertner: Thank you for inviting me. This is wonderful.DL: So it's funny: I've been wanting to have you on this podcast in a sense before it existed, because you and I worked on a podcast pilot. It ended up not getting picked up, but perhaps they have some regrets over that, because legal issues have just blown up since then.NG: I remember that. I think it was just a question of scheduling, and it was before Trump, so we were talking about much more sophisticated, superficial things, as opposed to the rule of law and the demise of the Constitution.DL: And we will get to those topics. But to start off my podcast in the traditional way, let's go back to the beginning. I believe we are both native New Yorkers?NG: Yes, that's right. I was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, in an apartment that I think now is a tenement museum, and then we moved to Flushing, Queens, where I lived into my early 20s.DL: So it's interesting—I actually spent some time as a child in that area. What was your upbringing like? What did your parents do?NG: My father owned a linoleum store, or as we used to call it, “tile,” and my mother was a homemaker. My mother worked at home. We were lower class on the Lower East Side and maybe made it to lower-middle. My parents were very conservative, in the sense they didn't know exactly what to do with a girl who was a bit of a radical. Neither I nor my sister was precisely what they anticipated. So I got to Barnard for college only because my sister had a conniption fit when he wouldn't pay for college for her—she's my older sister—he was not about to pay for college. If we were boys, we would've had college paid for.In a sense, they skipped a generation. They were actually much more traditional than their peers were. My father was Orthodox when he grew up; my mother was somewhat Orthodox Jewish. My father couldn't speak English until the second grade. So they came from a very insular environment, and in one sense, he escaped that environment when he wanted to play ball on Saturdays. So that was actually the motivation for moving to Queens: to get away from the Lower East Side, where everyone would know that he wasn't in temple on Saturday. We used to have interesting discussions, where I'd say to him that my rebellion was a version of his: he didn't want to go to temple on Saturdays, and I was marching against the war. He didn't see the equivalence, but somehow I did.There's actually a funny story to tell about sort of exactly the distance between how I was raised and my life. After I graduated from Yale Law School, with all sorts of honors and stuff, and was on my way to clerk for a judge, my mother and I had this huge fight in the kitchen of our apartment. What was the fight about? Sadie wanted me to take the Triborough Bridge toll taker's test, “just in case.” “You never know,” she said. I couldn't persuade her that it really wasn't necessary. She passed away before I became a judge, and I told this story at my swearing-in, and I said that she just didn't understand. I said, “Now I have to talk to my mother for a minute; forgive me for a moment.” And I looked up at the rafters and I said, “Ma, at last: a government job!” So that is sort of the measure of where I started. My mother didn't finish high school, my father had maybe a semester of college—but that wasn't what girls did.DL: So were you then a first-generation professional or a first-generation college graduate?NG: Both—my sister and I were both, first-generation college graduates and first-generation professionals. When people talk about Jewish backgrounds, they're very different from one another, and since my grandparents came from Eastern European shtetls, it's not clear to me that they—except for one grandfather—were even literate. So it was a very different background.DL: You mentioned that you did go to Yale Law School, and of course we connected there years later, when I was your student. But what led you to go to law school in the first place? Clearly your parents were not encouraging your professional ambitions.NG: One is, I love to speak. My husband kids me now and says that I've never met a microphone I didn't like. I had thought for a moment of acting—musical comedy, in fact. But it was 1967, and the anti-war movement, a nascent women's movement, and the civil rights movement were all rising around me, and I wanted to be in the world. And the other thing was that I didn't want to do anything that women do. Actually, musical comedy was something that would've been okay and normal for women, but I didn't want to do anything that women typically do. So that was the choice of law. It was more like the choice of law professor than law, but that changed over time.DL: So did you go straight from Barnard to Yale Law School?NG: Well, I went from Barnard to Yale graduate school in political science because as I said, I've always had an academic and a practical side, and so I thought briefly that I wanted to get a Ph.D. I still do, actually—I'm going to work on that after these books are finished.DL: Did you then think that you wanted to be a law professor when you started at YLS? I guess by that point you already had a master's degree under your belt?NG: I thought I wanted to be a law professor, that's right. I did not think I wanted to practice law. Yale at that time, like most law schools, had no practical clinical courses. I don't think I ever set foot in a courtroom or a courthouse, except to demonstrate on the outside of it. And the only thing that started me in practice was that I thought I should do at least two or three years of practice before I went back into the academy, before I went back into the library. Twenty-four years later, I obviously made a different decision.DL: So you were at YLS during a very interesting time, and some of the law school's most famous alumni passed through its halls around that period. So tell us about some of the people you either met or overlapped with at YLS during your time there.NG: Hillary Clinton was one of my best friends. I knew Bill, but I didn't like him.DL: Hmmm….NG: She was one of my best friends. There were 20 women in my class, which was the class of ‘71. The year before, there had only been eight. I think we got up to 21—a rumor had it that it was up to 21 because men whose numbers were drafted couldn't go to school, and so suddenly they had to fill their class with this lesser entity known as women. It was still a very small number out of, I think, what was the size of the opening class… 165? Very small. So we knew each other very, very well. And Hillary and I were the only ones, I think, who had no boyfriends at the time, though that changed.DL: I think you may have either just missed or briefly overlapped with either Justice Thomas or Justice Alito?NG: They're younger than I am, so I think they came after.DL: And that would be also true of Justice Sotomayor then as well?NG: Absolutely. She became a friend because when I was on the bench, I actually sat with the Second Circuit, and we had great times together. But she was younger than I was, so I didn't know her in law school, and by the time she was in law school, there were more women. In the middle of, I guess, my first year at Yale Law School, was the first year that Yale College went coed. So it was, in my view, an enormously exciting time, because we felt like we were inventing law. We were inventing something entirely new. We had the first “women in the law” course, one of the first such courses in the country, and I think we were borderline obnoxious. It's a little bit