Podcasts about appeals

On this, our 317th Evolutionary Lens livestream, we discuss radiation and its impact on (rodent) health, and the 9th circuit's decision to let men use women's spas. First: research published in 2018 finds that low levels of non-ionizing radiation—like that emitted by cell phones and air pods—are actually associated with life extension in mice and rats. Don't get too excited—these are the same rodents whose breeding protocols have broken them in some counter-intuitive ways, including that low doses of toxins or radiation can actually slow down the cancer that will otherwise kill them. Then: Olympus Spa, a traditional Korean nude spa for women in the Seattle area, was told by the state of Washington, now upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that they must let men in, so long as those men think they're women. Judge VanDyke's dissent correctly summarizes the issue as one of “swinging dicks.”*****Our sponsors:CrowdHealth: Pay for healthcare with crowdfunding instead of insurance. It's way better. Use code DarkHorse at http://JoinCrowdHealth.com to get 1st 3 months for $99/month.Toups: Ready to give Toups a try? Get 25% off your first order by going to http://toupsandco.com/DARKHORSE, and use code DARKHORSE for 25% off your first order.Puori: Amazingly clean and safe supplements and protein powders, lab tested and guaranteed. Go to http://Puori.com/DarkHorse for 32% off grass-fed whey protein with a subscription. DarkHorse code works on all products!*****Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.com/Heather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comOur book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org*****Mentioned in this episode:Toxicology and carcinogenesis in mice exposed to radio frequency radiation, 2018: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564529/#S9Thread on this research: https://x.com/zanehkoch/status/2033400775762964601JAX lab on telomere length: https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2020/july/telomere-length-in-miceBreeding protocols: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500423/Weinstein & Ciszek 2002: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909679/9th Circuit on Olympus Spa letting men in:https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/12/23-4031.pdfSupport the show

When Trump brags about reshaping corporate media, it is a “tell” that something has gone very wrong in his lawsuits against corporate media. Popok explains how Trump couldn't get 1 vote out of 12 on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to let him sue CNN in defamation, for calling his false claims of election fraud the "Big Lie” or calling him “Hitler-like,” as Judges around the country are on the verge of dismissing his other cases against the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, the BBC and the Des Moines Register!Check out the Popok firm at https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today's edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses the death of Paul Ehrlich, the problems with population control ideology, if medical associations will backpedal from the transgender revolution, new legislation in California that would require insurance companies to cover female medical procedures that are biologically impossible for men, another woke ruling and its controversy in California, and what nudism in the headlines lays bare about our cultural moment.Part I (00:13 – 09:36)The Death of Paul Ehrlich: Author of “The Population Bomb” and Prophet of the Culture of Death Dies at 93Part II (09:36 – 19:53)Reality vs. the Population Control Worldview: Evidence Did Not Confirm Ehrlich's Population Control Hypothesis – So as a Scientist, Why Didn't He Change His Theory?Paul R. Ehrlich, Who Alarmed the World With ‘The Population Bomb,' Dies at 93 by The New York Times (Keith Schneider)Part III (19:53 – 20:21)Population Control vs. Creation Order: By Definition, Population Control Cannot Be the Real Problem When the Creator Has Told Us to Be Fruitful and MultiplyPart IV (20:21 – 22:29)Will Medical Associations Backpedal from the Transgender Revolution? Money and Ideology are Driving the LGBTQ RevolutionPart V (22:29 – 23:14)The Transgender Revolution Rolls On? New Legislation in California Would Require Insurance Companies to Cover Female Medical Procedures That Are Biologically Impossible for MenPart VI (23:14 – 25:10)Another Woke Ruling in California: A 9th Circuit Ruling and Its Dissent Have Caused a Big ControversyOlympus Spa vs. Armstrong by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitPart VII (25:10 – 27:36)Rules For Nude Cruises? That Nudism is News Lays Bare Our Cultural MomentYes, there are nude cruises. An insider explains what you should know by USA Today (Nathan Diller)Nudist Camp for Sale: The Rise and Fall of the Florida Naturist Park by The New York Times (Ronda Kaysen)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Tuesday, March 17th, 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 Kevin Swanson and Timothy Reed Cuba is on verge of collapse Cuba, a communist country in the Western Hemisphere, is on the verge of collapse. Oil shipments to the island nation stopped three months ago and the nation's electric grid gave out over the weekend. Plus, the country's Gross Domestic Product, the total monetary value of all goods and services produced within a country's borders, slipped another 5% last year.  According to the United Nation's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, communist Cuba has the worst GDP/capita in Latin America — barely reaching $1,000 per year. The worst economies in Latin America are communist Venezuela, communist Nicaragua, communist Cuba, and Haiti.  Cuba is ripest nation for spiritual revival Despite the economic doom and gloom, Cuba appears to be the ripest for spiritual revival of any nation in the world today.   The Baptists have reported a 40-fold increase in the number of churches since 1990.  One estimate puts the total number of Cuban believers at two million. That's about 20% of the population -- higher than membership in the communist party for the country. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus promised that “He would build His church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” 47% of Americans oppose the U.S.-Iranian war Americans continue to have mixed opinions about the Iran conflict. New polling averages, from Real Clear Politics, found that 44% of Americans support the war, while 47% oppose the fight.  Similarly, a Quinnipiac poll found that only 40% of Americans favor the war, with 53% in opposition. A whopping 74% of Americans are opposed to sending ground troops into the war, something the Trump administration has not ruled out.  Court allows naked men in women's spa The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has let stand a lower court ruling requiring a private spa, intended for women, to allow naked men to frequent the premises. The Washington State spa owners insisted this policy would be contrary to their Christian beliefs.  Thus far, at least five judges have filed dissents on the decision. 19% of employees at U.S. companies are foreign workers American corporations are hiring foreign workers like never before, recent numbers indicate 19.2% of their employees are foreign workers, up from 12% twenty years ago.  Another 10% of the U.S. workforce is also provided for by digital offshoring by organizations like Upwork. That makes almost a third of the U.S. workforce now provided for by foreigners. Pastor: If you're a Christian, don't live in sin with someone Megachurch pastor Josh Howerton of LakePointe Church in Dallas, Texas, challenged Christian couples to stop living in sin. HOWERTON: “The Bible is going to say things about marriage, sexuality and divorce that are very controversial to the world. My response to that is: ‘To who?' Because what the world says about marriage is controversial to Heaven. I would rather Heaven be pleased and the world say we're controversial than be applauded by the world and controversial before Heaven.” Pastor Howerton concluded his sermon with this challenge. HOWERTON: “You're living with somebody that's not your spouse. You're sleeping with somebody that's not your spouse. Or you've actually already started a family and had kids with somebody that's not your spouse. “And you, right now, are coming under the loving conviction of the Holy Spirit that you need to honor God, bend your knee to Jesus, put a ring on it, and enter into a covenant with a person that you're already acting like you're in a covenant with. “What I want you to know is we want to help you do that, because we got a little thing at Lakepoint. We say, ‘The only time we look down on people is to give them a hand up.' “So, here's what we want to do. We got a whole team of pastors. We are ready to have a mass wedding ceremony. I'm 100% serious. We got people. We're gonna walk with you, counsel you, help you, and then we're gonna get you married. We're gonna throw a big party. “And guess what? Your church family is not going to be doing. These people aren't going to be judging you. They're going to be cheering you on as you step forward into obedience to Jesus Christ.” Remarkably, following the sermon, 52 couples came forward and were married at the church a couple of weeks later. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool.'” Tennessee bill to abolish abortion died in committee A bill before the Tennessee State legislature that would have fully banned abortion was killed in the legislature's Health Subcommittee last week, reports the Nashville Banner. The bill would have criminalized abortion and given equal protection to the unborn under the law. However, the measure was actively opposed by both pro-abortion and pro-life groups, who argued the law was too strict.  Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, stated, “I don't think it's merciful to tell women that they're allowed to murder their children. To those who say that having a blanket exemption for women is merciful, do you apply that to any other area of law?”  Similar bills have been introduced, both in Democratic and Republican states, and thus far, none have passed.  Proverbs 24:11 admonishes us to “Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.” Christian apologist shares Christ on popular podcast Apologist Wes Huff clearly explained the Gospel of Jesus Christ to entrepreneur Steven Bartlett on Bartlett's “Diary of a CEO” podcast — among the top podcasts in the world. In fact, 3 million people listen per episode. BARTLETT: “If I sin in my life, do I go to hell?” HUFF:  “Here's the thing: everybody is going to hell. Everybody. The Bible is very clear. All good people go to Heaven, but Jesus said, ‘No one is good but God alone.' So, if all good people go to Heaven, and no one is good but God alone, only God is in Heaven.” BARTLETT: “Mmm.” HUFF:  “So, Christianity says you're not going to be able to do, feel or think good enough. Compared to God, you're always going to fall short. Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect, is what Scripture says. That's an impossible standard. “The message of the Bible, the reason why it's called the Gospel, the Good News, is because of the bad news. The bad news is you're dead in your sins and trespasses and you can't save yourself. Jesus, as the second Person of the Trinity, steps off of His throne in eternity, comes into humanity, and He pays the penalty of the sin that you deserve.” Romans 3:23 gives us the bad news. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” And Romans 5:8 gives us the Good News. "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Oscars awarded to foul-mouthed, immoral R-rated movies And finally, the 98th Academy Award ceremonies awarded more R-rated movies with top prizes again this year. One Battle After Another, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn, took the Best Picture award — a film celebrating revolution, killing ICE agents, and murdering pro-life legislators.  It played with moral ambiguity and satire, while encouraging revolutionary activity in society. Sadly, the film, which features the most obscene word 135 times and the Lord's name used in vain 20 times, garnered six Oscars. Another R-rated movie, Sinners, collected four more Oscars. The film glorified demonism, African animism, murderers, adulterers, and hoodoo witches, while condemning Christianity for its alleged legalism and white oppression. Sinners features the Lord's name taken in vain 11 times. I John 2:15-17 says, “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father, but from the world.  The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, March 17th, 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.

It's another ACP Round Table! Erin has recused herself, so Weer'd, David, and Oddball discuss: a study done by Dr. John Lott on transgender shooters that doesn't live up to his standards; a shooting at a nightclub in Austin, Texas; Virginia citizens buying guns in advance of new firearm prohibition laws; the D.C. Court of Appeals ruling that magazine bans are unconstitutional; the Florida Attorney General taking action against state workers who created a concealed carry registry; Casey Harrington's post on lead exposure; and a lawsuit against the Faderal Switchblade Act is gaining traction. Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes: Shooting Attacks—In 2024, for active shooters, at Least 12 Times Their Share of the Population What to know about the deadly shooting at a Texas bar and the gunman Virginia Gun Sales Surge as Democrats Move Dozens of New Restrictions DC's Highest Court Strikes Down Ammo Magazine Ban DC Mag Ban Update Florida AG Suing City Over List of Gun Owners Lead Safety While Shooting Assorted Calibers Podcast Ep 340 Knife Rights Federal Switchblade Act lawsuit appellate court oral argument on April 1  

For decades, otherwise lawful gun owners have been denied their rights under the Second Amendment due to a federal law. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just decided a case claiming that law unconstitutional as applied to a Mr. Hembree.