like the debates today, which is that no one could speak right—you were correcting everyone with respect to the way they were describing women—but it was enormously creative and exciting.DL: So I'm gathering you enjoyed law school, then?NG: I loved law school. Still, when I was in law school, I still had my feet in graduate school, so I believe that I took law and sociology for three years, mostly. In other words, I was going through law school as if I were still in graduate school, and it was so bad that when I decided to go into practice—and this is an absolutely true story—I thought that dying intestate was a disease. We were taking the bar exam, and I did not know what they were talking about.DL: So tell us, then, what did lead you to shift gears? You mentioned you clerked, and you mentioned you wanted to practice for a few years—but you did practice for more than a few years.NG: Right. I talk to students about this all the time, about sort of the fortuities that you need to grab onto that you absolutely did not plan. So I wind up at a small civil-rights firm, Harvey Silverglate and Norman Zalkind's firm. I wind up in a small civil-rights firm because I couldn't get a job anywhere else in Boston. I was looking in Boston or San Francisco, and what other women my age were encountering, I encountered, which is literally people who told me that I would never succeed as a lawyer, certainly not as a litigator. So you have to understand, this is 1971. I should say, as a footnote, that I have a file of everyone who said that to me. People know that I have that file; it's called “Sexist Tidbits.” And so I used to decide whether I should recuse myself when someone in that file appeared before me, but I decided it was just too far.So it was a small civil-rights firm, and they were doing draft cases, they were doing civil-rights cases of all different kinds, and they were doing criminal cases. After a year, the partnership between Norman Zalkind and Harvey Silverglate broke up, and Harvey made me his partner, now an equal partner after a year of practice.Shortly after that, I got a case that changed my career in so many ways, which is I wound up representing Susan Saxe. Susan Saxe was one of five individuals who participated in robberies to get money for the anti-war movement. She was probably five years younger than I was. In the case of the robbery that she participated in, a police officer was killed. She was charged with felony murder. She went underground for five years; the other woman went underground for 20 years.Susan wanted me to represent her, not because she had any sense that I was any good—it's really quite wonderful—she wanted me to represent her because she figured her case was hopeless. And her case was hopeless because the three men involved in the robbery either fled or were immediately convicted, so her case seemed to be hopeless. And she was an extraordinarily principled woman: she said that in her last moment on the stage—she figured that she'd be convicted and get life—she wanted to be represented by a woman. And I was it. There was another woman in town who was a public defender, but I was literally the only private lawyer. I wrote about the case in my book, In Defense of Women, and to Harvey Silvergate's credit, even though the case was virtually no money, he said, “If you want to do it, do it.”Because I didn't know what I was doing—and I literally didn't know what I was doing—I researched every inch of everything in the case. So we had jury research and careful jury selection, hiring people to do jury selection. I challenged the felony-murder rule (this was now 1970). If there was any evidentiary issue, I would not only do the legal research, but talk to social psychologists about what made sense to do. To make a long story short, it took about two years to litigate the case, and it's all that I did.And the government's case was winding down, and it seemed to be not as strong as we thought it was—because, ironically, nobody noticed the woman in the bank. Nobody was noticing women in general; nobody was noticing women in the bank. So their case was much weaker than we thought, except there were two things, two letters that Susan had written: one to her father, and one to her rabbi. The one to her father said, “By the time you get this letter, you'll know what your little girl is doing.” The one to her rabbi said basically the same thing. In effect, these were confessions. Both had been turned over to the FBI.So the case is winding down, not very strong. These letters have not yet been introduced. Meanwhile, The Boston Globe is reporting that all these anti-war activists were coming into town, and Gertner, who no one ever heard of, was going to try the Vietnam War. The defense will be, “She robbed a bank to fight the Vietnam War.” She robbed a bank in order to get money to oppose the Vietnam War, and the Vietnam War was illegitimate, etc. We were going to try the Vietnam War.There was no way in hell I was going to do that. But nobody had ever heard of me, so they believed anything. The government decided to rest before the letters came in, anticipating that our defense would be a collection of individuals who were going to challenge the Vietnam War. The day that the government rested without putting in those two letters, I rested my case, and the case went immediately to the jury. I'm told that I was so nervous when I said “the defense rests” that I sounded like Minnie Mouse.The upshot of that, however, was that the jury was 9-3 for acquittal on the first day, 10-2 for acquittal on the second day, and then 11-1 for acquittal—and there it stopped. It was a hung jury. But it essentially made my career. I had first the experience of pouring my heart into a case and saving someone's life, which was like nothing I'd ever felt before, which was better than the library. It also put my name out there. I was no longer, “Who is she?” I suddenly could take any kind of case I wanted to take. And so I was addicted to trials from then until the time I became a judge.DL: Fill us in on what happened later to your client, just her ultimate arc.NG: She wound up getting eight years in prison instead of life. She had already gotten eight years because of a prior robbery in Philadelphia, so there was no way that we were going to affect that. She had pleaded guilty to that. She went on to live a very principled life. She's actually quite religious. She works in the very sort of left Jewish groups. We are in touch—I'm in touch with almost everyone that I've ever known—because it had been a life-changing experience for me. We were four years apart. Her background, though she was more middle-class, was very similar to my own. Her mother used to call me at night about what Susan should wear. So our lives were very much intertwined. And so she was out of jail after eight years, and she has a family and is doing fine.DL: That's really a remarkable result, because people have to understand what defense lawyers are up against. It's often very challenging, and a victory is often a situation where your client doesn't serve life, for example, or doesn't, God forbid, get the death penalty. So it's really interesting that the Saxe case—as you talk about in your wonderful memoir—really did launch your career to the next level. And you wound up handling a number of other cases that you could say were adjacent or thematically related to Saxe's case. Maybe you can talk a little bit about some of those.NG: The women's movement was roaring at this time, and so a woman lawyer who was active and spoke out and talked about women's issues invariably got women's cases. So on the criminal side, I did one of the first, I think it was the first, battered woman syndrome case, as a defense to murder. On the civil side, I had a very robust employment-discrimination practice, dealing with sexual harassment, dealing with racial discrimination. I essentially did whatever I wanted to do. That's what my students don't always understand: I don't remember ever looking for a lucrative case. I would take what was interesting and fun to me, and money followed. I can't describe it any other way.These cases—you wound up getting paid, but I did what I thought was meaningful. But it wasn't just women's rights issues, and it wasn't just criminal defense. We represented white-collar criminal defendants. We represented Boston Mayor Kevin White's second-in-command, Ted Anzalone, also successfully. I did stockholder derivative suits, because someone referred them to me. To some degree the Saxe case, and maybe it was also the time—I did not understand the law to require specialization in the way that it does now. So I could do a felony-murder case on Monday and sue Mayor Lynch on Friday and sue Gulf Oil on Monday, and it wouldn't even occur to me that there was an issue. It was not the same kind of specialization, and I certainly wasn't about to specialize.DL: You anticipated my next comment, which is that when someone reads your memoir, they read about a career that's very hard to replicate in this day and age. For whatever reason, today people specialize. They specialize at earlier points in their careers. Clients want somebody who holds himself out as a specialist in white-collar crime, or a specialist in dealing with defendants who invoke battered woman syndrome, or what have you. And so I think your career… you kind of had a luxury, in a way.NG: I also think that the costs of entry were lower. It was Harvey Silverglate and me, and maybe four or five other lawyers. I was single until I was 39, so I had no family pressures to speak of. And I think that, yes, the profession was different. Now employment discrimination cases involve prodigious amounts of e-discovery. So even a little case has e-discovery, and that's partly because there's a generation—you're a part of it—that lived online. And so suddenly, what otherwise would have been discussions over the back fence are now text messages.So I do think it's different—although maybe this is a comment that only someone who is as old as I am can make—I wish that people would forget the money for a while. When I was on the bench, you'd get a pro se case that was incredibly interesting, challenging prison conditions or challenging some employment issue that had never been challenged before. It was pro se, and I would get on the phone and try to find someone to represent this person. And I can't tell you how difficult it was. These were not necessarily big cases. The big firms might want to get some publicity from it. But there was not a sense of individuals who were going to do it just, “Boy, I've never done a case like this—let me try—and boy, this is important to do.” Now, that may be different today in the Trump administration, because there's a huge number of lawyers that are doing immigration cases. But the day-to-day discrimination cases, even abortion cases, it was not the same kind of support.DL: I feel in some ways you were ahead of your time, because your career as a litigator played out in boutiques, and I feel that today, many lawyers who handle high-profile cases like yours work at large firms. Why did you not go to a large firm, either from YLS or if there were issues, for example, of discrimination, you must have had opportunities to lateral into such a firm later, if you had wanted to?NG: Well, certainly at the beginning nobody wanted me. It didn't matter how well I had done. Me and Ruth Ginsburg were on the streets looking for jobs. So that was one thing. I wound up, for the last four years of my practice before I became a judge, working in a firm called Dwyer Collora & Gertner. It was more of a boutique, white-collar firm. But I wasn't interested in the big firms because I didn't want anyone to tell me what to do. I didn't want anyone to say, “Don't write this op-ed because you'll piss off my clients.” I faced the same kind of issue when I left the bench. I could have an office, and sort of float into client conferences from time to time, but I did not want to be in a setting in which anyone told me what to do. It was true then; it certainly is true now.DL: So you did end up in another setting where, for the most part, you weren't told what to do: namely, you became a federal judge. And I suppose the First Circuit could from time to time tell you what to do, but….NG: But they were always wrong.DL: Yes, I do remember that when you were my professor, you would offer your thoughts on appellate rulings. But how did you—given the kind of career you had, especially—become a federal judge? Because let me be honest, I think that somebody with your type of engagement in hot-button issues today would have a challenging time. Republican senators would grandstand about you coming up with excuses for women murderers, or what have you. Did you have a rough confirmation process?NG: I did. So I'm up for the bench in 1993. This is under Bill Clinton, and I'm told—I never confirmed this—that when Senator Kennedy…. When I met Senator Kennedy, I thought I didn't have a prayer of becoming a judge. I put my name in because I knew the Clintons, and everybody I knew was getting a job in the government. I had not thought about being a judge. I had not prepared. I had not structured my career to be a judge. But everyone I knew was going into the government, and I thought if there ever was a time, this would be it. So I apply. Someday, someone should emboss my application, because the application was quite hysterical. I put in every article that I had written calling for access to reproductive technologies to gay people. It was something to behold.Kennedy was at the tail end of his career, and he was determined to put someone like me on the bench. I'm not sure that anyone else would have done that. I'm told (and this isn't confirmed) that when he talked to Bill and Hillary about me, they of course knew me—Hillary and I had been close friends—but they knew me to be that radical friend of theirs from Yale Law School. There had been 24 years in between, but still. And I'm told that what was said was, “She's terrific. But if there's a problem, she's yours.” But Kennedy was really determined.The week before my hearing before the Senate, I had gotten letters from everyone who had ever opposed me. Every prosecutor. I can't remember anyone who had said no. Bill Weld wrote a letter. Bob Mueller, who had opposed me in cases, wrote a letter. But as I think oftentimes happens with women, there was an article in The Boston Herald the day before my hearing, in which the writer compared me to Lorena Bobbitt. Your listeners may not know this, but he said, “Gertner will do to justice, with her gavel, what Lorena did to her husband, with a kitchen knife.” Do we have to explain that any more?DL: They can Google it or ask ChatGPT. I'm old enough to know about Lorena Bobbitt.NG: Right. So it's just at the tail edge of the presentation, that was always what the caricature would be. But Kennedy was masterful. There were numbers of us who were all up at the same time. Everyone else got through except me. I'm told that that article really was the basis for Senator Jesse Helms's opposition to me. And then Senator Kennedy called us one day and said, “Tomorrow you're going to read something, but don't worry, I'll take care of it.” And the Boston Globe headline says, “Kennedy Votes For Helms's School-Prayer Amendment.” And he called us and said, “We'll take care of it in committee.” And then we get a call from him—my husband took the call—Kennedy, affecting Helms's accent, said, ‘Senator, you've got your judge.' We didn't even understand what the hell he said, between his Boston accent and imitating Helms; we had no idea what he said. But that then was confirmed.