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching courtrooms turn into the main stage of American politics, but here we are on March 15, 2026, and the trials involving Donald Trump are heating up like a pressure cooker about to blow. Picture this: I'm sipping my morning coffee in my Washington, D.C. apartment, scrolling through updates on the federal election interference case in U.S. District Court under Judge Tanya Chutkan. Just last week, Trump's lawyers, John Lauro and Todd Blanche, doubled down on their wild push for an April 2026 trial date, arguing that the 11.5 million pages of discovery from Special Counsel Jack Smith's team—stacked up, they say, taller than eight Washington Monuments—demand at least two and a half years to review. According to Politico reports from the filings, they claim it's only fair since prosecutors had that long to build the case against Trump for his alleged conspiracies to subvert the 2020 election results, from fake electors to pressuring state officials like in Georgia.But hold on—prosecutors aren't buying it. Molly Gaston from Smith's office fired back in a Courthouse News Service brief, calling the defense's math ridiculous. She pointed out that 65% of those documents were already public or duplicates, including stuff from the National Archives, Trump's own Truth Social posts, and the House January 6 Select Committee transcripts. They front-loaded the key evidence, she said, with another 615,000 pages dropped over the weekend, 20% from Trump's own entities. No way this justifies kicking the trial into the next presidential term, they argue, especially since Trump knows most of this from the Jan. 6 hearings. Judge Chutkan, the no-nonsense Obama appointee, has warned Trump against inflammatory Truth Social rants that could taint the jury pool in D.C., hinting she'll speed things up if he keeps it up.Meanwhile, across the circuits, Trump's legal calendar is a nightmare. JustSecurity's master calendar shows deadlines piling up: In the Georgia RICO case, Fulton County DA Fani Willis is battling appeals over disqualifying her, with oral arguments wrapping last December before the Georgia Court of Appeals. Trump's team appealed Judge Scott McAfee's ruling allowing Willis to stay on, but whispers say it's dragging. Up in New York, the hush money case with DA Alvin Bragg—tied to Stormy Daniels payments—faced delays, but a federal appeals court shot down Trump's second removal bid to SDNY Judge Alvin Hellerstein. And don't get me started on the civil fronts: E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits, where juries already hit Trump with nearly $90 million in verdicts, now ping-ponging through the Second Circuit.Over in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon's May 2024 classified docs trial got tossed on appeal, but Smith's team is pushing back in the Eleventh Circuit. Even the Supreme Court docket for 2026, as ABC News outlines, teases executive power clashes that could ripple into Trump's orbit, like limits on presidential immunity post his earlier motions. YouTube legal recaps from channels like those covering his "three court losses in three days" back in October 2024 feel like ancient history now, but they set the tone—Trump's delay tactics aiming for a potential 2025 White House return to pardon or dismiss federal charges, though state cases like Georgia and New York are bulletproof.It's exhausting, listeners, watching this unfold from my couch, wondering if justice will outpace politics. The stakes? The soul of our elections. Thank you for tuning in, 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 Tina Peters saga drags on – Governor Polis says he will not make a decision on clemency for the disgraced elections official until a ruling on her case comes down from Colorado Court of Appeals; not to mention every Democrat in the legislature signed a letter this week urging Polis not to free her. So, will he or won't he? Politics contributor Adrian Felix joins producer Paul Karolyi and host Bree Davies to discuss Polis's mixed signals, plus dive into the impending strike at the JBS meatpacking plant, and of course, our wins and fails of the week.  Bree discussed the Racines memorabilia gifted to the Denver Public Library and the update in the Jax Gratton murder case. Paul talked about RTD expanding service for the G and B lines and the loss of the pothos plant at the old Amethyst Coffee. Adrian discussed City Council postponing a vote on the proposed new surveillance camera provider Axon.  For even more news from around the city, subscribe to our morning newsletter at denver.citycast.fm. Follow us on Instagram: @citycastdenver Chat with other listeners on reddit: r/CityCastDenver Support City Cast Denver by becoming a member: membership.citycast.fm What do you think about Governor Polis and the Tina Peters clemency question? We want to hear from you! Text or leave us a voicemail with your name and neighborhood, and you might hear it on the show: 720-500-5418‬Looking to advertise on City Cast Denver? Check out our options for podcast and newsletter ads at citycast.fm/advertise

This Day in Legal History: Butler ActOn March 13, 1925, the Tennessee General Assembly approved the Butler Act, a statute that made it unlawful for public school teachers to present any theory that denied the biblical account of human creation. The law specifically prohibited teaching that humans evolved from lower forms of life, reflecting growing tensions between scientific ideas and religious beliefs in early twentieth-century America. Tennessee lawmakers framed the statute as a way to protect traditional moral values in public education. Critics, however, immediately argued that the law restricted academic freedom and undermined the teaching of modern science.The controversy quickly escalated when a young teacher, John T. Scopes, agreed to challenge the statute. Scopes was charged with violating the Butler Act after he allowed evolution to be discussed in his classroom. His prosecution led to the famous 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial drew national attention and featured two of the era's most prominent legal figures: Clarence Darrow for the defense and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution. Their courtroom clash turned the case into a dramatic public debate over science, religion, and the role of government in shaping school curricula.Although Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100, the trial exposed deep cultural divisions within the United States. Media coverage portrayed the proceedings as a symbolic struggle between modern scientific thinking and religious fundamentalism. Over time, the Butler Act came to be seen by many as an example of government overreach into education and intellectual inquiry. Tennessee formally repealed the statute in 1967, decades after the trial had become a lasting symbol of the conflict between science and law.Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her ongoing challenge to a suspension imposed by her fellow judges. In a petition filed Thursday, the 98-year-old judge argues that the D.C. Circuit wrongly ruled that courts cannot review many challenges to judicial suspension orders under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. Newman contends that the statute should allow review when suspension decisions violate the law or the Constitution. Her petition claims the lower court misinterpreted the law by blocking challenges to actions that exceed the authority granted under the statute. Newman argues that her suspension effectively removes her from the bench without impeachment, which she says undermines constitutional protections for judicial independence and lifetime tenure.The Federal Circuit's judicial council first suspended Newman in 2023 after concerns that potential mental or physical health issues made her unable to perform judicial duties. The suspension followed her refusal to undergo medical evaluations requested by her colleagues and was characterized as serious misconduct. Although the suspension was initially set for one year, it has been renewed twice. Newman appealed through the internal judicial review process, but a national committee of judges upheld the suspension in 2024. She also challenged the suspension in federal court, arguing that parts of the judicial discipline law are unconstitutional. Both a district court and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, relying on a statutory provision stating that disciplinary orders under the act are final and not subject to judicial review. Newman now asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether courts may still review suspension orders that allegedly exceed legal or constitutional limits.Judge Newman Takes Suspension Battle To Supreme Court - Law36098-year-old judge asks US Supreme Court to hear case over her suspension | ReutersThe U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has begun the process of developing regulations for prediction markets, issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and asking the public for input on how the industry should be governed. The agency said the move is intended to support innovation while ensuring prediction markets operate within the framework of the Commodity Exchange Act. Interest in regulation has grown as more companies apply to register as designated contract markets, with many applications coming from prediction market platforms. These platforms allow users to trade on the outcomes of events such as sports games, elections, and entertainment awards.The CFTC is seeking feedback on several issues, including whether margin trading should be allowed, what types of event contracts might be harmful to the public interest, and whether individuals with insider knowledge should be restricted from trading on certain outcomes. At the same time, the agency released staff guidance reminding platforms to avoid contracts that could be easily manipulated, such as those tied to specific player injuries or actions by a single referee. The guidance also explains that platforms can list new contracts through a self-certification process, although the CFTC can intervene if it believes a contract violates the law.The regulatory effort comes amid ongoing legal disputes about who has authority over prediction markets. The CFTC maintains that it has exclusive jurisdiction, while several states have attempted to regulate or restrict these platforms under gambling laws. Meanwhile, members of Congress have introduced legislation that would ban certain types of event contracts, including those related to violence or death, and strengthen rules against insider trading on prediction markets.CFTC Proposes Prediction Markets Rule - Law360CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Relating to Prediction MarketsThe Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against California seeking to block the state's Advanced Clean Cars I (ACC I) regulations, arguing that the rules unlawfully interfere with federal authority over vehicle fuel economy standards. The lawsuit, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation, targets California rules adopted in 2012 that require automakers to sell increasing numbers of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles. Federal officials claim the regulations effectively force manufacturers to meet stricter nationwide standards and function as a quota system for electric vehicles.According to the complaint, California cannot impose its own limits on vehicle emissions because the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act gives the federal government authority to set fuel-economy standards through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The administration argues that California's requirements could increase vehicle prices, reduce consumer choice, and disrupt the national auto market. Federal officials also say Congress revoked certain Clean Air Act waivers in 2025 that previously allowed California to enforce some emissions rules.California leaders strongly dispute the lawsuit and say the state is defending policies designed to reduce pollution and expand access to cleaner vehicles. State officials argue the federal government is attempting to undermine California's environmental regulations and its efforts to lead the transition to cleaner transportation. The lawsuit is part of a broader series of legal disputes between the federal government and California over vehicle emissions standards and electric-vehicle mandates.Feds Sue To Stop California's ‘Illegal' EV Regulations - Law360U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) told a federal court that it is making progress on a system to refund about $166 billion in tariffs that were ruled unlawful. According to a court filing, the agency's four-part refund system is between 40% and 80% complete, with the review portion the most developed and the mass-processing component the least finished. The system will include an online portal where importers and brokers can submit claims for reimbursement.The filing was submitted to the U.S. Court of International Trade in response to an order from a judge directing the government to begin refunding tariffs after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the tariffs in February. The Court's decision invalidated tariffs collected since February 2024 but did not explain how refunds should be handled. CBP previously suggested building a new system to process claims rather than using its existing process, and officials say the new portal could begin accepting applications as soon as mid-April.More than 330,000 importers paid the tariffs on roughly 53 million shipments, though only about 21,000 importers are currently registered to receive refunds. Refunds will go only to the companies that originally paid the tariffs, and there is no legal requirement that businesses pass the money on to consumers. Some companies, including FedEx, have said they will reimburse customers, while Costco indicated it may lower prices using the refunded funds. Meanwhile, new legal disputes are emerging as businesses and states challenge additional tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court ruling.US customs agency says building system for tariff refunds is 40% to 80% complete | 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