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits@nexfirm.com.So turning to your time as a judge, how would you describe that period, in a nutshell? The job did come with certain restrictions. Did you enjoy it, notwithstanding the restrictions?NG: I candidly was not sure that I would last beyond five years, for a couple of reasons. One was, I got on the bench in 1994, when the sentencing guidelines were mandatory, when what we taught you in my sentencing class was not happening, which is that judges would depart from the guidelines and the Sentencing Commission, when enough of us would depart, would begin to change the guidelines, and there'd be a feedback loop. There was no feedback loop. If you departed, you were reversed. And actually the genesis of the book I'm writing now came from this period. As far as I was concerned, I was being unfair. As I later said, my sentences were unfair, unjust, and disproportionate—and there was nothing I could do about it. So I was not sure that I was going to last beyond five years.In addition, there were some high-profile criminal trials going on with lawyers that I knew that I probably would've been a part of if I had been practicing. And I hungered to do that, to go back and be a litigator. The course at Yale Law School that you were a part of saved me. And it saved me because, certainly with respect to the sentencing, it turned what seemed like a formula into an intellectual discussion in which there was wiggle room and the ability to come up with other approaches. In other words, we were taught that this was a formula, and you don't depart from the formula, and that's it. The class came up with creative issues and creative understandings, which made an enormous difference to my judging.So I started to write; I started to write opinions. Even if the opinion says there's nothing I can do about it, I would write opinions in which I say, “I can't depart because of this woman's status as a single mother because the guidelines said only extraordinary family circumstances can justify a departure, and this wasn't extraordinary. That makes no sense.” And I began to write this in my opinions, I began to write this in scholarly writings, and that made all the difference in the world. And sometimes I was reversed, and sometimes I was not. But it enabled me to figure out how to push back against a system which I found to be palpably unfair. So I figured out how to be me in this job—and that was enormously helpful.DL: And I know how much and how deeply you cared about sentencing because of the class in which I actually wound up writing one of my two capstone papers at Yale.NG: To your listeners, I still have that paper.DL: You must be quite a pack rat!NG: I can change the grade at any time….DL: Well, I hope you've enjoyed your time today, Judge, and will keep the grade that way!But let me ask you: now that the guidelines are advisory, do you view that as a step forward from your time on the bench? Perhaps you would still be a judge if they were advisory? I don't know.NG: No, they became advisory in 2005, and I didn't leave until 2011. Yes, that was enormously helpful: you could choose what you thought was a fair sentence, so it's very advisory now. But I don't think I would've stayed longer, because of two reasons.By the time I hit 65, I wanted another act. I wanted another round. I thought I had done all that I could do as a judge, and I wanted to try something different. And Martha Minow of Harvard Law School made me an offer I couldn't refuse, which was to teach at Harvard. So that was one. It also, candidly, was that there was no longevity in my family, and so when I turned 65, I wasn't sure what was going to happen. So I did want to try something new. But I'm still here.DL: Yep—definitely, and very active. I always chuckle when I see “Ret.,” the abbreviation for “retired,” in your email signature, because you do not seem very retired to me. Tell us what you are up to today.NG: Well, first I have this book that I've been writing for several years, called Incomplete Sentences. And so what this book started to be about was the men and women that I sentenced, and how unfair it was, and what I thought we should have done. Then one day I got a message from a man by the name of Darryl Green, and it says, “Is this Nancy Gertner? If it is, I think about you all the time. I hope you're well. I'm well. I'm an iron worker. I have a family. I've written books. You probably don't remember me.” This was a Facebook message. I knew exactly who he was. He was a man who had faced the death penalty in my court, and I acquitted him. And he was then tried in state court, and acquitted again. So I knew exactly who he was, and I decided to write back.So I wrote back and said, “I know who you are. Do you want to meet?” That started a series of meetings that I've had with the men I've sentenced over the course of the 17-year career that I had as a judge. Why has it taken me this long to write? First, because these have been incredibly moving and difficult discussions. Second, because I wanted the book to be honest about what I knew about them and what a difference maybe this information would make. It is extremely difficult, David, to be honest about judging, particularly in these days when judges are parodied. So if I talk about how I wanted to exercise some leniency in a case, I understand that this can be parodied—and I don't want it to be, but I want to be honest.So for example, in one case, there would be cooperators in the case who'd get up and testify that the individual who was charged with only X amount of drugs was actually involved with much more than that. And you knew that if you believed the witness, the sentence would be doubled, even though you thought that didn't make any sense. This was really just mostly how long the cops were on the corner watching the drug deals. It didn't make the guy who was dealing drugs on a bicycle any more culpable than the guy who was doing massive quantities into the country.So I would struggle with, “Do I really believe this man, the witness who's upping the quantity?” And the kinds of exercises I would go through to make sure that I wasn't making a decision because I didn't like the implications of the decision and it was what I was really feeling. So it's not been easy to write, and it's taken me a very long time. The other side of the coin is they're also incredibly honest with me, and sometimes I don't want to know what they're saying. Not like a sociologist who could say, “Oh, that's an interesting fact, I'll put it in.” It's like, “Oh no, I don't want to know that.”DL: Wow. The book sounds amazing; I can't wait to read it. When is it estimated to come out?NG: Well, I'm finishing it probably at the end of this year. I've rewritten it about five times. And my hope would be sometime next year. So yeah, it was organic. It's what I wanted to write from the minute I left the bench. And it covers the guideline period when it was lunacy to follow the guidelines, to a period when it was much more flexible, but the guidelines still disfavored considering things like addiction and trauma and adverse childhood experiences, which really defined many of the people I was sentencing. So it's a cri de cœur, as they say, which has not been easy to write.DL: Speaking of cri de cœurs, and speaking of difficult things, it's difficult to write about judging, but I think we also have alluded already to how difficult it is to engage in judging in 2025. What general thoughts would you have about being a federal judge in 2025? I know you are no longer a federal judge. But if you were still on the bench or when you talk to your former colleagues, what is it like on the ground right now?NG: It's nothing like when I was a judge. In fact, the first thing that happened when I left the bench is I wrote an article in which I said—this is in 2011—that the only pressure I had felt in my 17 years on the bench was to duck, avoid, and evade, waiver, statute of limitations. Well, all of a sudden, you now have judges who at least since January are dealing with emergencies that they can't turn their eyes away from, judges issuing rulings at 1 a.m., judges writing 60-page decisions on an emergency basis, because what the president is doing is literally unprecedented. The courts are being asked to look at issues that have never been addressed before, because no one has ever tried to do the things that he's doing. And they have almost overwhelmingly met the moment. It doesn't matter whether you're ruling for the government or against the government; they are taking these challenges enormously seriously. They're putting in the time.I had two clerks, maybe some judges have three, but it's a prodigious amount of work. Whereas everyone complained about the Trump prosecutions proceeding so slowly, judges have been working expeditiously on these challenges, and under circumstances that I never faced, which is threats the likes of which I have never seen. One judge literally played for me the kinds of voice messages that he got after a decision that he issued. So they're doing it under circumstances that we never had to face. And it's not just the disgruntled public talking; it's also our fellow Yale Law alum, JD Vance, talking about rogue judges. That's a level of delegitimization that I just don't think anyone ever had to deal with before. So they're being challenged in ways that no other judges have, and they are being threatened in a way that no judges have.On the other hand, I wish I were on the bench.DL: Interesting, because I was going to ask you that. If you were to give lower-court judges a grade, to put you back in professor mode, on their performance since January 2025, what grade would you give the lower courts?NG: Oh, I would give them an A. I would give them an A. It doesn't matter which way they have come out: decision after decision has been thoughtful and careful. They put in the time. Again, this is not a commentary on what direction they have gone in, but it's a commentary on meeting the moment. And so now these are judges who are getting emergency orders, emergency cases, in the midst of an already busy docket. It has really been extraordinary. The district courts have; the courts of appeals have. I've left out another court….DL: We'll get to that in a minute. But I'm curious: you were on the District of Massachusetts, which has been a real center of activity because many groups file there. As we're recording this, there is the SNAP benefits, federal food assistance litigation playing out there [before Judge Indira Talwani, with another case before Chief Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island]. So it's really just ground zero for a lot of these challenges. But you alluded to the Supreme Court, and I was going to ask you—even before you did—what grade would you give them?NG: Failed. The debate about the shadow docket, which you write about and I write about, in which Justice Kavanaugh thinks, “we're doing fine making interim orders, and therefore it's okay that there's even a precedential value to our interim orders, and thank you very much district court judges for what you're doing, but we'll be the ones to resolve these issues”—I mean, they're resolving these issues in the most perfunctory manner possible.In the tariff case, for example, which is going to be argued on Wednesday, the Court has expedited briefing and expedited oral argument. They could do that with the emergency docket, but they are preferring to hide behind this very perfunctory decision making. I'm not sure why—maybe to keep their options open? Justice Barrett talks about how if it's going to be a hasty decision, you want to make sure that it's not written in stone. But of course then the cases dealing with independent commissions, in which you are allowing the government, allowing the president, to fire people on independent commissions—these cases are effectively overruling Humphrey's Executor, in the most ridiculous setting. So the Court is not meeting the moment. It was stunning that the Court decided in the birthright-citizenship case to be concerned about nationwide injunctions, when in fact nationwide injunctions had been challenged throughout the Biden administration, and they just decided not to address the issue then.Now, I have a lot to say about Justice Kavanaugh's dressing-down of Judge [William] Young [of the District of Massachusetts]….DL: Or Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Kavanaugh.NG: That's right, it was Justice Gorsuch. It was stunningly inappropriate, stunningly inappropriate, undermines the district courts that frankly are doing much better than the Supreme Court in meeting the moment. The whole concept of defying the Supreme Court—defying a Supreme Court order, a three-paragraph, shadow-docket order—is preposterous. So whereas the district courts and the courts of appeals are meeting the moment, I do not think the Supreme Court is. And that's not even going into the merits of the immunity decision, which I think has let loose a lawless presidency that is even more lawless than it might otherwise be. So yes, that failed.DL: I do want to highlight for my readers that in addition to your books and your speaking, you do write quite frequently on these issues in the popular press. I've seen your work in The New York Times and The Boston Globe. I know you're working on a longer essay about the rule of law in the age of Trump, so people should look out for that. Of all the things that you worry about right now when it comes to the rule of law, what worries you the most?NG: I worry that the president will ignore and disobey a Supreme Court order. I think a lot about the judges that are dealing with orders that the government is not obeying, and people are impatient that they're not immediately moving to contempt. And one gets the sense with the lower courts that they are inching up to the moment of contempt, but do not want to get there because it would be a stunning moment when you hold the government in contempt. I think the Supreme Court is doing the same thing. I initially believed that the Supreme Court was withholding an anti-Trump decision, frankly, for fear that he would not obey it, and they were waiting till it mattered. I now am no longer certain of that, because there have been rulings that made no sense as far as I'm concerned. But my point was that they, like the lower courts, were holding back rather than saying, “Government, you must do X,” for fear that the government would say, “Go pound sand.” And that's