Stay connected with us at americangroundradio.com, on Facebook, and Instagram. You're listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for March 12, 2026. We tackle a question that seems almost too obvious to be controversial: Should you have to prove you’re an American citizen before voting in an American election? With more than 80% of Americans supporting voter ID and citizenship verification, we break down why something with such overwhelming public support has become a political fight in Washington. We talk about the proposed SAVE Act, the arguments surrounding election integrity, and why many Americans feel the political class is out of step with the people they’re supposed to represent. We also run through the three big stories you need to know for tomorrow. First, a shocking terror attack at Temple Israel Synagogue raises new concerns about security and rising threats against houses of worship. Then we look at the financial warning signs coming out of New York City after a major credit outlook downgrade tied to massive spending and a growing deficit. And finally, the federal government takes California to court over its zero-emissions vehicle mandate, setting up a major constitutional clash over interstate commerce and whether one state should be able to dictate policy for the entire auto industry. Plus American Mamas and Teri Netterville and Kimberly Burelson respond to outrage over reports that the Pentagon spent millions on steak and lobster. But when you learn that the meals were served to U.S. service members before heading into combat, the story looks very different—and it sparks a bigger conversation about how we treat the men and women willing to risk their lives for the country. We also welcome a powerful guest in the studio: Corey Brooks, who is literally walking across America to raise money for his organization Project H.O.O.D.. He shares why he started the journey in New York City, what he’s learning from people across the country, and how his mission to rebuild families and communities began on the South Side of Chicago. We wrap up with a Bright Spot about a first grader whose drawing sparked a controversy—and ultimately led to a major free-speech ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It’s a reminder that the principles of the First Amendment apply to everyone… even a six-year-old with crayons. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Kate Klonick, Molly Roberts, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week's big national security news stories, including:“MisAnthropic.” On Monday, Anthropic filed a civil complaint in the Northern District of California and a petition for hearing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over the Department of Defense's designation of the frontier artificial intelligence company as a “supply chain risk.” The litigation capped off weeks of building tensions between Anthropic and Pentagon officials over the firm's two ethical red lines for the Defense Department and its use of its AI model, Claude, specifically around widespread surveillance of Americans and the use of AI and autonomous weapons. What exactly are the Pentagon's grounds for designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk, and how does Anthropic argue that doing so is inconsistent with the law? And what might the implications be for the AI industry as a whole?“The Mashhadian Candidate.” Fears that Iran would respond to the ongoing Israeli-U.S. military campaign through overseas terrorism have come to a head this week, as reports emerged that U.S. intelligence had detected an encrypted message being transmitted from Iran that may serve as “an operational trigger” for assets sitting outside of the country. What do we know about Iran's involvement in past clandestine operations, including terrorism? And what does it mean that this is all happening at a moment when the Justice Department and FBI have lost so many of their experienced national security personnel?“Maricopa-calypse Now.” Federal investigators have ramped up several inquiries that appear to be aimed at longstanding—and, thus far, unsubstantiated—allegations of fraud in the 2020 election that are particularly popular with President Trump and his closest supporters. Last month, FBI agents executed a search warrant on Fulton County's election office and confiscated ballots and voting equipment used in 2020. Last week, the FBI reportedly subpoenaed records from a conservative Arizona legislator over the state senate's audit of the 2020 election results in Maricopa County. And days later, the Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Investigations office (or HSI) requested records from Arizona state officials regarding their own investigations into alleged 2020 malfeasance. What should we make of these developments? And at what point should we be concerned about the federal government's engagement in these sorts of matters in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterms?This week's object lessons are all-consuming. Kate is celebrating online legal analysis by drinking from her Balkinization mug. Troy is lamenting yet another slate of firings at the FBI by drinking from his EX FED mug. Scott, finding himself with unexpected free time at Union Station, devoured Barbara Tuchman's “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.” And Molly introduces us to the texturally triggering cherimoya. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Scott sat down with his Lawfare colleagues Kate Klonick, Molly Roberts, and Troy Edwards to talk through the week's big national security news stories, including:“MisAnthropic.” On Monday, Anthropic filed a civil complaint in the Northern District of California and a petition for hearing at the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit over the Department of Defense's designation of the frontier artificial intelligence company as a “supply chain risk.” The litigation capped off weeks of building tensions between Anthropic and Pentagon officials over the firm's two ethical red lines for the Defense Department and its use of its AI model, Claude, specifically around widespread surveillance of Americans and the use of AI and autonomous weapons. What exactly are the Pentagon's grounds for designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk, and how does Anthropic argue that doing so is inconsistent with the law? And what might the implications be for the AI industry as a whole?“The Mashhadian Candidate.” Fears that Iran would respond to the ongoing Israeli-U.S. military campaign through overseas terrorism have come to a head this week, as reports emerged that U.S. intelligence had detected an encrypted message being transmitted from Iran that may serve as “an operational trigger” for assets sitting outside of the country. What do we know about Iran's involvement in past clandestine operations, including terrorism? And what does it mean that this is all happening at a moment when the Justice Department and FBI have lost so many of their experienced national security personnel?“Maricopa-calypse Now.” Federal investigators have ramped up several inquiries that appear to be aimed at longstanding—and, thus far, unsubstantiated—allegations of fraud in the 2020 election that are particularly popular with President Trump and his closest supporters. Last month, FBI agents executed a search warrant on Fulton County's election office and confiscated ballots and voting equipment used in 2020. Last week, the FBI reportedly subpoenaed records from a conservative Arizona legislator over the state senate's audit of the 2020 election results in Maricopa County. And days later, the Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Investigations office (or HSI) requested records from Arizona state officials regarding their own investigations into alleged 2020 malfeasance. What should we make of these developments? And at what point should we be concerned about the federal government's engagement in these sorts of matters in advance of the upcoming 2026 midterms?This week's object lessons are all-consuming. Kate is celebrating online legal analysis by drinking from her Balkinization mug. Troy is lamenting yet another slate of firings at the FBI by drinking from his EX FED mug. Scott, finding himself with unexpected free time at Union Station, devoured Barbara Tuchman's “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.” And Molly introduces us to the texturally triggering cherimoya. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the quiet winter of 1994, the small town of New Haven woke to a mystery that would refuse to fade. On the morning of April 3, a young convenience store clerk named Heidi Allen unlocked the doors at D&W Convenience Store just as she had countless times before. Customers came and went, the coffee brewed, and the ordinary rhythms of a Sunday morning settled in. Then, sometime between one routine moment and the next, something went terribly wrong. Within hours, the register sat open, Heidi's car remained in the parking lot, and a handful of chilling clues hinted that whatever had happened inside that small roadside store had unfolded in seconds. What followed would consume investigators, divide a community, and leave a question hanging in the cold air for decades: how does someone simply vanish in the middle of a normal morning?1) Heidi Allen's Page on The Doe Network2) Heidi Allen's Page on The Charley Project3) People v. Gary Thibodeau4) People v. Gary Thibodeau5) Gary Thibodeau Looks to Have Conviction Overturned6) Gary Thibodeau, convicted of kidnapping Heidi Allen in 1994, dead at 637) Thibodeau's death offers no closure for either side8) Judge Denies Thibodeau Motion for New Trial9) State's Highest Court Turns Down Thibodeau's Attempt For New Trial

Tonight on NJ Spotlight News, another win for the Gateway Tunnel project after an Appeals court sided with New Jersey and New York, rejecting the Trump Administration's request to once again halt payments for the Hudson River tunnel.   Plus, as the war in Iran continues, costs are rising here at home. We'll look at what's happening overseas and the global impact it's having.   Also, Governor Sherrill announced a record spending plan for the state - driven in part by cuts from the federal government.   And, school districts got their allocations today, according to the school funding formula. We'll look at who gained, and who lost. 

My conversation with Maria starts at about      28 minutes in to today's show after headlines and clips Subscribe and Watch Interviews LIVE : On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is CEO of RepresentUs. She is an advocate, author, and lawyer with two decades of experience globally and within the US on issues of corruption, authoritarianism, organized crime, and human rights. Maria has held multiple senior positions at Human Rights Watch and served as executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, at the helm of a team running groundbreaking state and national campaigns. A Peruvian-American, Maria came of age in Peru at a time of internal armed conflict, economic crisis, and then corrupt autocracy. Early in her career, she contributed to the  extradition and trial on charges of corruption and crimes against humanity of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori. Her narrative non-fiction book "There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia" (Bold Type Books, Feb. 2017), won the  2018 Juan E. Méndez Human Rights Book Award, and the Spanish translation is on its third  printing. Maria earned her law degree, magna cum laude, from New York University School of Law and served as a judicial clerk on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On YOUTUBE.com/StandUpWithPete ON SubstackStandUpWithPete   Listen rate and review on Apple Podcasts Listen rate and review on Spotify Pete On Instagram Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on Twitter Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page     Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift Send Pete $ Directly on Venmo All things Jon Carroll  Buy Ava's Art    Subscribe to Piano Tuner Paul Paul Wesley on Substack Listen to Barry and Abigail Hummel Podcast Listen to Matty C Podcast and Substack Follow and Support Pete Coe Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing  

Who brutally raped and murdered James and Anne Benolken in their Juneau apartment in 1982? Nearly four decades later, many questions remain unanswered. Sources Starr, Douglas. 12-1-2013. Do police interrogation techniques produce false confessions? Episode 4: The Benolken Murders, the police investigation and Special Agent Malone Leo Helmar. Murder Alaska Episode 2: Introduction to the Benolken Case. Available at: Episode 3: About the brutal murders of James and Anne Benolken in Juneau, Alaska in 1982 Who Really Murdered the Benolkens? KTOO Public Media Juneau man wants DNA tested, seeks review of nearly 30-year old homicide conviction. KTOO Public Media. Integrity of preserved evidence from Benolken double homicide is questioned Court to issue opinion on possible DNA testing in decades-old Juneau homicide. KTOO Public Media. Matt Miller. Juneau, Alaska (KINY) The Alaska Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling denying DNA evidence in the case of Newton Patric Lambert Friday Saturday, November 17th, 2018 8:13 Who is Michael P. Malone? Corrupt F.B.I. Agent's Testimony Sent Innocent Man to Prison; Donald Eugene Gates was Convicted of Rape-Murder He Did Not Commit. ____________ Join the Last Frontier Club’s Free Tier ______ Robin Barefield lives in the wilderness on Kodiak Island, where she and her husband own a remote lodge. She has a master's degree in fish and wildlife biology and is a wildlife-viewing and fishing guide. Robin has published six novels: Big Game, Murder Over Kodiak, The Fisherman's Daughter, Karluk Bones, Massacre at Bear Creek Lodge, and The Ultimate Hunt. She has also published two non-fiction books: Kodiak Island Wildlife and Murder and Mystery in the Last Frontier. She draws on her love and appreciation of the Alaska wilderness as well as her scientific background when writing. Robin invites you to join her at her website: https://robinbarefield.com, and while you are there, sign up for her free monthly newsletter about true crime in Alaska. Robin also narrates a podcast, Murder and Mystery in the Last Frontier. You can find it at: https://murder-in-the-last-frontier.blubrry.net Subscribe to Robin’s free, monthly Murder and Mystery Newsletter for more stories about true crime and mystery from Alaska. Join her on: Facebook Instagram Twitter LinkedIn Visit her website at http://robinbarefield.com Check out her books at Amazon Send me an email: robinbarefield76@gmail.com ___________________________________________________________________________________ Would you like to support Murder and Mystery in the Last Frontier? Become a patron and join The Last Frontier Club. Each month, Robin will provide one or more of the following to club members. · An extra episode of Murder and Mystery in the Last Frontier is available only for club members. Behind-the-scenes glimpses of life and wildlife in the Kodiak wilderness. · Breaking news about ongoing murder cases and new crimes in Alaska ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Merchandise! Visit the Store                    