what I fear, because when that happens, it will be even more of a constitutional crisis than we're in now. It'll be a constitutional confrontation, the likes of which we haven't seen. So that's what I worry about.DL: Picking up on what you just said, here's something that I posed to one of my prior guests, Pam Karlan. Let's say you're right that the Supreme Court doesn't want to draw this line in the sand because of a fear that Trump, being Trump, will cross it. Why is that not prudential? Why is that not the right thing? And why is it not right for the Supreme Court to husband its political capital for the real moment?Say Trump—I know he said lately he's not going to—but say Trump attempts to run for a third term, and some case goes up to the Supreme Court on that basis, and the Court needs to be able to speak in a strong, unified, powerful voice. Or maybe it'll be a birthright-citizenship case, if he says, when they get to the merits of that, “Well, that's really nice that you think that there's such a thing as birthright citizenship, but I don't, and now stop me.” Why is it not wise for the Supreme Court to protect itself, until this moment when it needs to come forward and protect all of us?NG: First, the question is whether that is in fact what they are doing, and as I said, there were two schools of thought on this. One school of thought was that is what they were doing, and particularly doing it in an emergency, fuzzy, not really precedential way, until suddenly you're at the edge of the cliff, and you have to either say taking away birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, or tariffs, you can't do the tariffs the way you want to do the tariffs. I mean, they're husbanding—I like the way you put it, husbanding—their political capital, until that moment. I'm not sure that that's true. I think we'll know that if in fact the decisions that are coming down the pike, they actually decide against Trump—notably the tariff ones, notably birthright citizenship. I'm just not sure that that's true.And besides, David, there are some of these cases they did not have to take. The shadow docket was about where plaintiffs were saying it is an emergency to lay people off or fire people. Irreparable harm is on the plaintiff's side, whereas the government otherwise would just continue to do that which it has been doing. There's no harm to it continuing that. USAID—you don't have a right to dismantle the USAID. The harm is on the side of the dismantling, not having you do that which you have already done and could do through Congress, if you wanted to. They didn't have to take those cases. So your comment about husbanding political capital is a good comment, but those cases could have remained as they were in the district courts with whatever the courts of appeals did, and they could do what previous courts have done, which is wait for the issues to percolate longer.The big one for me, too, is the voting rights case. If they decide the voting rights case in January or February or March, if they rush it through, I will say then it's clear they're in the tank for Trump, because the only reason to get that decision out the door is for the 2026 election. So I want to believe that they are husbanding their political capital, but I'm not sure that if that's true, that we would've seen this pattern. But the proof will be with the voting rights case, with birthright citizenship, with the tariffs.DL: Well, it will be very interesting to see what happens in those cases. But let us now turn to my speed round. These are four questions that are the same for all my guests, and my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as an abstract system of governance.NG: The practice of law. I do some litigation; I'm in two cases. When I was a judge, I used to laugh at people who said incivility was the most significant problem in the law. I thought there were lots of other more significant problems. I've come now to see how incredibly nasty the practice of law is. So yes—and that is no fun.DL: My second question is, what would you be if you were not a lawyer/judge/retired judge?NG: Musical comedy star, clearly! No question about it.DL: There are some judges—Judge Fred Block in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jed Rakoff in the Southern District of New York—who do these little musical stylings for their court shows. I don't know if you've ever tried that?NG: We used to do Shakespeare, Shakespeare readings, and I loved that. I am a ham—so absolutely musical comedy or theater.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?NG: Six to seven hours now, just because I'm old. Before that, four. Most of my life as a litigator, I never thought I needed sleep. You get into my age, you need sleep. And also you look like hell the next morning, so it's either getting sleep or a facelift.DL: And my last question is, any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?NG: You have to do what you love. You have to do what you love. The law takes time and is so all-encompassing that you have to do what you love. And I have done what I love from beginning to now, and I wouldn't have it any other way.DL: Well, I have loved catching up with you, Judge, and having you share your thoughts and your story with my listeners. Thank you so much for joining me.NG: You're very welcome, David. Take care.DL: Thanks so much to Judge Gertner for joining me. I look forward to reading her next book, Incomplete Sentences, when it comes out next year.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment@nexfirm.com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat@substack.com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat.substack.com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, November 26. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

In breaking news, there are not 4 votes on the US Supreme Court to overturn the Constitutional right for people to marry who they choose and same sex marriage, as the Supreme Court refuses to hear on appeal the case of Kim Davis, the clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. Michael Popok explains how Davis, the stalking horse of the MAGA right-wing religious zealots who sought to have the Court follow Justice Thomas' call to have same sex marriage as a constitutional right protected from State attack, overturned, and how even MAGA justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Alito think that's going too far. Lola Blankets: Get 40% off your entire order at https://lolablankets.com by using code LEGALAF at checkout. Experience the world's #1 blanket with Lola Blankets. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Justice Amy Coney Barrett is playing the long game. In this week's “Interesting Times,” she walks us through the current court's most controversial rulings, why she believes that her originalist interpretations are resistant to ideological pressures and why she's not comfortable thinking of herself as a cultural icon.02:19 - Balancing the personal and the professional11:45 - The theory and practice of originalism18:00 - Why was Roe. v. Wade overruled?27:19 - Stare Decisis and Overruling Decisions35:29 - “Judges are human and judges are fallible.”42:49 - The Supreme Court is taking the long view53:20 - The Court's relationship with the executive branch(A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.)Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Please subscribe to our YouTube Channel, Interesting Times with Ross Douthat. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.

George Will laughably calls Abraham Lincoln an origianlist. Why? Because we have to understand Amy Coney Barrett. Seriously.https://mcclanahanacademy.comhttps://patreon.com/thebrionmcclanahanshowhttps://brionmcclanahan.com/supporthttp://learntruehistory.com

On September 17, 2025, the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, joined Jeffrey Rosen for an America's Town Hall program in celebration of Constitution Day 2025 and the release of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution. Justice Barrett reflects on her journey to the Court and offers a glimpse into her role (and daily life) as a justice, including her deliberative process and approach to constitutional interpretation.     Resources  Amy Coney Barrett, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution, (2025)  National Constitution Center: America at 250 Civic Toolkit  National Constitution Center: Constitution Daily  Stay Connected and Learn More  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr  Explore the America at 250 Civic Toolkit Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube

Our fearless hosts continue to slog through this sh*tty shadow docket summer, covering an order from the Court okaying racial profiling by ICE officers, some ominous administrative stays, Amy Coney Barrett's ongoing press tour through right wing media, and the lower courts' continuing frustrations with this Supreme Court. Then, Leah and Kate speak with special guest Symone Sanders Townsend, co-host of MSNBC's The Weeknight, about how the Supreme Court is carrying out key parts of Project 2025, and enabling and facilitating other parts of the government to do the same. Hosts' favorite things:Leah: The Guatemalan Children's Case and the Judicial Learning Curve, Anna Bower (Lawfare); What Should a Lower Federal Court Judge Do When SCOTUS Plays Calvinball? By Michael Dorf (Dorf on Law). Kate: Bonus 177: A Closer Look at Justice Kavanaugh's ICE Raids Opinion, Steve Vladeck (One First); Zohran Mamdani's ‘Stop Sending Us Money” TikTokMelissa: “Trump's Treasury Secretary Threatens to Punch Housing Official in the Face,” Maggie Haberman and Shawn McCreesh (Washington Post) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/damagereport and get on your way to being your best self. Trump is on the defense after the gross birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein was released. MAGA pushes a conspiracy on the Epstein letter. SCOTUS gives Trump two big wins as Amy Coney Barrett defends the court. The Trump administration is preparing to invade Chicago. Bill Gates has been financially supporting deportation flights.  Host: Yasmin Kahn (@YazzieK) Co-Host: Jackson White ***** SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE TIKTOK  ☞        https://www.tiktok.com/@thedamagereport INSTAGRAM  ☞   https://www.instagram.com/thedamagereport TWITTER  ☞         https://twitter.com/TheDamageReport FACEBOOK  ☞     https://www.facebook.com/TheDamageReportTYT

When Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the Supreme Court, she was in some ways an unlikely choice. She was living in South Bend, Indiana, not New York or D.C. She went to Notre Dame Law School, making her the only justice that didn't go to Harvard or Yale. She's the mother of seven kids. And, at the time of her appointment, she'd largely spent her career as a professor, with just under three years on a federal appeals court. To put it bluntly, Amy Coney Barrett was an outsider. But people close to President Donald Trump saw something: She was an originalist. A former clerk for Antonin Scalia. A devout Catholic with real intellectual bona fides. And a rising star in the conservative legal movement. In short, she was the ideal jurist to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After her 2020 nomination, the left called her inexperienced and a religious zealot. They said her confirmation hearing was rushed, and that she would undermine trust in the Supreme Court. But with a 52–48 vote, just six weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Barrett was confirmed—without one Democratic vote. She took her seat at the highest court at just 48 years old, and became only the fifth woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Considering how our nation's most powerful people stick around into their 80s, she'll likely have a major impact on American law and life for decades to come. We're now five years into her time on the bench. And in a turn of events, CNN ran a piece last year titled “The Last Best Hope for Supreme Court Liberals: Amy Coney Barrett.” Newsweek ran “Amy Coney Barrett Is Liberal Justices' ‘Best Chance': SCOTUS Analyst ” and The New York Times ran “How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left.” How did we get from “dangerous, religious zealot” to “last best hope”? On one hand, Barrett has done what one would expect of a Republican appointee: voting to overrule Roe v. Wade; voting to outlaw affirmative action; and voting against the administrative state. At the same time, she has voted with liberal justices in some of the most pivotal cases—and in Trump-related cases, she is the member of the conservative supermajority who has sided in Trump's favor the least.  In short, Barrett surprises. She just wrote a new book called Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, where she makes the simple but salient points: Her job is not to like all of her decisions, nor is it  to please the media or a president. It's to follow the text of the Constitution, full stop.  On Thursday night Bari sat down for a rare conversation with Justice Barrett at Lincoln Center's Alice Tully Hall in New York City.  Bari also asks her about key cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the birthright citizenship case, nationwide injunctions, the shadow docket, transgender minors getting medical treatment, her willingness to dissent with liberal justices, her response to people who call her an “evil DEI hire,” and so much more. This show is proudly sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). FIRE believes free speech makes free people. Make your tax-deductible donation today at www.thefire.org/honestly New episodes of The Isabel Brown Show can be viewed on DailyWire+ here: www.dailywire.com/show/the-isabel-brown-showFollow Isabel on X: www.x.com/theisabelbFollow Isabel on Instagram: www.instagram.com/theisabelbrown Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kate, Leah, and Melissa break down how the lower courts are challenging the Trump administration and expressing their frustration with SCOTUS. Then, they check in with two members of the supermajority: Brett Kavanaugh, who's touting a shiny new shadow docket rebrand, and Amy Coney Barrett as she commences her cursèd book tour. Finally, the hosts speak with Yale Law professor Justin Driver about his book, The Fall of Affirmative Action: Race, the Supreme Court, and the Future of Higher Education.Hosts' and guests' favorite things:Kate: Apologies: You Have Reached the End of Your Free-Trial Period of America! By Alexandra Petri (The Atlantic); Bonus 176: Law, Lawlessness, and Doomerism, Steve Vladeck (One First); How a Top Secret SEAL Team 6 Mission Into North Korea Fell Apart, Dave Philipps and Matthew Cole (NYT)Leah: The DC Circuit's Realpolitik Orders in the Foreign Aid Funding Case, Chris Geidner; 174. Justice Gorsuch's Attack on Lower Courts & Bonus 174: Playing the Justices for Fools, Steve Vladeck (One First); The Supreme Court Is Backing Trump's Power Grab, Kate Shaw & Ezra Klein (NYT).Melissa: RFK's Senate Finance Committee hearing; Hijacking the Kennedys, Reeves Waldman (New York Magazine); Nancy Mace: Everything You Didn't Know About Her Sh*tty Past (Crooked's Hysteria); These Summer Storms, Sarah MacLean; Gwyneth: The Biography, Amy OdellJustin: The Creative Act: A Way of Being, Rick Rubin; Martin Luther King's Constitution: A Legal History of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Randall Kennedy (Yale Law Journal) Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsOrder your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesGet tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.comFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

MAJOR UPDATE: Justice Barrett Fires Back on Constitutional Crisis.