All @TheBrancaShow mugs! https://tinyurl.com/k778wj2kBONUS SHOW STARTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER MAIN SHOW, FOR MEMBERS ONLY! Schedule start time is just a placeholder!JOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! YouTube:  https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kfFOUNDING FATHERS SPEED DIAL: Founding Fathers SPEED DIAL: https://tinyurl.com/3f7pc8nzOK, let's talk about why ICE doesn't need an article III judicial warrant to detain someone for deportation. Yeah, you heard that right. The outrage machine is already in overdrive after an illegal migrant working as a Nashville reporter—one who often criticized US immigration policies and enforcement!—was arrested for deportation, supposedly “without a warrant.” Of course, Estefany Rodriguez-Flores WAS detained for deportation on a warrant, but it was an entirely appropriate Article II administrative warrant, rather than an Article III judicial warrant. The anti-American, pro-migrant screamers need to relax and stop lying to the American people. Immigration law treats illegal presence as a civil violation, not a crime—unless you're talking re-entry after deportation, which is criminal, but that's the exception. Congress set this up decades ago: 8 U.S.C. § 1226, § 1357 allow for immigration detentions without need of a judicial warrant. ICE officers get the power to arrest and detain aliens they have reason to believe are removable. Oh, the pearl-clutching! "Administrative warrants aren't real warrants!" cry the lawyers in their safe spaces. True—they're not signed by a "neutral and detached magistrate." That's the point! Immigration isn't criminal prosecution; it's removal. The "warrant" is basically an internal green light saying, "Yeah, this guy's deportable—go get him." For folks with final removal orders? Even easier—I-205 says the immigration judge (who's executive branch, not Article III) already ruled. Due process? Check. They've had their day in immigration court.Liberals act like this is some Trump-era power grab. Nah, it's been the law forever. Biden's ICE used the same tools—just slower and with more apologies. Now with mass deportations ramping up, suddenly it's "tyranny." Funny how the Constitution only matters when your side's losing.Bottom line: Judicial warrants are for criminal stuff—searches, probable cause for felonies. Deportation detentions? Administrative all the way. It's efficient, it's legal, and it's exactly what keeps the system from grinding to a halt. If we required judges for every ICE pickup, we'd need a thousand more federal benches and a budget the size of Ukraine aid. No thanks.In other news, I'll also cover the insane decision out of the DC Court of Appeals affirming a lower court's preliminary injunction that strips out the word “Temporary” from “Temporary Protected Status,” and forces Trump to keep hundreds of thousands of Haitian barbarians in our nation, as unelected federal judges prove once again that they have zero respect for our Constitution's separation of powers. Join me LIVE right after the open-access show. I also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! YouTube:  https://tinyurl.com/hn32rfz9 Locals: https://tinyurl.com/yck4w9kfEpisode #M1242.

This Day in Legal History: Blue Sky LawsOn March 10, 1911, Kansas enacted the first “blue sky law” in the United States, marking a significant development in the regulation of securities markets. The statute was designed to protect investors from fraudulent investment schemes that had become increasingly common in the early twentieth century. At the time, promoters frequently sold speculative securities with little oversight and few consequences if the ventures failed. Kansas lawmakers responded by creating a system that required securities offerings to be reviewed before they could be sold to the public. State officials were given authority to examine proposed investments and determine whether they were legitimate.The name “blue sky law” reflected the legislature's concern that many promoters were selling investments backed by nothing more than empty promises. Lawmakers wanted to prevent the sale of securities that had no real value or financial foundation. Kansas banking commissioner Joseph Norman Dolley played a central role in advocating for the law and persuading the legislature to adopt stronger investor protections. His efforts reflected growing public concern about financial fraud and the need for government oversight of securities markets.The Kansas statute quickly became a model for other states. Within a few years, many states adopted their own versions of blue sky laws, creating a patchwork system of state-level securities regulation. These laws helped establish the principle that governments could require disclosure and review before securities were sold to the public. The idea later influenced the development of federal securities regulation during the New Deal era. In particular, the framework helped shape the Securities Act of 1933, which created nationwide disclosure requirements for securities offerings.Live Nation Entertainment has reached a proposed settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in a major antitrust case challenging the company's dominance in concert promotion and ticketing. The agreement was disclosed during a court hearing and could resolve part of a lawsuit brought by federal regulators and more than two dozen states. Live Nation is also negotiating separately with state attorneys general in an effort to reach a broader nationwide resolution of related claims.Under the proposed deal, the company would pay roughly $200 million in damages to participating states and accept structural reforms aimed at reducing its market power. Regulators had argued that Live Nation's control of venues, artist promotion, and ticketing—particularly through Ticketmaster—allowed the company to inflate prices and limit competition. The lawsuit was filed in 2024 and initially sought to break up the company by forcing a sale of Ticketmaster.The settlement instead focuses on changing how the ticketing market operates. Ticketmaster would be required to open parts of its technology platform to competing ticket sellers, allowing third-party companies to list tickets directly through its system. The deal would also limit the length of Live Nation's exclusive contracts with venues to four years and permit venues to allocate some ticket inventory to rival platforms.The case gained political attention after widespread complaints about long online queues and high prices during the 2022 Taylor Swift Eras Tour ticket sales. A federal judge had allowed the antitrust case to proceed to trial after rejecting Live Nation's attempt to dismiss it earlier this year. If finalized, the settlement would impose oversight and competition requirements on the company rather than break it up.Live Nation reaches settlement with DOJ in antitrust case | ReutersDemocratic U.S. senators plan to introduce legislation that would extend the time prosecutors have to bring foreign bribery cases from five years to ten. The proposal, called the FCPA Reinforcement Act, is led by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin along with several other Democratic lawmakers. It responds to recent Justice Department decisions to scale back enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a 1977 law that prohibits companies operating in the United States from bribing foreign officials.Supporters of the bill argue that international corruption investigations are complex and often take years to uncover, making the current five-year statute of limitations too short. The proposed law would temporarily extend the deadline for bringing anti-bribery charges to ten years for an eight-year period. Lawmakers say the change is meant to ensure companies can still be held accountable for misconduct even if enforcement priorities shift.The proposal also signals to corporations that compliance obligations remain important despite the current enforcement slowdown. Some legal experts worry that reduced federal enforcement could lead companies to scale back anti-corruption compliance programs or stop voluntarily reporting violations. Although the bill may face difficulty passing in the current Congress, it indicates that some lawmakers want to preserve strong anti-bribery enforcement and may pursue stricter oversight in the future.US lawmakers plan bill allowing 10 years to bring bribery cases | ReutersA divided federal appeals court has refused to allow the Trump administration to end immigration protections for more than 350,000 Haitians living in the United States. In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to pause a lower court ruling that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating Haiti's Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The ruling means the protections will remain in place while the administration continues its appeal.TPS is a humanitarian program that allows people from certain countries facing crises—such as armed conflict, natural disasters, or political instability—to remain in the United States temporarily and obtain work authorization. Haitians first received TPS after the devastating 2010 earthquake, and the designation has been repeatedly renewed because of ongoing instability in the country.The Trump administration sought to end Haiti's TPS designation as part of a broader effort to scale back the program, arguing that it was never intended to function as long-term legal status. But a federal district judge previously ruled that the government's attempt to terminate the protection likely violated both TPS procedures and constitutional equal-protection principles. The appeals court majority agreed that sending Haitian migrants back now could expose them to severe violence and humanitarian risks due to Haiti's deteriorating conditions.One judge dissented, arguing the case was legally similar to disputes where courts allowed the administration to end TPS protections for Venezuelans. The Department of Homeland Security said it plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, the decision preserves legal status and work authorization for hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants while the litigation continues.Trump cannot end protections for 350,000 Haitians, US appeals court rules | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week examines the surprising milestone that renewable energy generated 26% of U.S. electricity in 2025—even as federal clean-energy incentives were being rolled back. At first glance, that record share might suggest the transition to renewables is unstoppable. In reality, much of the current growth reflects investment decisions made years earlier, when generous subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act and related policies were still in place. Large wind and solar projects often take three to seven years to move from financing and permitting to full operation. That means many facilities coming online today were funded under a very different policy environment than the one developers face now.Recent changes to federal tax policy have scaled back or eliminated several incentives that previously supported renewable development and electric vehicle adoption. These changes do not immediately halt construction, but they alter the financial calculations for the next generation of projects. Renewable energy projects rely heavily on financing structures that incorporate tax credits, equity partnerships, and long-term debt. When incentives shrink or become uncertain, developers must either accept greater risk or secure more expensive capital. At the same time, unresolved federal rulemaking and regulatory uncertainty are adding another layer of caution for investors. Although wind and solar technology costs have declined and can remain competitive with fossil fuels, policy instability can still erode project margins.The key point is that energy statistics describe what is already built, while investment decisions determine what the energy system will look like years from now. Current renewable growth may therefore reflect past policy rather than present conditions. Financing data already shows signs of slowing investment in green energy. To maintain steady development, policymakers should avoid abrupt tax-credit expirations and instead adopt predictable, multi-year phaseouts that allow markets to adjust. Agencies could also reduce uncertainty by finalizing or withdrawing proposed energy regulations within clear timelines. Stable rules make it easier for investors to commit capital to projects designed to operate for decades. The next investment cycle will reveal whether today's policy environment supports continued energy expansion or discourages it. 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

To the neighbors in his exclusive New Jersey enclave, Dr. Jonathan Nyce was a "gentle giant" — a brilliant molecular biologist on the verge of a billion-dollar medical breakthrough. But behind the 21-room mansion and the 6,000 tulips in the drive, the "perfect" marriage he shared with his wife, Michelle, was a facade built on secrets, financial ruin, and a suffocating need for control.When Michelle's body was discovered in her Land Cruiser at the bottom of a frozen ravine on a cold January morning, it looked like a tragic accident. However, investigators soon found that the math didn't add up.Today's snack: Mackenzies Chocolates from Santa Cruz (thanks Molly!) Listen to part 2 on Patreon nowJoin our March Madness bracketsSources:"Collegeville Man Sentenced to 97 Months in Prison for Scheme to Sell Fraudulent Canine Cancer Drugs to Pet Owners." U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 16 Feb. 2024."Forensic Files season 11." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 May 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forensic_Files_season_11&oldid=1295790162.Glatt, John. Never Leave Me: An Obsessive Husband, an Unfaithful Wife, a Brutal Murder. St. Martin's Paperbacks, 2006.Grande, Todd. "Dr. Jonathan Nyce Case Analysis | What is Passion / Provocation Manslaughter?" YouTube, uploaded by Dr. Todd Grande."John Glatt." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 June 2024, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Glatt&oldid=1318996874.Miller, Allie. "Former drug exec who killed wife in 2004 now in trouble for selling fake cancer cures for dogs." PhillyVoice, 5 Feb. 2020."Remembering Michelle Nyce." The FilAm, 6 Dec. 2011.State of New Jersey v. Jonathan Nyce. No. A-1516-05T4. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. 7 May 2009. Justia Law.USA v. Jonathan Nyce. No. 24-1319. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. 22 Feb. 2024. Justia Dockets.Vanapalli, Viswa. "Michelle Nyce Murder: Where is Jonathan Nyce Now?" The Cinemaholic, 8 Jan. 2022.

On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Hemani. This case explores whether a federal law that criminalizes possession of firearms by an individual who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" violates the Second Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held this law unconstitutional as applied to most drug users, determining it could only be applied consistent with the Second Amendment to "those presently impaired." Hemani is the latest in a series of challenges the courts have confronted since the Supreme Court announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that laws burdening firearms possession must comport with our nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will recap and analyze the oral argument at the Supreme Court. Featuring:Prof. F. Lee Francis, Associate Professor, Widener Law CommonwealthMarc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime(Moderator) John Ohlendorf, Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

--

This week on Gun For Hire Radio… YUGE NEWS! The DC Court of Appeals (the highest local court in the district) has ruled that DC’s ban on magazines over 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment. Also, Rich O joins us on the show to update us on this year’s Shot Show and all of the new exciting products coming to Gun For Hire. Please Listen, Learn, Like, Follow, Share, Volunteer, and don't be a Shitty Person and Support Those Who Support You! (PS, I do in fact pee standing up)! The post The Gun For Hire Radio Broadcast: Episode 772 appeared first on Best Gun Range NYC and NJ Area | Gun Range Near Me.

This month, the Virginia Court of Appeals issued two rulings on whether officers lawfully extended traffic stops, and the 4th Circuit issued another in December. Today we talk about reasonable suspicion and when it becomes probable cause for a search.

If you look really closely at Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, you can almost see it circling the drain. Yesterday, DOJ attorneys filed a notice with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals saying they wanted to withdraw the appeals DOJ had filed in four cases involving Trump's executive orders that were designed to punish law firms he didn't like. Trump's DOJ had lost all four cases, given that his executive orders were transparently unlawful and unconstitutional. Then today, in an extraordinary flip-flop, the DOJ said they wanted to withdraw their request to withdraw their appeals. In other words, after throwing in the towel, they told the court . . . they want their towel back. This horribly inconsistent and incompetent conduct makes clear that the DOJ is in disarray.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

All current 2A news is on the table from DC Circuit Court of Appeals striking a huge blow to DC’s magazine and ammo bans to VA’s lack of response, and continued attacks on the US Constitution.

The guys discuss legislative efforts to decriminalize corner-crossing in Wyoming and Oregon. (Note: Wyoming's effort failed after this episode was recorded, but could come back in future years, and there's still a 10th Circuit of Appeals case saying it is and always has been legal). They also put their tin hats on to discuss the recent action by the FWS to remove lesser prairie chickens from Endangered Species Act protections and initiate an new review of whether or not they warrant listing.

Ever wondered how a single Supreme Court case could reshape the entire freight brokerage industry? We're thrilled to have the Armchair Attorney Matt Leffler back on the show to break down the high-stakes broker liability landscape and the recent oral arguments that have everyone in transportation talking.  We dive deep into the legal nuances of the Montgomery v. CH Robinson case, exploring whether brokers should be held liable for the negligence of motor carriers and what the Solicitor General's support for the industry actually means for your daily operations.  Matt and I pull no punches as we discuss the "rotten" state of the supply chain, the critical need for updated FMCSA regulations, and why relying on outdated 1980s standards is a recipe for disaster in a modern freight market.  If you want a straightforward look at the potential for a "golden age" of high-standard operations versus the looming threat of an onslaught of lawsuits, you can't afford to miss this episode!   About Matthew Leffler Matthew is a 3rd generation supply chain executive with over fifteen years of experience in safety, law, & maintenance. Matthew currently serves as Vice President of Strategic Accounts at Contract Leasing Corp. He is also an attorney that provides legal commentary on various supply chain issues & operates a popular podcast. In addition, Matthew has served as a senior leader with some of the nation's most admired maintenance, repair, & fleet management firms. Matthew entered the industry as an attorney defending trucking companies in civil litigation in 2010, but cut his teeth helping build & later selling his family's maintenance firm, Outsource Fleet Services, Inc. Matthew earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew is the proud father of Michael, Rowan, Elise, & Elijah & has been happily married to his wife, Holly, since 2008.  

If you look really closely at Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, you can almost see it circling the drain. Yesterday, DOJ attorneys filed a notice with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals saying they wanted to withdraw the appeals DOJ had filed in four cases involving Trump's executive orders that were designed to punish law firms he didn't like. Trump's DOJ had lost all four cases, given that his executive orders were transparently unlawful and unconstitutional. Then today, in an extraordinary flip-flop, the DOJ said they wanted to withdraw their request to withdraw their appeals. In other words, after throwing in the towel, they told the court . . . they want their towel back. This horribly inconsistent and incompetent conduct makes clear that the DOJ is in disarray.Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss a new ruling from the DC Court of Appeals determining that the District's ten round magazine limit violates the Second Amendment, at least as applied to a particular criminal defendant. We also cover new NSSF background check data showing a surge in gun sales in Virginia while the state weighs strict new gun control bills, plus we recap the week's Supreme Court oral arguments in US v. Hemani. Links: https://thereload.com/dcs-highest-court-strikes-down-ammo-magazine-ban/ https://thereload.com/virginia-gun-sales-surge-as-democrats-move-dozens-of-new-restrictions/ https://thereload.com/supreme-court-skeptical-of-marijuana-user-gun-ban-in-oral-arguments/ https://thereload.com/analysis-the-path-for-the-government-to-win-scotus-weed-and-guns-case-member-exclusive/ https://thereload.com/analysis-have-gun-rights-advocates-found-a-way-around-the-machinegun-sales-ban-member-exclusive/ https://wvmetronews.com/2026/03/03/machine-gun-legislation-gets-jammed-up-in-west-virginia-senate/ https://www.texastribune.org/2026/03/05/tony-gonzales-drops-out-republican-primary-texas-23rd-district-congress/

College sports' governing body is escalating its fight against a star quarterback seeking to play one more season. Correspondent Gethin Coolbaugh reports.

This Day in Legal History: FDR Declares Bank HolidayOn March 6, 1933, just two days after taking office, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared a nationwide bank holiday in response to the escalating financial panic of the Great Depression. At the time, banks across the country were collapsing as frightened depositors rushed to withdraw their savings. The closures threatened to completely destabilize the American financial system. Roosevelt used emergency executive authority to temporarily shut down the nation's banks in order to stop the flood of withdrawals. The pause allowed federal officials to inspect financial institutions and determine which were stable enough to reopen.Although the order began as an executive action, Congress quickly moved to support the president's efforts. On March 9, lawmakers passed the Emergency Banking Act, which retroactively approved Roosevelt's bank holiday and expanded federal oversight of banks. The law allowed only financially sound banks to resume operations and provided additional confidence to depositors. In the days that followed, many banks reopened under stricter supervision, and public trust gradually returned to the banking system. Roosevelt reinforced this confidence through his first “fireside chat,” explaining the reforms directly to the American public.Legal challenges later tested the government's authority to take such sweeping action during a crisis. Courts ultimately upheld many emergency financial measures adopted during the early New Deal period. These rulings helped establish the principle that the federal government has broader power to respond to national economic emergencies. The bank holiday of March 6, 1933, therefore became an important early example of how executive initiative and congressional support can combine to address a national crisis.An insurer has filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law after its AI chatbot allegedly provided faulty legal assistance to a disability benefits recipient. According to the complaint, Nippon Life Insurance Co. of America had settled a long-term disability dispute with Graciela Dela Torre in January 2024. About a year later, she questioned the agreement and asked her attorney about reopening the case due to alleged documentation problems. When her lawyer explained that the settlement was final, Dela Torre consulted ChatGPT, asking whether her attorney had dismissed her concerns.The insurer claims the chatbot suggested that her attorney had invalidated her feelings and deflected responsibility. After receiving that response, Dela Torre fired her lawyer and attempted to reopen the case on her own. The lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT generated legal arguments asserting that her former counsel had pressured her into signing a blank signature page. She filed a motion based on those arguments, which Nippon says violated the settlement agreement releasing the company from future claims.According to the complaint, Dela Torre then submitted numerous additional filings drafted with the chatbot's help, including more than twenty motions and other court documents. The court rejected her attempt to reopen the case and upheld the settlement as valid. Despite that ruling, she allegedly used ChatGPT again to prepare a new lawsuit asserting claims such as fraudulent misrepresentation and interference with disability benefits. Nippon says she has filed dozens of motions that serve no legitimate legal purpose, forcing the company to spend significant time responding. The insurer is now seeking damages and an injunction preventing OpenAI from providing legal assistance to Dela Torre, while OpenAI has dismissed the claims as meritless.OpenAI Practices Law Without A License, Insurer Alleges - Law360A coalition of 24 states has filed a lawsuit challenging new global tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of International Trade and seeks to block tariffs introduced on February 20 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The states argue the administration rushed to impose the tariffs only hours after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated an earlier set of trade measures that had been issued under a different statute. According to the complaint, the new tariffs were an attempt to revive similar trade restrictions using a separate legal authority.The policy first imposed a 10% tariff on imports worldwide and was raised to the statute's maximum 15% the following day. The administration justified the move by claiming it was necessary to address serious U.S. balance-of-payments deficits. However, the states argue that such deficits do not actually exist and that the government selectively relied on negative data while ignoring overall positive financial inflows. They claim this misuse of the statute mirrors the earlier tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down.The lawsuit also argues that the tariffs violate the Constitution because the authority to impose taxes and duties belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court recently emphasized this principle when it ruled against the administration's earlier tariff policy. According to the states, Section 122 was originally enacted to address problems tied to an outdated international currency system that no longer exists today. Because the statutory conditions cannot be met, the coalition argues the president's tariffs are unlawful. The states are asking the court to invalidate the measures before they remain in effect through the summer.Two Dozen States Sue Trump to Halt New Global Tariffs - Law360Twenty-four US states file lawsuit to stop Trump's latest global tariffs | ReutersA federal trade judge is meeting privately with government lawyers to determine how the United States will refund billions of dollars in tariffs that courts recently ruled unconstitutional. Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade scheduled the closed-door meeting as a settlement conference to discuss a practical process for returning money to importers. The tariffs at issue were a major part of President Donald Trump's trade policy but were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in February for exceeding presidential authority. Because the Court did not provide guidance on how refunds should be handled, lower courts are now working to establish a workable procedure.The scale of the refunds could be enormous, potentially reaching $175 billion and affecting more than 300,000 importers. Government attorneys have warned that processing the reimbursements will be unusually complex because it may involve manual review of tens of millions of tariff payments. Many of the affected importers are small businesses concerned about the cost and administrative burden of seeking repayment. Judge Eaton has indicated that he wants a system that avoids forcing companies to file individual lawsuits.The issue arose in a case filed by Atmus Filtration Inc., which claims it paid $11 million in unlawful tariffs. Eaton recently ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin using its internal processes to refund tariffs not only to Atmus but potentially to all affected importers. The upcoming conference is expected to focus on how the agency can efficiently review roughly 79 million shipments and distribute refunds. Attorneys involved in related cases believe the meeting could lead to a standardized process that allows most businesses to receive reimbursements without extended litigation.Exclusive: US judge to meet parties on Trump-tariff refunds in closed-door ‘settlement conference' | ReutersA federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend refugee admissions to the United States, reversing most of a lower court decision that had blocked the policy. The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The judges concluded that federal law gives the president broad power to restrict the entry of foreign nationals when he believes it serves national interests. As a result, the panel allowed Trump's halt of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to remain in place.The policy was introduced shortly after Trump took office in 2025 and paused the admission of refugees while the administration reviewed whether the program ensured proper assimilation. Refugees, their family members, and several resettlement organizations filed a class action lawsuit challenging the move. A federal judge in Seattle had previously issued injunctions blocking the suspension and related actions. However, the Ninth Circuit determined that most of those rulings exceeded the district court's authority.Writing for the panel, Judge Jay Bybee acknowledged that the decision could have serious real-world consequences for thousands of refugees who had already completed years of vetting and were awaiting resettlement. Despite those concerns, the court emphasized that Congress granted the president sweeping authority over immigration entry decisions. The judges said policy judgments about refugee admissions belong to the executive branch rather than the courts.The panel did leave some portions of the lower court's order in place. It upheld injunctions that prevent the government from cutting services to refugees who have already been admitted to the United States and from terminating certain agreements with refugee support organizations. One judge dissented in part, arguing that the district court's injunctions should have been entirely overturned.Trump can suspend refugee admissions, US appeals court rules | 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

John is joined by Jonathan Graham, Executive Vice President and General Counsel and Secretary of Amgen, one of the world's largest biotech companies and one of the pioneers of the industry. They discuss in-house legal leadership in major biotech companies and how science, intellectual property, and regulation shape strategy. Jonathan began his practice clerking for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then became a litigator for a large firm. Later, his career shifted in-house. He believes that litigation training develops useful skills, including rapid issue spotting across unfamiliar domains, crisp written and oral advocacy, and an ability to understand stakeholders' incentives.The biotech industry is unusually purpose-driven because the output is medicine that can extend life and restore quality of life. That mission creates urgency across functions, as delays can mean patients wait longer for needed therapies. The sector is also highly regulated and fast-moving, which elevates the importance of legal teams that operate as strategic partners rather than as a “department of no.”Intellectual property is the economic lifeblood of biological drug development. Bringing a molecule to market often costs billions of dollars and requires years of lab work, clinical trials, and manufacturing scale-up. Without enforceable patents, competitors could free ride, undermining investment incentives. This reality drives frequent, high-stakes patent disputes that can be hard to settle because exclusivity is enormously valuable.Patent doctrines often lag behind technology, forcing courts to fit new technologies into older legal frameworks. Artificial intelligence is potentially a powerful tool for discovery and analysis of molecules, but not a substitute for wet-lab validation or human inventorship. Regulators still require clinical evidence before any medicine is approved and likely will for the foreseeable future.Biosimilars are currently a booming market with many parallels to generic drugs. A company may participate in the market as both innovator and biosimilar supplier by leveraging its research and manufacturing capabilities. Finally, government-driven drug pricing controls may slow innovation over time, even though scientific progress and therapeutic potential remain strong.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

This Day in Legal History: Boston MassacreOn March 5, 1770, a confrontation between British soldiers and American colonists in Boston turned deadly in what became known as the Boston Massacre. Tensions had been rising for months as British troops occupied the city to enforce parliamentary taxes that many colonists believed were unjust. On that evening, a crowd gathered near the Boston Custom House and began taunting a British sentry, shouting insults and throwing snowballs and debris. As the situation escalated, additional soldiers arrived to support the guard, but the crowd continued to press in. In the confusion and fear of the moment, the soldiers fired into the crowd. Five colonists were killed and several others were wounded, including Crispus Attucks, who is often remembered as the first casualty of the American Revolution.The incident quickly became a flashpoint in colonial politics, with patriot leaders using it as evidence of British tyranny. Yet the legal response that followed was notable for its commitment to due process despite intense public anger. British Captain Thomas Preston and eight soldiers were arrested and charged with murder. Future president John Adams agreed to defend the soldiers, arguing that the rule of law required even deeply unpopular defendants to receive a fair trial. During the proceedings, Adams emphasized the evidence suggesting the soldiers had been surrounded and threatened by a hostile crowd. The jury ultimately acquitted six soldiers and convicted two of the lesser charge of manslaughter.The trials demonstrated an early American commitment to the principle that legal judgments should be guided by evidence rather than public pressure, even during moments of political upheaval.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey cannot use sovereign immunity to protect New Jersey Transit from personal injury lawsuits filed by riders injured outside the state. The unanimous opinion, written by Sonia Sotomayor, resolved a conflict between the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals over whether the transit agency qualifies as an “arm of the state.” The dispute arose from two lawsuits filed by passengers injured in NJ Transit bus crashes that occurred outside New Jersey.The justices focused heavily on how the agency was structured. During oral argument, several members of the Court questioned why New Jersey created NJ Transit as a corporation with the ability to sue and be sued while also disclaiming responsibility for its debts. Some justices suggested those design choices undermined the state's argument that the agency should receive sovereign immunity protections.New Jersey's lawyers argued that the agency's independence is largely formal and that the governor maintains significant control over the system. They also warned that allowing such lawsuits could subject the state to litigation in other states' courts. However, the Court appeared unconvinced by those arguments and emphasized that the plaintiffs were private individuals seeking compensation rather than other states trying to regulate New Jersey.The ruling ultimately sided with the New York court's earlier decision and overturned the Pennsylvania ruling, allowing the personal injury lawsuits to proceed.Supreme Court Rejects NJ Immunity Defense In NY, Pa. SuitsRegulators are increasingly focusing on dynamic or algorithmic pricing, a practice that uses personal data—such as location, browsing history, and purchasing behavior—to set individualized prices for consumers. The approach has raised concerns among privacy and consumer protection regulators because it relies on large amounts of personal data and may affect price transparency. Although grocery pricing has drawn the most attention, the practice is also used in industries like travel, financial services, and online retail.The Federal Trade Commission has been studying the issue but has not clearly stated whether dynamic pricing violates any specific federal law. In 2024, the agency issued subpoenas to companies that develop pricing algorithms to learn how they collect consumer data, train their systems, and influence the prices consumers see. A preliminary research summary released in 2025 confirmed that these tools rely heavily on consumer data and can adjust prices in real time, but it did not identify specific legal violations.While the federal approach remains uncertain, state regulators are taking more direct action. The office of Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, launched an investigative sweep in January 2026 to examine how companies use consumer data to personalize prices. Investigators sent letters to retailers, grocery stores, and hotels requesting information about pricing algorithms, data sources, and disclosures to consumers.Meanwhile, the New York Attorney General's Office is investigating companies' compliance with the state's new Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act. The law requires businesses to clearly inform consumers when prices are generated using algorithms that rely on their personal data. Regulators have warned that disclosures hidden behind hyperlinks may not satisfy the law's requirement that notices be clear and conspicuous.Other states are considering similar legislation, including proposals targeting surveillance-based pricing or banning dynamic pricing in certain industries. As scrutiny increases, companies that use personalized pricing tools are being urged to review their data practices, pricing disclosures, and compliance with emerging state privacy laws.Amidst uncertainty from FTC, states zero in on dynamic and algorithmic pricing | ReutersThe U.S. civilian federal workforce decreased by about 12% between September 2024 and January 2026, according to newly released government data. The reductions reflect efforts by Donald Trump's administration to shrink federal agencies, a policy he promoted as a way to reduce government size and increase efficiency.Several major departments experienced significant staffing losses. The U.S. Department of the Treasury saw its workforce drop by roughly 24%, while the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lost about 20% of its employees during the same period. These reductions represent some of the largest declines across federal agencies.One notable exception was the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which slightly increased its workforce by less than 1%. The agency's growth reflects the administration's continued focus on immigration enforcement and deportation efforts.Overall, the data indicates that the administration's push to cut federal staffing has had a broad impact across much of the government, significantly reducing the number of civilian employees in many departments.US government workforce shrunk by 12% since September 2024 | 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

The verdict just dropped. Colin Gray—guilty on all 29 counts, including second-degree murder. He's the first parent in Georgia history convicted for a mass school shooting committed by his child.Bob Motta joins Hidden Killers Live to react to this historic verdict and explain what happens next.The jury deliberated less than two hours. Two weeks of testimony. Dozens of witnesses. His own family turned against him on the stand. And in the end, twelve jurors agreed: Colin Gray bears criminal responsibility for the deaths of two teachers and two students at Apalachee High School.Prosecutors argued he was "the one person who could have prevented" the massacre. They showed the jury an FBI warning Colin ignored, texts from his son saying "the blood is on your hands," and a bedroom shrine to Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz that Colin claimed he thought was "the guy from Green Day."His daughter said he asked her to lie. His wife said she begged him to secure the weapons. Colin took the stand alone, cried, and said he never saw the evil coming.The jury saw through it.Bob Motta breaks down the verdict live—what sealed Colin Gray's fate, how this compares to the Crumbley convictions, and whether this case creates a new legal playbook for prosecuting parents when their children commit mass shootings.Colin Gray faces up to 180 years. Sentencing is pending. Appeals are certain. The legal battle is just beginning.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#ColinGrayVerdict #BREAKING #GuiltyVerdict #HiddenKillersLive #BobMotta #ApalacheeShooting #MurderConviction #SchoolShooting #TrueCrime #LiveReaction

Aughie and Nia explore the life and career of Learned Hand (January 27, 1872 - August 18, 1961). Billings Learned Hand was an American jurist, lawyer, and judicial philosopher. He served as a federal appellate judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1924 to 1961.

This Day in Legal History: Lincoln's Second InauguralOn March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address as he began his second term as President of the United States. The speech came during the final weeks of the Civil War, when Union victory was increasingly likely but the country remained deeply divided. Instead of celebrating the nearing end of the war, Lincoln used the moment to reflect on the deeper causes of the conflict. He identified slavery as the central issue that had brought the nation into war, describing it as both a legal institution and a moral injustice embedded in American law for generations. Lincoln noted that both the North and South had participated in a system that allowed slavery to endure within the nation's constitutional framework.In one of the address's most striking passages, Lincoln suggested that the war itself might be understood as divine judgment for the nation's long tolerance of slavery. He observed that slavery had existed in the Americas for centuries and reflected on the possibility that the immense suffering of the war was a form of punishment for that history. Lincoln famously stated that if divine providence willed that the war continue “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,” then such judgment might still be just. This reflection framed the war not simply as a political conflict but as a reckoning with a deeply rooted legal and moral wrong.Lincoln's remarks also pointed toward the constitutional transformation already underway through the pending Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Congress had passed the amendment earlier in 1865, and it awaited ratification by the states. If adopted, it would permanently abolish slavery across the United States and fundamentally alter the constitutional order. Lincoln's speech emphasized that the war's conclusion would also mark a legal turning point, ending a constitutional system that had protected slavery. At the same time, he called for reconciliation in rebuilding the nation, urging the country to move forward “with malice toward none.” Only months later, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in December 1865, permanently outlawing slavery in the United States.The House Oversight Committee has asked several high-profile figures to testify about their connections to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a broader investigation into how the federal government handled the case. Those requested to appear include departing Goldman Sachs Chief Legal Officer Kathryn Ruemmler, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and Apollo Global Management co-founder Leon Black.The request to Ruemmler comes shortly after she announced plans to step down from Goldman Sachs and after Justice Department records brought renewed attention to her past communications with Epstein. Emails show that she sought career advice from him while exploring a move from Latham & Watkins to Facebook in 2018 and referred to him in messages as “Uncle Jeffrey.” The correspondence also mentioned gifts she received from him. Reports previously revealed that the two had numerous meetings during the 2010s, years after Epstein had served a prison sentence related to prostitution offenses involving minors.The committee's inquiry focuses on whether Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell used relationships with influential individuals to gain protection or influence while operating their sex-trafficking scheme. Lawmakers are also examining the federal government's handling of the investigation and the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in a Manhattan federal jail in 2019.Along with Ruemmler, Gates and Black received similar requests for testimony. Gates has indicated he is willing to cooperate and answer questions from the committee. Black, meanwhile, is also facing a proposed class action accusing Apollo and its leadership of misleading investors about their connections to Epstein, allegations the firm has publicly denied.Other individuals asked to appear include Epstein's former assistants, political adviser Doug Band, and Gateway co-founder Ted Waitt. The committee has already interviewed several prominent figures, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it continues reviewing the scope of Epstein's network and the government's response to his crimes.Goldman's Departing CLO, Gates Asked To Testify On Epstein - Law360 UKThe Justice Department quickly reversed course in an ongoing legal fight over executive orders issued by President Donald Trump targeting several prominent law firms. Late Monday, government lawyers told a federal appeals court they planned to drop their appeal after multiple federal judges ruled the orders unconstitutional. But the next day the department asked the court for permission to withdraw that dismissal request and continue defending the orders.The executive orders targeted firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block. The measures sought to restrict the firms' security clearances, government contracts, and access to federal buildings, citing concerns about their clients and hiring practices. The firms challenged the orders in court, arguing they were unconstitutional retaliation against legal advocates.Federal judges consistently sided with the firms, with one ruling describing the order against Perkins Coie as an unprecedented attack on the legal system. After those rulings, the Justice Department initially appeared ready to abandon the appeal. Its sudden reversal, however, would allow the administration to continue fighting the cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.The law firms criticized the shift, saying the government offered no explanation for changing its position so quickly. They reiterated their commitment to challenging what they view as an unconstitutional attempt to punish law firms for representing disfavored clients. Civil liberties advocates echoed that criticism, arguing the orders represent a misuse of presidential power.The litigation highlights a broader dispute over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the legal profession. As the appeals process continues, the courts will ultimately decide whether the executive orders can survive constitutional scrutiny.BREAKING: DOJ Nixes Plan To Drop Law Firm EO Appeals In About-Face - Law360In quick reversal, DOJ seeks to continue Trump's battle with law firmsA trial beginning in Chicago will examine claims that baby formula made by Abbott Laboratories caused premature infants to develop a serious and potentially deadly intestinal condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). The case consolidates lawsuits from four families whose premature children were born in Chicago-area hospitals between 2012 and 2019 and later developed the disease. Although the infants survived, the lawsuits say several required surgery and continue to face long-term health complications.The case is part of a much larger wave of litigation against Abbott and Mead Johnson, the manufacturer of Enfamil. Nearly 1,000 lawsuits have been filed across the country alleging that the companies failed to warn doctors that cow's milk-based formulas used in hospitals may increase the risk of NEC in premature infants. Many of those cases are consolidated in federal court in Illinois, while others are pending in state courts.Abbott denies that its formulas cause the disease and maintains that the products are medically necessary when mothers cannot produce enough breast milk. The company and other researchers point to evidence suggesting that the higher risk of NEC is linked to the absence of breast milk rather than exposure to formula itself.Previous trials involving similar claims have produced mixed results. Some juries have awarded large verdicts to families, including multimillion-dollar judgments against both Abbott and Mead Johnson, though those decisions are currently under appeal. Other cases have resulted in defense wins or retrials, and several potential bellwether cases in federal court have been dismissed.The Chicago trial, which begins with jury selection, is expected to last several weeks and could influence how the remaining lawsuits move forward. With hundreds of similar claims still pending, the outcome may play an important role in shaping the broader litigation over infant formula and NEC.Abbott set to face trial over claims premature infant formula caused deadly disease | ReutersIn this week's column, I look at a new California proposal that attempts to sidestep the federal cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions by reclassifying vehicle sales taxes as licensing fees. The idea is simple: if the charge is treated as a property-style fee instead of a sales tax, it could fall into a category that allows taxpayers to make greater use of their federal SALT deduction. Supporters frame the proposal as middle-class tax relief and a way to reduce the amount of federal revenue flowing out of California. But while the policy is clever, its practical benefits would be limited and uneven.The proposal follows a familiar strategy used since the 2017 tax law capped SALT deductions: when one type of tax becomes less deductible, lawmakers try to redesign the tax structure so the revenue flows through a category that remains deductible. California's approach focuses on vehicle purchases, where sales taxes are currently difficult to deduct for many residents. By redefining those charges as licensing fees, lawmakers hope taxpayers could claim them alongside property taxes under the federal deduction cap.In practice, though, most lower-income taxpayers wouldn't benefit at all. Many households take the standard deduction rather than itemizing, especially after recent tax reforms increased its size. For those taxpayers, changing the label on a vehicle tax doesn't meaningfully change their federal tax bill. Even for many itemizers, the savings would likely be small.The proposal mainly helps a narrow band of higher-earning taxpayers—people with substantial state and property taxes who are still just below the federal SALT cap. For them, a vehicle purchase could generate a deductible amount that meaningfully lowers their federal tax liability. But that advantage grows with the price of the car and the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which means the largest benefits flow to relatively affluent households.If the goal is truly middle-class relief, a more direct approach would likely work better. For example, a refundable state tax credit tied to vehicle purchases could help working families without depending on federal deduction rules or itemization. Another long-term option would be shifting some of California's tax burden from individuals to businesses, since certain business-level taxes remain deductible federally.California's proposal shows the creativity that the SALT deduction cap has sparked among state policymakers. The real question, however, is whether clever tax reclassification is the right tool—or whether more straightforward policies aimed directly at middle-income taxpayers would produce fairer and more predictable results.California SALT Deduction Proposal Is More Clever Than Helpful 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

What employers should know about key developments this week: ·        New York City's Enforcement Blitz: The city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection is cracking down on violations of the Protected Time Off Law, issuing warnings to 56,000 employers. Non-compliance risks hefty penalties for employers. ·        California Investigates Price Manipulation: California is probing "surveillance pricing," in which companies use prospective customers' personal data to adjust prices, potentially violating the Consumer Privacy Act. The state is focusing on the retail, grocery, and hotel industries. ·        Pennsylvania Expands Background Check Law: A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling broadens Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act to include restrictions and notice requirements, even for voluntarily disclosed criminal history. - Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw424 Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm that focuses its resources on health care, life sciences, and workforce management solutions, coupled with powerful litigation strategies. This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

The All Local 4pm Update for Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026

This Day in Legal History: Tenth Circuit ActOn March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1863, quietly reshaping the structure of the United States Supreme Court in the middle of the Civil War. The Act increased the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to ten. This expansion created an additional seat that President Abraham Lincoln could fill at a critical moment in the nation's history. Lincoln soon appointed Justice Stephen J. Field to occupy the new position.The timing of the law was not accidental. The country was deeply divided, and major constitutional questions about executive power, wartime authority, and civil liberties were moving through the courts. By enlarging the Court, Congress ensured that Lincoln would have greater influence over the judiciary's direction. Although altering the size of the Court was constitutional, it carried clear political implications.The Constitution does not fix the number of Supreme Court justices. Instead, Congress has authority to determine the Court's size through legislation. This structural flexibility has allowed lawmakers to adjust the Court in response to political and practical concerns. The Judiciary Act of 1863 stands as one example of how institutional design can intersect with national crisis.The legal element worth highlighting is Congress's constitutional power to set the size of the Supreme Court. Article III establishes the Court but leaves its structure largely to Congress. This separation of powers detail is significant because it shows that the judiciary's composition is not self-defining. I chose this element because it explains how a simple statute, passed during wartime, could alter the balance of influence within the highest court in the country without amending the Constitution.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a federal law prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment. The case arose after federal prosecutors charged Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to regular marijuana use, with unlawful gun possession under the Gun Control Act. A lower court dismissed the charge, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, concluding there was no historical basis for disarming a sober person who was not under the influence at the time of possession.The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, appealed to the Supreme Court. The administration argued that the restriction is comparable to 19th-century laws that allowed authorities to disarm habitual drunkards. Hemani, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, countered that regular marijuana users are not historically analogous to those groups and that the statute is too vague because it does not clearly define who qualifies as an “unlawful user.”The dispute comes as the Court continues to apply the history-focused test it announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun regulations to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The case also echoes the 2024 conviction of Hunter Biden under the same statute, though he was later pardoned. With a 6–3 conservative majority, the Court has recently taken an expansive view of gun rights and is weighing multiple challenges to firearm regulations.US Supreme Court scrutinizes gun ownership ban for illegal drug users | ReutersA recent policy shift by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has given public companies greater control over which shareholder proposals appear on annual meeting ballots. In November, the agency stopped its long-standing practice of having staff formally review and approve companies' decisions to exclude certain proposals. Instead, corporate executives now have more discretion to determine what goes into proxy statements.Investor advocates say the change has created confusion and weakened shareholder rights, especially in disputes involving environmental, social, and governance issues. The new approach has already led to lawsuits against companies including PepsiCo, AT&T, and Axon Enterprise. In several instances, companies initially declined to include shareholder proposals but reversed course after being sued. For example, PepsiCo agreed to allow a vote on an animal-welfare proposal shortly after litigation was filed. AT&T similarly settled a lawsuit brought by New York City pension funds by permitting a vote on workforce diversity disclosures.Other disputes remain pending, including a case against Axon over a proposal related to political contributions. Activists argue that without clearer guidance from regulators, shareholders must turn to the courts to protect their ability to file resolutions. Despite concerns that the rule change would dramatically increase exclusions, early data suggests companies have blocked proposals at roughly the same rate as in prior years.Trump's SEC gave companies more power over investors. Lawsuits pushed them back | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from computer scientist Stephen Thaler, leaving intact a lower court ruling that works created solely by artificial intelligence are not eligible for copyright protection. The decision lets stand a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that agreed with the U.S. Copyright Office that only human authors can register copyrighted works.Thaler sought protection for a two-dimensional image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” which was generated by his AI system known as the Creativity Machine. He argued that the Copyright Act does not explicitly require human authorship and that the agency improperly read that limitation into the statute. The D.C. Circuit rejected that claim, reasoning that multiple provisions of the law assume an author is a human being, particularly sections dealing with lifespan and inheritance rights.Thaler also contended that, as the system's owner and programmer, he should qualify for copyright under work-for-hire principles or property law concepts. The government responded that a valid work-for-hire arrangement requires a written agreement and cannot apply to a nonhuman creator. This dispute echoes Thaler's earlier, unsuccessful effort to secure patent rights for an AI-generated invention, which the Supreme Court also declined to review in 2023.Justices Reject Appeal Over Copyright For AI-Created Art - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Kentucky's Congressional delegation reacts to President Trump ordering a military strike on Iran, Kentucky Court of Appeals delivers another legal defeat for so-called 'gray' machines, more of Kentucky's homeless students are staying in school and graduating, and Broadway comes to the Bluegrass.

Sometimes when you fight, you lose. Michael and I discuss what happened with our appeal, and why it's important to fight, even if you sometimes lose.

Illegal immigrants getting Social Security numbers. Welfare fraud fueling voter rolls. And Democrat officials refusing to turn over critical data. Today on AmperWave Daily, we connect the dots between immigration, welfare, and voter fraud — and explore why some allege it's shaping elections and party behavior nationwide.

Millions in fraudulent welfare, Medicaid, and home care programs are costing taxpayers trillions—while Democrats stall critical reforms. Today, we break down how Trump, JD Vance, and the appeals court ruling on IRS data could expose illegal enrollments, recover billions, and reshape the voter rolls. Plus: what the SAFE Act vote could mean for the 2026 midterms. ⏱️ Show Notes / Segments 0:00 – 3:45 | Trillion-Dollar Fraud Claims Discussion of Trump's claim that U.S. budget could be balanced overnight if all fraud was stopped, including JD Vance leading federal prosecutors to tackle nationwide abuses. 3:46 – 8:20 | Home Care and Hospice Scandal Explains the unprecedented growth of personal care services in NY and California, where federal funds are being misused, including payments to illegal immigrants and fraudulent providers. 8:21 – 12:15 | Medicaid & Illegal Activity How Medicaid funds are being diverted to cash, debit cards, and welfare for non-citizens; millions of illegal immigrants receive benefits including drivers licenses, voter registration, and potentially voting. 12:16 – 16:00 | Court Wins & Access to IRS Data The U.S. appeals court overturned a judge's block on Trump accessing IRS data, opening the door to uncover Social Security fraud, identify illegal voters, and strengthen enforcement. 16:01 – 20:10 | The SAFE Act and Voter Rolls Analysis of Senate delays on the SAFE Act, which requires states to purge voter rolls of illegals and enforce citizenship verification; why John Thune's delay is a critical bottleneck. 20:11 – 24:00 | Wealth Taxes & Democrat Funding Discussion on proposed wealth taxes, their political consequences, and how billionaires' taxes could theoretically fund welfare programs in Democrat-controlled states. 24:01 – 28:00 | Political Strategy & Midterms Impact How Trump's efforts, the SAFE Act, and voter roll enforcement could impact elections, Republicans' role in enabling or blocking reforms, and the consequences for state-level policies.

It's Wednesday, February 25th, 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 Jonathan Clark Yemen authorities arrested 20 Christians Authorities in Yemen, a country in the Middle East bordering Saudi Arabia to the north, have arrested at least 20 Christians in recent months. For simply professing Christ, these believers can face torture and even death. The Islamic country is located in the south of the Arabian peninsula. It is illegal for Christians to publicly display or share their faith there.  International Christian Concern notes, “The arrests in Yemen paradoxically confirm what missionaries and human rights observers have long suspected: despite being one of the most dangerous places on Earth to be a Christian, Yemen hosts a growing indigenous church.” According to Open Doors, Yemen is the third most oppressive country worldwide for Christians. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, “On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” Christian Canadian fined $750,000 for opposing gender confusion The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal fined a Canadian Christian $750,000 last week for opposing gender confusion. Barry Neufield is a former Board of Education trustee for the district of Chilliwack. He posted on social media that there are only two sexes, and he opposed transgender ideology in the schools. Neufield wrote on Facebook that the widespread embrace of such ideology has “demonized people of faith who believe that God created humans male and female: In the Image of God.” Judge fined Maryland school district for promoting sexual perversion In the United States, a federal judge fined Maryland's largest school district $1.5 million last week for promoting sexual perversity. Parents sued Montgomery County Public Schools for not allowing them to opt their children out of storybooks featuring such perversity. Eric Baxter with The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty commented, “Public schools nationwide are on notice: running roughshod over parental rights and religious freedom isn't just illegal—it's costly.” Louisiana allowed to display 10 Commandments in classrooms Louisiana can now enforce its law for every public school classroom to display the Ten Commandments.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling last week in favor of the displays. The ruling stated, “There can be no doubt that the Ten Commandments bear immense religious significance. … But they also ‘have historical significance as one of the foundations of our legal system.'” Deuteronomy 6:7 and 9 says this of God's commandments: “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. ... You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Vermont foster families allowed to affirm Biblical view The state of Vermont will no longer require families to abandon their religious beliefs in order to be foster families. The new policy comes thanks to the litigation of Alliance Defending Freedom. The issue began after Vermont revoked the licenses of two Christian families for opposing gender confusion.  The Christian legal rights group's Senior Counsel, Johannes Delphonse, said, “This is an incredible victory for children in Vermont's foster-care system.” Conservative Methodist denomination hits 7,000 churches worldwide The Global Methodist Church recently announced it reached 7,000 churches worldwide.  The denomination launched in 2022 after years of internal conflict within the United Methodist Church over human sexuality. Many theologically conservative churches left the mainline denomination since then. The Global Methodist Church posted on Facebook, “This moment reminds us that growth isn't just measured in numbers — it's found in repentance, renewal, and lives being transformed by Jesus Christ.” U.S. economy growing slower than expected U.S. economic growth was slower than expected during the fourth quarter of 2025. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 1.4 percent last quarter. That's down from 4.4 percent during the third quarter and much lower than expectations.  Government spending was down during the fourth quarter because of the record-length shutdown.  Chicago man saved baby out of frigid Lake Michigan And finally, a Chicago man saved an eight-month-old baby from the frigid 35-degree waters of Lake Michigan last Wednesday.  Block Club Chicago reports 30-year-old Lio Cundiff was taking a walk along the lake at Belmont Harbor. That's when he heard a woman scream. Gusting winds had sent her stroller with her baby into the lake.  Cundiff can't swim. But he dove in to save the baby anyways. He wasn't sure how long he could keep her above water, but thankfully other bystanders stepped in and helped.  He said, “If she's going down, I'm going down with her. I couldn't live with myself if that baby hadn't made it. … If it wasn't for everyone being alert and helping, I don't know what would've happened. I'm very thankful.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Wednesday, February 25th, 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.

Every person in D4VD's inner circle is either fighting subpoenas, invoking the Fifth, or refusing to show up — and a Texas appeals court just told his family that's not going to work.The 1st District Court of Appeals in Texas denied three habeas corpus petitions filed by D4VD's father Dawud, mother Colleen, and brother Caleb, who argued that redacted affidavits violated their due process rights. The ruling compels them to testify before a Los Angeles County grand jury investigating the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, whose remains were found in D4VD's Tesla in September. A rehearing is set for February 24.The Burke family joins a growing list of uncooperative witnesses. Neo Langston was arrested in Montana and appeared before the panel for just 40 minutes. An unidentified female witness was a no-show. Manager Robert Morgenroth testified for three days but reportedly told his attorney that prosecutors pressed him on why he never contacted police. And D4VD himself is reportedly no longer cooperating.A court footnote referencing "The People of the State of California v. David Burke" strongly suggests a sealed criminal proceeding may already be underway. LAPD Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton promised accountability in November. Three months later, prosecutors are still fighting just to get witnesses in the room.This episode examines the pattern of silence, the legal battles, and what it all means for the case — and for justice for Celeste.No arrests have been made. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.#D4VD #CelesteRivasHernandez #GrandJury #BurkeFamily #NeoLangston #WallOfSilence #BethSilverman #LAPD #JusticeForCeleste #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

In the wake of the Supreme Court verdict striking down Trump's tariffs, Harry breaks down the decision with a trio of top-notch legal analysts: Kyle Cheney, Adam Klasfeld, and Mimi Rocah. The group digs into the court's rare rebuff of the president and the infighting among the conservative Justices. Next, the panel turns to the lower courts' angry rulings against Trump's deportation drive, even including—finally—a contempt finding. To finish, they examine the arrest of ex-Prince Andrew and weigh the chances for similar accountability in the U.S. Mentioned in this episode:  Kyle's reporting: https://www.politico.com/staff/kyle-cheney Adam's Substack:  https://www.allrisenews.com/⁠ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling:  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26884355/ca5detention.pdf Judge Provenzino's contempt order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253.23.0.pdf Judge Provenzino's follow-up order, noting the purged contempt: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253/gov.uscourts.mnd.231253.23.0.pdf SCOTUS tariffs ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf Roger Sollenberger's Epstein-Trump article: https://substack.com/home/post/p-188009135 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We start with the latest on a deadly, powerful snowstorm slamming the Northeast. We'll tell you how US citizens are navigating the aftermath of cartel violence in Mexico. Four years into the war with Russia, Ukraine's leader makes a pointed plea. The son of a famed Hollywood couple has pleaded not guilty to killing his parents. Plus, why House Speaker Mike Johnson is urging a Republican congressman to speak up, not step down over a brewing scandal. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sets arguments for late June in the bid to release Volume II of Jack Smith's final report. A Minnesota judge holds a justice department attorney in contempt for failing to comply with a court order. Some leading defense lawyers have created a tool to track Justice Department cases that involve irregular charging practices. The Justice Department acknowledges violating dozens of recent court orders in New Jersey. Plus listener questions… Do you have questions for the pod?  https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ Thank you CB Distillery! Use promo code UNJUST at http://CBDistillery.com for 25% off your purchase. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump Questions for the pod?https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ We would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

It's a sad commentary when the DOJ admitting in a court filing that they have “only” violated 56 court orders in one federal district just since December, is a GOOD week for the DOJ. But the real story, as Popok reports, is the reason that DOJ official Jordan Fox is using some smarmy apologetic tone in her letter to a NJ federal judge. It's because she is a close friend of Trump's former criminal defense lawyer and now 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals judge Emil Bove, and she's lobbying the judges to get them to vote her in as the US Attorney replacement for Alina Habba in NJ. Qualia: Take control of your cellular health today. Go to https://qualialife.com/legalaf and save 15% to experience the science of feeling younger. Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the summer of 1998, eighty-two-year-old New York socialite Irene Silverman disappeared from her Manhattan townhouse without a trace. Silverman's friends were immediately concerned, as it was completely out of character for Irene to leave town without telling anyone. Coincidentally, on the same day Irene Silverman disappeared, authorities in New York arrested Sante Kimes and her son, Kenny, on a charge of check fraud. Unbeknownst to investigators, these two events were directly linked.In the wake of the arrest of Kimes and her son, investigators discovered a number of links between the mother and son con artists and Irene Silverman that would not only lead to the discovery of Silverman's body, but also to a years' long crime spree that included everything from check fraud and impersonation to arson and murder. In the annals of American crime, it's rare to find a series of violent crimes committed by a woman. And among those women, it is rarer still to find one so brutal, cunning, and manipulative as Sante Kimes.ReferencesAssociated Press. 1985. "Couple charged with slavery." The Union (Grass Valley, CA), August 6: 4.Bashinsky, Ruth, and Larry Sutton. 1998. "She lived in the present, belebrated ballet past." Daily News (New York, NY), July 8: 2.Finkelstein, Katherine. 2000. "Mother and son are given life sentences." New York Times, June 28.Kirsta, Alix. 1999. "The lady vanishes." The Guardian, November 20.Kocieniewski, David. 1998. "Deed ceding widow's house to suspects is found, police say." New York Times, July 25.NBC News. 2025. "The devil wore white." Dateline, January 1.Rohde, David. 1998. "2 now face murder charge in widow's disappearance." New York Times, December 17.—. 2000. "Jury hears a murder defendant's outburst; a woman screams for fairness." New York Times, April 29.Rohde, David, and Julian Barnes. 2000. "Without a body, murder case of widow relies on circumstantial evidence." New York Times, May 16.Sante Kimes v. United States. 1989. 86-1267 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, October 31).Walker, Kent. 2001. Son of a Grifter: The Twisted Tale of Sante and Kenny Kimes, the Most Notorious Con Artists in America. New York, NY: William Morrow.  Cowritten by Alaina Urquhart, Ash Kelley & Dave White (Since 10/2022)Produced & Edited by Mikie Sirois (Since 2023)Research by Dave White (Since 10/2022), Alaina Urquhart & Ash KelleyListener Correspondence & Collaboration by Debra LallyListener Tale Video Edited by Aidan McElman (Since 6/2025) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.