VR6 - For today's Vapid Response Wednesday, Thomas, Lydia, and Matt review two examples from a newly-popular genre of lazy right wing op-eds: insecure white guys complaining about Supreme Court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is with these losers who are so obsessed with trying to prove that one of the most qualified nominees to the high court in our lifetimes isn't fit for the job? We take dark-money sugar baby Josh Hammer up on the joke to compare his life achievements to someone who began her SCOTUS career with four times as much courtroom experience as John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, and Amy Coney Barrett combined--before moving on to trying to even understand what Federalist weirdo Shawn Fleetwood thinks he is saying. “Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an Insult to the Supreme Court,” Josh Hammer, Newsweek (7/1/2025) “KBJ Could Learn a Few Lessons in ‘Professionalism' From Justice Barrett,” Shawn Fleetwood, The Federalist (8/20/2025) Ketanji Brown Jackson's career timeline from the Southern Poverty Law Center (4/7/22) Watch on YouTube!

Alan Rozenshtein, Senior Editor at Lawfare and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, speaks with Noah Feldman, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision to greatly limit the practice of universal injunctions. The ruling came in a case involving a Trump administration executive order on birthright citizenship, and while many commentators have viewed the decision as a dangerous loss for the rule of law, Noah argues that the Court might be playing a strategic "long game."Alan and Noah discuss Noah's central thesis: that the Supreme Court's primary job in the Trump era is to protect the rule of law by avoiding a direct constitutional crisis with the executive branch that the judiciary is likely to lose. From this perspective, eliminating universal injunctions—a tool that allows a single district judge to start a major fight—is a way for the Court to control when and where it confronts the administration. They also address the legal merits of Justice Barrett's majority opinion, which Noah argues was a flawed use of originalism that misinterpreted the flexible, problem-solving nature of equity. Finally, they explore the legal avenues for relief that remain, such as class actions, and consider what it means for the judiciary to truly "win" or "lose" a confrontation with a president who is undeterred by political norms.Note that this discussion was recorded in early July, before a lower court certified a class action in the birthright citizenship litigation and before the Supreme Court's recent unsigned opinion allowing the Trump administration to begin mass firings at the Department of Education, which Noah has since criticized.Mentioned in this episode:"The Supreme Court's Majority Is Playing the Long Game,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg Opinion"The Supreme Court's Silent Opinions Undermine Its Legitimacy,” by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg OpinionTo 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.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, we bring you the best of Mark Levin on the forth of July! There is this Marxist-Islamist movement infiltrating U.S. institutions, especially the Democratic Party. ‘On Power' is a unique educational tool on these threats and it explores the ideological threats of Marxism and Islamism to American liberty, rights, sovereignty, and faith. It delves into the historical, philosophical, and political contexts of these issues, contrasting the Judeo-Christian belief system with Marxist-Islamist ideologies. Also, David Trulio, President and CEO of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute calls in to announce Mark's ‘On Power' book signing, lecture and dinner on August 17, 2025 at the Reagan Library. Later, Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, is a Marxist and an Islamist who supports Hamas slogans, the BDS movement, and holds anti-Semitic views, though he reportedly denies these claims. If voted Mayor of NYC he will cause New York City's decline, with good people leaving and radical Islamists arriving.  Mamdani's positions, including his criticism of Israel and Marxist beliefs, are incompatible with American values and pose a threat to New York City, particularly given its large Jewish population. Mamdani's nomination reflects a broader strategy by Islamists to infiltrate American institutions. We need to confront these ideologies directly. Finally,  there were two big Supreme Court cases. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, the Second Industrial Revolution unleashed American capitalism's potential, driving unprecedented economic growth and creating a prosperous middle class. Contrary to Marxist critiques, capitalism delivered widespread benefits through innovation, producing abundant food, housing, medical care, and modern conveniences like clean water and automobiles. These advancements raised life expectancy and living standards far beyond historical norms, showcasing capitalism's ability to foster prosperity and self-correction in open societies, unlike Marxist or autocratic systems. This is an answer to NYC Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani who said he doesn't support capitalism. When you understand capitalism it's very easy to defend.  Also, there were two big Supreme Court cases today. In a 6-3 Supreme Court decision written by Justice Barrett, the court ruled against universal injunctions, asserting federal courts lack authority to broadly oversee the executive branch. Barrett's opinion emphasizes courts must stay within Congress-granted powers, preventing judicial overreach that could undermine the presidency and constitutional framework. Justice Jackson's dissent is radical. The ruling protects the democratic processes. In addition, there was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, who challenged the school board's policy of mandating LGBTQ and related curricula in elementary schools without informing parents or allowing them to opt out. This decision reinforces protections for religious freedom and parental authority. Finally, Gianno Caldwell joins to talk about his new book, The Day My Brother Was Murdered: My Journey Through America's Violent Crime Crisis. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices