Podcasts about appeals

The news of Texas covered today includes:Our Lone Star story of the day:  Texas, sanity prevails at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as it stops a block to Texas' law that treats sexually suggestive drag queen shows the same as other sexually suggestive performances. ACLU, homosexuals, drag queens and others sued claiming that not letting the performances be given before children somehow violates the crossdressers' constitutional rights. 5th Circuit Vacates Block on Texas' Ban on Drag Shows with Minors in Attendance Attorney General Ken Paxton Successfully Defends Law Protecting Children from Being Exposed to Sexually Illicit Content at Erotic Drag Shows Texas Can Enforce Ban on Erotic Drag Shows for Kids, Federal Court Rules Our Lone Star story of the day is sponsored by Allied Compliance Services providing the best service in DOT, business and personal drug and alcohol testing since 1995.Oil and gas rig count falls by one in Texas.Some of the campaign related stories covered: Texas Rep. John Smithee to retire after nearly 40 years of service Nearly one in five (19%) Texas Latinos regret voting for Trump, poll finds – there are important lessons in this poll I discuss Border and illegal immigration:  Trump's Border Policy Delivers: Zero Migrant Releases for 6th Month, Record-Low Apprehensions in October ICE Disputes Houston Church's Story About Detained Priest Deported pedophile ‘brutally beat' ICE agent during arrest in Houston ICE captures South American theft ring members in Texas break-ins after probe Listen on the radio, or station stream, at 5pm Central. Click for our radio and streaming affiliates.www.PrattonTexas.com

Dallas Cowboys defensive end Marshawn Kneeland died on Thursday from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. He was 24. In other news, the Federal Aviation Administration is planning on reducing flights at DFW International Airport, Dallas Love Field and a swath of other major U.S. airports in an unprecedented move as the ongoing government shutdown wreaks havoc on the aviation sector; a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a previously blocked law designed to ban public drag performances can now go into effect. A panel of judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2023 ruling from a Houston federal judge that had blocked enforcement of the law indefinitely; and a joint committee of Dallas City Council members voted unanimously Thursday to shelve a proposal that would have reimbursed the city for allowing police officers to help enforce federal immigration laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Texas law, which I helped craft, preventing drag queens from performing in front of children has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Good riddance to Nancy Pelosi as she announces her retirement from Congress. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) joins the show to discuss filing articles of impeachment against anti-Trump activist Judge James Boasberg for his alleged role in Arctic Frost, which allowed the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. The Islamification of America is under way. Matthew Marsden and Jaco Booyens join the show to talk about the dangers.   ► Subscribe to “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered”! https://www.youtube.com/@SaraGonzalesUnfiltered?sub_confirmation=1    Today's Sponsors:   ► Relief Factor  Visit https://www.relieffactor.com or call 1-800-4-Relief to try the three-week QuickStart today.   ► PreBorn  Donate securely at https://www.preborn.com/sara or dial #250, keyword BABY.   ► Kindred Harvest Teas  Go to https://www.kindredharvest.co and use code SARA for 20% off. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A region title decided by point differential? You won’t believe how North Cobb clinched it. In this playoff-packed episode of Cobb Football Friday, Brian Giffin and John Bednarowski break down the wild end to the regular season, historic scoring feats, and what’s ahead for Cobb County teams in the GHSA playoffs. From Walker’s gritty 23-man roster to McEachern’s record-breaking 79-point game, it’s a celebration of resilience, rivalry, and reclassification. Tune in for playoff previews, standout performances, and a look at how school enrollment is reshaping the future of Georgia high school football. Cobb Football Friday Chapters 00:00 Kickoff to Week 13: Playoff Fever and Fastball Season01:12 North Cobb’s Region Title: A Tiebreaker Twist02:30 Teams That Stepped Up: Harrison, Hillgrove, Sprayberry03:45 Campbell’s Quiet Success and Pope’s First Win04:36 Walker’s Grit and TJ Anderson’s 23-Man Miracle06:00 McEachern’s 79-Point Explosion and Historic Scoring Records07:30 Harrison vs. Marietta: Playoff Preview and Gate Expectations08:45 Hillgrove, Sprayberry, and Seeding Scenarios10:00 Campbell’s Winning Season and Whitfield’s Setback11:46 Walker’s Season Ends with Respect and Safety First12:30 First-Round Playoff Matchups Across Classifications14:53 GHSA Reclassification: Who’s Moving Up and Down17:21 Appeals, Region Realignment, and Travel Impacts19:47 North Cobb Christian’s Playoff Potential21:23 Cobb Stars in College: Kaden Lee and Connor Lu22:08 Travel Tales, Basketball, and Next Week’s Preview24:18 Bye Week Reflections and Playoff AnticipationSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) 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

With less than one more before the Supreme Court's oral argument in one of the most explosive cases of this term, Trump v. Slaughter, you're encouraged to join the Anchoring Truths Podcast for a discussion of this important case over whether the President remove any Senate-confirmed commissioner of an agency he no longer wishes to have serve in that federal agency. The constitutional question in the case concerns statutory removal protections for the Federal Trade Commission—previously upheld in the Court's landmark decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States—and whether a federal court may prevent removal of a commissioner from public office. The stakes for this case are enormous for all three branches of the government, foremost though the executive. Is the power to remove an executive branch agency's commissioner vested solely in the President, as it is under what's known as the theory of the unitary executive? Or can Congress place conditions on removal that prevent such exercise of the executive's authority?Joining us to preview the oral argument is Mark Chenoweth of the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Mark is NCLA's President and Chief Legal Officer, and along with Margot Cleveland and Professor Philip Hamburger, the co-authors of an amicus brief in the case.Mark served as the first chief of staff to Congressman Mike Pompeo, as legal counsel to Commissioner Anne Northup at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, as an attorney advisor in the Office of Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Justice, and as a law clerk to the Hon. Danny J. Boggs on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.Mark has worked in several different roles in the private sector as well. He began his legal career in D.C. as a regulatory associate at Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. He then returned to his home state of Kansas to serve as in-house counsel for Koch Industries. Most recently he spent over four years as general counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation.Learn more about NCLA.

Watch Download File

In a stunning legal reversal that's shaking the true crime and justice world, the Florida appellate court has overturned the $213.5 million verdict in the Maya Kowalski case — one of the most emotionally charged courtroom battles in recent memory. Former FBI agent and true crime analyst Jennifer Coffindaffer sits down with legal expert Dave Ehrenberg to dissect what went wrong and what comes next in this explosive new episode of Break the Case. For those unfamiliar, Maya Kowalski suffered from a rare pain condition known as CRPS. While hospitalized, her mother, Beata Kowalski, was accused by doctors of suffering from Munchausen by proxy — a form of abuse involving fabricating or inducing illness in a child. When Beata was prevented from seeing Maya for more than 80 days, the distraught mother fell into a deep depression and ultimately took her own life, leaving behind a note pleading for her daughter's release. A Florida jury later awarded the Kowalski family over $200 million in damages, holding Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital accountable for false imprisonment, emotional distress, and wrongful death. But now, the Second District Court of Appeals has vacated that verdict entirely, citing major errors by the trial judge — particularly around Florida's “mandatory reporter” immunity laws. The appellate court ruled that hospital staff, acting as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse, were shielded by law and acted in good faith when they contacted child protection authorities. This means a new trial will move forward, but only for a limited set of claims: battery, medical negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Maya herself. Beata's death, which once anchored the case's emotional gravity, may only be referenced as context. The decision not only erases a massive verdict but also sets a crucial precedent for hospitals and medical professionals across Florida. Coffindaffer and Ehrenberg's discussion peels back the layers of this controversial ruling — a reminder that even in the pursuit of justice, emotion and law often collide. This is more than a case; it's a tragedy, a legal reckoning, and a lesson in how far institutions will go to protect themselves under the letter of the law. #TrueCrime #MayaKowalski #BeataKowalski #JohnsHopkinsHospital #LegalAnalysis #BreakingNews #JusticeForMaya #CourtAppeal #FloridaLaw #InvestigativeNews Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In a stunning legal reversal that's shaking the true crime and justice world, the Florida appellate court has overturned the $213.5 million verdict in the Maya Kowalski case — one of the most emotionally charged courtroom battles in recent memory. Former FBI agent and true crime analyst Jennifer Coffindaffer sits down with legal expert Dave Ehrenberg to dissect what went wrong and what comes next in this explosive new episode of Break the Case. For those unfamiliar, Maya Kowalski suffered from a rare pain condition known as CRPS. While hospitalized, her mother, Beata Kowalski, was accused by doctors of suffering from Munchausen by proxy — a form of abuse involving fabricating or inducing illness in a child. When Beata was prevented from seeing Maya for more than 80 days, the distraught mother fell into a deep depression and ultimately took her own life, leaving behind a note pleading for her daughter's release. A Florida jury later awarded the Kowalski family over $200 million in damages, holding Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital accountable for false imprisonment, emotional distress, and wrongful death. But now, the Second District Court of Appeals has vacated that verdict entirely, citing major errors by the trial judge — particularly around Florida's “mandatory reporter” immunity laws. The appellate court ruled that hospital staff, acting as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse, were shielded by law and acted in good faith when they contacted child protection authorities. This means a new trial will move forward, but only for a limited set of claims: battery, medical negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Maya herself. Beata's death, which once anchored the case's emotional gravity, may only be referenced as context. The decision not only erases a massive verdict but also sets a crucial precedent for hospitals and medical professionals across Florida. Coffindaffer and Ehrenberg's discussion peels back the layers of this controversial ruling — a reminder that even in the pursuit of justice, emotion and law often collide. This is more than a case; it's a tragedy, a legal reckoning, and a lesson in how far institutions will go to protect themselves under the letter of the law. #TrueCrime #MayaKowalski #BeataKowalski #JohnsHopkinsHospital #LegalAnalysis #BreakingNews #JusticeForMaya #CourtAppeal #FloridaLaw #InvestigativeNews Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this episode we discuss the jurisdiction and authority of the Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to address alleged errors in post-trial actions that indicate firearms restrictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922. We cover distinctions from the CAAF's Williams opinion from last term, timing for when the judgment is entered into the record, and the specific authority of the Courts of Criminal Appeals to provide appropriate relief for errors after the judgment is entered. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

In this episode we discuss the jurisdiction and authority of the Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to address alleged errors in post-trial actions that indicate firearms restrictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922. We cover distinctions from the CAAF's Williams opinion from last term, timing for when the judgment is entered into the record, and the specific authority of the Courts of Criminal Appeals to provide appropriate relief for errors after the judgment is entered. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

It's election week in the U.S., and while many eyes are on the polls, we're revisiting a conversation that reminds us why voting matters in the first place. In this rebroadcast, Yale Law professor Owen Fiss reflects on his work enforcing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the courts' role in protecting democracy, and why casting a ballot remains both a privilege and a duty. ----- After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis.  While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy.

In a stunning legal reversal that's shaking the true crime and justice world, the Florida appellate court has overturned the $213.5 million verdict in the Maya Kowalski case — one of the most emotionally charged courtroom battles in recent memory. Former FBI agent and true crime analyst Jennifer Coffindaffer sits down with legal expert Dave Ehrenberg to dissect what went wrong and what comes next in this explosive new episode of Break the Case. For those unfamiliar, Maya Kowalski suffered from a rare pain condition known as CRPS. While hospitalized, her mother, Beata Kowalski, was accused by doctors of suffering from Munchausen by proxy — a form of abuse involving fabricating or inducing illness in a child. When Beata was prevented from seeing Maya for more than 80 days, the distraught mother fell into a deep depression and ultimately took her own life, leaving behind a note pleading for her daughter's release. A Florida jury later awarded the Kowalski family over $200 million in damages, holding Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital accountable for false imprisonment, emotional distress, and wrongful death. But now, the Second District Court of Appeals has vacated that verdict entirely, citing major errors by the trial judge — particularly around Florida's “mandatory reporter” immunity laws. The appellate court ruled that hospital staff, acting as mandatory reporters of suspected abuse, were shielded by law and acted in good faith when they contacted child protection authorities. This means a new trial will move forward, but only for a limited set of claims: battery, medical negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress on behalf of Maya herself. Beata's death, which once anchored the case's emotional gravity, may only be referenced as context. The decision not only erases a massive verdict but also sets a crucial precedent for hospitals and medical professionals across Florida. Coffindaffer and Ehrenberg's discussion peels back the layers of this controversial ruling — a reminder that even in the pursuit of justice, emotion and law often collide. This is more than a case; it's a tragedy, a legal reckoning, and a lesson in how far institutions will go to protect themselves under the letter of the law. #TrueCrime #MayaKowalski #BeataKowalski #JohnsHopkinsHospital #LegalAnalysis #BreakingNews #JusticeForMaya #CourtAppeal #FloridaLaw #InvestigativeNews Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

This Day in Legal History: Saddam Hussein Sentenced to DeathOn November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein, the former President of Iraq, was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity. The charges stemmed from the 1982 massacre of 148 Shiite men and boys in the town of Dujail, an act of collective punishment after an assassination attempt on Hussein. The verdict came after a year-long trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal, a special court established to prosecute former members of Saddam's regime. The proceedings were highly controversial, drawing criticism for their fairness, security lapses, and political interference.Saddam's defense team faced threats and attacks, with several lawyers murdered during the trial. International human rights organizations expressed concern over the tribunal's procedures, noting a lack of due process protections. Despite these criticisms, the court found Hussein guilty and sentenced him to death. His co-defendants, including his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former judge Awad al-Bandar, also received death sentences. Saddam remained defiant throughout the trial, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the court and accusing it of being a tool of occupation.The sentence was upheld on appeal and carried out swiftly, with Saddam Hussein executed on December 30, 2006. His execution, filmed and leaked online, sparked outrage and deepened sectarian tensions in Iraq. Many saw the trial and its aftermath as exacerbating divisions rather than promoting justice and reconciliation. The event marked a pivotal moment in Iraq's post-invasion legal and political reconstruction, highlighting both the possibilities and limits of transitional justice in a conflict-ridden environment.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law not originally intended for such use. The case stems from lawsuits by affected businesses and 12 mostly Democratic-led states, claiming Trump's application of IEEPA to impose tariffs violated constitutional limits, as Congress—not the president—holds the power to levy taxes and tariffs. The law has traditionally been used to freeze assets or impose sanctions during national emergencies, not to regulate routine trade.Trump's administration has defended the tariffs as a national security measure and emphasized their economic impact, having generated nearly $90 billion in revenue. The president has pressured the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to uphold his interpretation of IEEPA, warning that overturning the tariffs would leave the nation vulnerable. If struck down, the administration intends to pursue the tariffs through other legal avenues.Critics argue the case reflects broader concerns about Trump's expansion of executive power, as IEEPA does not explicitly mention tariffs. The Federal Circuit Court ruled against Trump, stating that Congress likely did not intend to hand the president such broad trade authority and invoking the “major questions” doctrine, which limits executive power absent clear congressional approval. The justices' decision will test their willingness to check presidential overreach and could reshape the boundaries of executive authority in economic policy.Supreme Court weighs legality of tariffs in major test of Trump's power | ReutersSupreme Court Confronts Trump's Power to Disrupt World Trade (1)The U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee, Joshua Dunlap, to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, marking a significant shift for the Boston-based court that had, until now, consisted solely of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The confirmation vote was 52-46, largely along party lines. This is Trump's first successful appointment to the 1st Circuit, long viewed as a legal roadblock to many of his policies due to its liberal composition.Dunlap, a conservative litigator from Maine, has a background in challenging progressive state laws, including Maine's ranked-choice voting system and paid family leave policies. He previously interned with the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom and has expressed personal views critical of abortion and same-sex marriage in past public writings. During his confirmation hearing, he maintained that his personal beliefs would not influence his judicial decisions.The vacancy Dunlap fills opened when Judge William Kayatta, an Obama appointee, assumed senior status in late 2024. President Biden had nominated Julia Lipez for the seat, but her confirmation stalled before the end of his term. With this appointment, Trump gains a foothold in a court that has played a central role in legal challenges against his administration, and which could now shift incrementally rightward.Senate confirms Trump's pick to join liberal-majority US appeals court | ReutersA federal appeals court appeared doubtful of Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to overturn his fraud conviction and 25-year prison sentence tied to the collapse of his FTX cryptocurrency exchange. During oral arguments, judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals questioned whether the trial judge's exclusion of certain defense evidence truly compromised the fairness of the proceedings. One judge asked if, by not disputing the strength of the evidence, Bankman-Fried was effectively conceding its sufficiency.Bankman-Fried's legal team argued that even if the jury had enough evidence to convict, the judge's decisions about what evidence to allow still denied him a fair trial. Specifically, they claimed the jury never saw key materials that could have supported Bankman-Fried's belief that FTX had the funds to honor customer withdrawals.Prosecutors pushed back, emphasizing that the government's case was overwhelming. They noted that three insiders testified they conspired with Bankman-Fried to misappropriate customer funds, and documents corroborated their accounts. Bankman-Fried, once a billionaire and crypto industry figurehead, was convicted in 2023 on seven counts, including fraud and conspiracy, for stealing $8 billion from users.At sentencing, the judge said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted illegally but underestimated the risk of being caught. Though some close to him have reportedly sought a presidential pardon, Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated in a low-security facility in California and is eligible for release in 2044.Appeals court skeptical of Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to toss crypto fraud conviction | ReutersGoogle and Epic Games announced a settlement in their years-long legal dispute over app distribution and payment systems on Android devices. While the full terms were not made public, the agreement follows a 2023 jury verdict in favor of Epic, which found that Google had engaged in anticompetitive behavior by securing exclusivity deals with phone makers and app developers to lock them into its Play Store.The settlement arrives as Google was already under a court order to restructure aspects of its app store. U.S. District Judge James Donato had previously mandated that Google stop favoring its own services and allow developers more freedom, including steering users to cheaper payment options outside the Play Store. He also required Google to provide app catalog access to rivals to support competition.Under the new agreement, many of Donato's requirements remain, but with modifications. Instead of full catalog access, “registered app stores” will now receive equal treatment to the Play Store, and commission fees for off-store purchases are capped at either 9% or 20%, depending on the transaction. Both companies told the court that negotiations involved top executives and were prompted by the court's pressure.The settlement also resolves Epic's related litigation against Samsung. Executives from both companies described the agreement as a step toward greater developer freedom and a more open Android ecosystem. Google emphasized user safety and developer flexibility, while Epic praised the deal as a return to Android's open platform roots.Google, Epic Games Settle Yearslong Legal Fight Over App Store 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

David Lee Windecher is a trailblazing criminal defense attorney, author, and activist in the social justice movement to end mass incarceration, reduce recidivism and redress racial inequity in the criminal justice system. In his autobiography The American Dream / HiSstory in the Making, David shares the harsh realities of growing up as an impoverished immigrant on the streets of Miami-Dade County. He was arrested 13 times and spent over 7 months incarcerated as a juvenile. He dropped out of high school and joined a gang for protection. His street name was Red. David endured the brutal climate of the lawlessness on the streets by both criminals and the police. All the while he dreamed of becoming a lawyer and fighting for those who don't have the resources to pay for justice. David began his path to self-rehabilitation when he earned his GED in March of 1998 and took his first academic steps toward his childhood dream of becoming a lawyer. He graduated Summa Cum Laude from American Intercontinental University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida in 2005 and earned his Juris Doctorate degree from John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, Georgia in 2012. David was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 2012 and the Florida Bar in 2014. David is a member of the Georgia and Florida Court of Appeals, the Georgia and Florida Supreme Court, the Northern District of Georgia United States District Court and the American Bar Association. David specializes in criminal defense, juvenile law, and expungement procedures. In 2022 the National Football League awarded him with the Inspire Change Changemaker Award.   Related Links:  Rehabilitation Enables Dreams - https://www.stoprecidivism.org/ Lester Tate – http://www.akintate.com/ Robin Frazer Clark – https://www.gatriallawyers.net/ See You In Court – https://seeyouincourtpodcast.org To learn more about the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation, visit https://fairplay.org  

It's election week in the U.S., and while many eyes are on the polls, we're revisiting a conversation that reminds us why voting matters in the first place. In this rebroadcast, Yale Law professor Owen Fiss reflects on his work enforcing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the courts' role in protecting democracy, and why casting a ballot remains both a privilege and a duty. ----- After 50 years as a professor at Yale Law School, Owen Fiss says his students are still idealistic and passionate about the rights won in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a young lawyer in the late 1960s, Fiss worked with the Department of Justice to implement those laws. A classroom discussion in the spring of 2020 prompted him to draw upon his legal expertise and decades of experience to produce his new book, Why We Vote.  In this episode of The Modern Law Library podcast, Fiss speaks with the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles about the paradox of the court system–the least democratic branch of government–having the responsibility of safeguarding the right to vote. He looks back on his work with the DOJ in southern states, and his time as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall (then on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York) and Justice William Brennan.  Rawles and Fiss also discuss recent threats to the electoral system and right to vote, including the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Fiss shares his thoughts about Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and whether former President Donald Trump should be removed from the ballot on that basis.  While every book he writes is for his students, Fiss says, he hopes Why We Vote can impress upon a broader audience the privilege and duty of voting and participating in a democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 39: Fellers v. KelleyFellers, et al. v. Kelley, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman and Senior Circuit Judges Sandra L. Lynch and Jeffrey R. Howard in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on November 5, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of Kyle Fellers, et al.) and Jonathan Shirley (on behalf of Marcy Kelley, et al.). Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech case page:A silent protest in support of girls' sports led Bow officials to censor XX wristbands, threaten arrests and ban dissenters from school grounds. Now, three parents and a grandfather are fighting back against the officials who trampled on their First Amendment rights—and the policies those officials weaponized to do it. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleges that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights by forcing them to remove “XX” wristbands, and then banning them from school grounds. The plaintiffs wore the wristbands to silently protest government officials allowing a biological male to play on the opposing girls' soccer team. School officials, along with a police officer, confronted the parents during the game, demanding that they remove the wristbands or leave. The referee also temporarily stopped the game and said that the game would be over if the remaining plaintiff did not remove his wristband. Two of the plaintiffs were later sent no-trespass notices excluding them from future games.  The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin the school from enforcing its unconstitutional policy or practice of censoring the display of  XX wristbands or displaying signs in the parking lot in support of protecting women's sports at Bow school sporting events Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief:Does a blanket ban on so-called “exclusionary” speech by adults at school events open to the public discriminate against speech based on its content and viewpoint?  Do public school officials illegally discriminate against speech based on viewpoint by banning adult spectators at school sporting events from wearing XX-wristbands conveying an “exclusionary” message, when those same officials permit adult spectators to display a Pride Flag because the message is “inclusionary?”  Is the First Amendment's protection of speech by adult spectators in a limited public forum, such as a public-school extracurricular sporting event, subject to the same legal test for the protection of student speech in schools set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines and its progeny?  Can the passive display of an XX-wristband by parents watching a school sporting event in which a trans-identified student is playing “reasonably be understood as directly assaulting those who identify as transgender women?” Did the district court correctly find that the XX-wristbands' message would be likely to injure transgender students when the record lacks evidence of such phenomena?  Did the district court err by denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction?Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Plaintiff-Appellants' Opening Brief Defendant-Appellees' Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. 

After almost a year of an escalating trade war, U.S. President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea last week. While official statements from both sides framed the summit as a positive move forward in a period of growing political, economic and military tensions on the international scale, it may also mark a distinct change in the U.S. approach. The Trump administration had imposed extremely high tariffs on Chinese exports to the US this year. China then imposed its own retaliatory tariffs.But despite Trump's triumphalist language around the meeting, the U.S. continues to place economic restrictions on China. It will restrict China's access to NVIDIA's latest Blackwell generation of chips, despite CEO Jensen Huang saying last week he hoped to be able to sell the chips in China. And the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this week about Trump's tariffs against Chinese and other international goods, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled over two months ago, on August 29th, that the President overreached his executive power in imposing the tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Ultimately - and despite a perhaps temporary lowering of temperatures - the trade war is far from over and may spill into other significant geopolitical areas.Support the show

On today's episode: Zohran Mamdani beats Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa in NYC mayor's race, capping a stunning ascent. Abigail Spanberger elected Virginia governor in a historic first that boosts Democrats ahead of 2026. Democrat Mikie Sherrill elected governor of New Jersey, defeating opponent who aligned with Trump. At least 4 dead, 11 injured in UPS plane crash and explosion at Kentucky airport. Israel returns bodies of 15 Palestinians to Gaza. FBI fires additional agents who participated in investigating Trump, The man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent says it was a protest. Prosecutors say it's a crime. Flights halted for a time at Reagan airport near nation's capital due to reported threat. Appeals judges react skeptically to Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to overturn fraud conviction. Dick Cheney, one of the most powerful and polarizing vice presidents in US history, dies at 84. Juvenile arrested after bomb threats at New Jersey polling location. Mississippi highway incident 2nd monkey shot, search for 3rd continues. 2 Massachusetts men are arrested in the weekend explosion at Harvard Medical School. Losses for Big Tech pull Wall Street lower. Chrysler recalls 320,000 Jeep plug-in hybrids due to faulty battery that can catch fire. Big Tesla investor will vote against Musk's massive pay package. A triple-double powers Chicago’s comeback win over Philly in the NBA, the top teams in college basketball open their seasons with blowout victories, stars are dealt at the NFL trade deadline, Ohio State tops the first College Football Playoff rankings and notable MLB players elect free agency. College Football Playoff committee releases first rankings of season. Aryna Sabalenka to play Nick Kyrgios in 'Battle of the Sexes' exhibition match. Asia typhoon leaves a trail of destruction. Stability AI largely wins UK court battle against Getty Images over copyright and trademark. —The Associated Press About this program Host Terry Lipshetz is managing editor of the national newsroom for Lee Enterprises. Besides producing the daily Hot off the Wire news podcast, Terry conducts periodic interviews for this Behind the Headlines program, co-hosts the Streamed & Screened movies and television program and is the former producer of Across the Sky, a podcast dedicated to weather and climate. Theme music The News Tonight, used under license from Soundstripe. YouTube clearance: ZR2MOTROGI4XAHRX

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine the escalating ICE raids and federal enforcement actions in Chicago, joined by Reuters reporter Renee Hickman. Together with Jessica Levinson, the episode explores fatal encounters involving federal agents, disputes over official narratives, and the controversies surrounding body camera requirements. We also discuss daily judicial oversight of law enforcement, its unique legal status, and challenges to the president's order to deploy the National Guard. Tune in for a closer look at the clash between community resistance, federal enforcement, and ongoing legal battles on Chicago's streets.Here are three key takeaways from the episode:1. Fatal Shooting Involving ICE Agents: The episode opens with the recent ICE raids in Chicago, focusing on a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent and Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, a Mexican national. The circumstances are contested, with DHS claiming agents felt threatened, while surveillance and police records suggest otherwise. This incident marks the most violent encounter since the start of the Trump administration's Operation Midway Blitz.2. Disputed Narratives and Lack of Accountability: Renee highlights the conflicting narratives between federal agencies and victims' families, particularly in the cases of fatal shootings or injuries during enforcement actions. There's an ongoing lack of clarity and accountability due to delayed or restricted investigations, including an internal probe that may be impacted by a government shutdown.3. Judicial Oversight of Federal Agents: A rare level of judicial supervision has been imposed, compelling federal agents to report daily to a judge about any use-of-force incidents. This oversight stems from lawsuits by protesters, journalists, clergy, and others who allege excessive force during raids and demonstrations. The order has since been stayed by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, so the future of this oversight is uncertain.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In this episode, my lifelong friend and listener favorite Rich joins me to talk about the appeal I have right now at the National Committee on Appeals. I read the entirety of my appeal, the entirety of the branch reply, and we comment on both. Not surprisingly, we find my arguments to be more compelling. Even so, we present the other side as written, and try to give their positions fair treatment.

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | 11/04/25 | Docket #: 24-808 24-808 CONEY ISLAND AUTO PARTS, INC. V. BURTON DECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 438 CERT. GRANTED 6/6/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Well-settled legal principles dictate that a judgment entered in the absence of personal jurisdiction is void. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) authorizes federal courts to vacate a judgment when it is void. A motion seeking vacatur, however, "must be made within a reasonable time." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Each of the United States Courts of Appeals other than the Sixth Circuit holds that there is effectively no time limit for moving to vacate a judgment, notwithstanding Rule 60(c)(1)'s "reasonable time" requirement, when the judgment is obtained in the absence of personal jurisdiction. The common thinking among these circuits is that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void ab initio. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is the sole outlier. In this case, it held that Rule 60(c)(1) governs the timing of a motion seeking vacatur of a void judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). The question presented is: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-5881

A judge has approved Sean "Diddy" Combs' request for a fast-tracked appeals process, just four days after he began serving a 50-month sentence in a federal prison in New Jersey for two interstate prostitution convictions.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Annual giving programs across every sector are struggling—and the old tactics no longer work. To re-engage donors, fundraisers must borrow from behavioral economics: reduce friction, offer clear defaults, and frame choices that inspire action. Subtle “nudges,” simplified giving options, and immediate impact stories can transform inertia into generosity. In a noisy, overloaded world, the organizations that understand how people actually make giving decisions will be the ones that thrive.

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports on Sam Bankman-Fried's bid to overturn his fraud conviction.

This Day in Legal History: Massachusetts Institutes Death Penalty for HeresyOn November 4, 1646, the Massachusetts General Court enacted a law that imposed the death penalty for heresy, marking one of the most extreme expressions of religious intolerance in early American colonial history. The law required all members of the colony to affirm the Bible as the true and authoritative Word of God. Failure to do so was not merely frowned upon—it was made a capital offense. This legislation reflected the theocratic underpinnings of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which had been established by Puritans seeking religious freedom for themselves but not necessarily for others.The Puritan leadership equated dissent with disorder, and heresy with treason against divine authority. The law was aimed particularly at groups such as Quakers, Baptists, and others who challenged orthodox Puritan theology. While it is unclear whether anyone was actually executed under this specific statute, it laid the foundation for later persecution, including the execution of Mary Dyer, a Quaker, in 1660. The law exemplifies how early colonial governments wielded both civil and religious authority in tandem.It also foreshadows the centuries-long struggle in American legal and cultural history to define the boundaries between church and state. Though the U.S. Constitution would later enshrine religious freedom in the First Amendment, this 1646 law demonstrates how precarious that freedom was in earlier periods. The harshness of the law also underscores the broader context of 17th-century Europe and its colonies, where religious uniformity was often enforced through state power. Massachusetts would gradually shift away from such punishments, but not without considerable resistance.Sam Bankman-Fried's legal team will argue before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that his conviction for defrauding FTX customers should be overturned. The 33-year-old former crypto executive is currently serving a 25-year sentence after being found guilty in 2023 of stealing $8 billion from FTX users. His lawyers claim the trial judge unfairly excluded key evidence—specifically, information supporting Bankman-Fried's belief that FTX had sufficient assets to cover customer withdrawals. Prosecutors counter that the evidence against him, including internal records and testimony from former associates, was overwhelming.Bankman-Fried was once considered a leading figure in the crypto space, known for his high-profile donations and media presence before his downfall. During the trial, former executives at FTX and Alameda Research testified that he instructed them to misuse customer funds to cover hedge fund losses. He was convicted of two fraud counts and five conspiracy charges. Judge Lewis Kaplan, who sentenced him in March 2024, said Bankman-Fried knowingly acted criminally but underestimated the risk of detection. There are also unconfirmed reports that some in his circle are lobbying Donald Trump for a pardon, though Trump has not commented. Bankman-Fried is currently incarcerated at a low-security facility in California and is expected to be released in 2044.Sam Bankman-Fried's lawyers to argue for new fraud trial for FTX founder | ReutersGetty Images has largely lost its high-profile UK lawsuit against Stability AI, the company behind the image-generating tool Stable Diffusion. Getty had accused Stability AI of copyright infringement, claiming the AI system was trained on millions of its images without permission. However, Getty dropped the core part of the case mid-trial due to insufficient evidence about where and how the AI was trained, leaving that central legal question unresolved. The remaining claims focused on trademark infringement and secondary copyright violations.The High Court ruled that Getty partially succeeded on the trademark issue, noting Stable Diffusion sometimes generated images that included Getty's watermark. But the judge emphasized that this finding was historically narrow and of limited scope. Getty's broader copyright claim was dismissed, with the court finding that Stable Diffusion does not store or directly reproduce copyrighted works. Legal experts called the ruling disappointing for copyright holders and warned it exposed gaps in UK intellectual property protections regarding AI.Both companies claimed aspects of victory: Getty pointed to the trademark ruling and the recognition that AI models can be subject to IP laws, while Stability AI emphasized that the decision effectively cleared the core copyright concerns. Getty warned the decision highlights the difficulty even well-funded companies face in protecting creative works and urged governments to strengthen transparency rules around AI training data. Legal analysts say the ruling leaves a major legal question unresolved—whether training AI on copyrighted content without consent constitutes infringement under UK law.Getty Images largely loses landmark UK lawsuit over AI image generator | ReutersPennsylvania lawmakers are advancing a regulatory and fee-based proposal targeting “skill games”—arcade-style gambling machines—without first resolving the legal and oversight framework surrounding them. Senate Bill 1079, introduced by Senators Gene Yaw and Anthony Williams, proposes a $500 monthly fee per machine, capped at 50,000 terminals, potentially raising $300 million annually. However, I argue that this revenue-driven approach puts fiscal goals ahead of sound regulation. The bill includes some regulatory provisions like machine limits, ID checks, and a centralized monitoring system, but these appear to have been crafted after the fee structure, not as foundational policy.Skill games have operated in a legal gray area since a 2023 court ruling found they don't meet the state's definition of gambling devices. That ambiguity has persisted, leaving the machines largely unregulated but widespread. Instead of clarifying the legal status of these machines and building a regulatory framework first, lawmakers now seem focused on monetizing them quickly—potentially to preempt a stricter tax plan proposed by Governor Shapiro. The bill notably keeps enforcement under the Department of Revenue rather than the more experienced Gaming Control Board, raising questions about effective oversight.This structure may incentivize the rapid deployment of machines to meet revenue goals, risking poor compliance and ineffective safeguards. In sum, I go on to say the proposal uses regulation to justify revenue collection, rather than using revenue to support a robust regulatory system. Without a clear legal definition, licensing process, and proper enforcement authority, the current plan prioritizes money over governance.Pennsylvania Skill Game Fee Regulations Have Questionable Timing 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

Are we one big step closer to getting our hands on Special Counsel Jack Smith's famous but never seen Volume 2 of his Final Report about Trump's crimes at Mar a Lago? The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has blasted, in their own way, Trump-picked Judge Cannon, who is sitting on Volume 2 (including whether FBI Director Kash Patel was involved in the coverup). Michael Popok reports that the 11th has ordered Judge Cannon to decide whether she will release the Report to the public in the next 60 days, or else. Everyday Dose: Go to https://EverydayDose.com/LEGALAF for 45% OFF your first order 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 The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen 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 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Oregon-based Federal Judge Karen Immelgut, already ruled against once by her 9th Circuit Court of Appeals superiors, has once again ruled after a three day kangaroo court “trial,” that it is she, an unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district court judge who has the constitutional authority to determine whether calling out the National Guard to defend federal personnel and property is warranted—rather than the US President, to whom Article II of the Constitution assigns the entirety of the Commander in Chief authority, and the Congress, which has delegated its own Article I Militia Powers to the President for precisely these purposes. Even as these National Guard cases from the 7th Circuit (Chicago) and 9th Circuit (Oregon) are being considered by the US Supreme Court, these insurrectionist unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial court judges afflicted with rabid Trump Derangement Syndrome continue to act in “Bad behavior” in violation of their Article III obligations for employment on the federal bench.  In addition, their repeated partisan rulings are more than sufficient grounds for impeachment by the House—which should be happening TODAY—as well as the threat of conviction and removal by the Senate. 

President Donald J. Trump, the President assailed by the Democrat party's “NO KINGS!” protests, has now placed that same party in the awkward position of having its own partisan Article III federal judges playing the role of king and ordering about the Article II Executive Branch president as if he were a mere clerk in their court.With funding for SNAP—more traditionally known as “food stamps”—having expired due to the government shut-down, Judge John McConnell, a far-left partisan federal judge out of Rhode Island, has summarily ordered President Trump to simply “show me the money!” in order to keep the program funded—although it is the Article I Congress, not the President, who controls the federal government's purse strings. This insane royal mandate from Judge McConnell, by itself more than sufficient judicial corruption to justify his impeachment and removal from the federal bench, follows on a series of earlier equally insane orders issued by McConnell to Trump, including an order to spend billions of dollars in federal moneys against the Executive's wishes—with those earlier orders having been appropriately stayed by the cooler heads on the Court of Appeals. 

Here are 3 big things you need to know—   One — A federal court is ordering the Trump administration to start paying out SNAP food benefits.  In a weekend decision, the Rhode Island court said the administration must present a plan by Monday to either make full payments on that day or partial payments by Wednesday.  The program for low-income Americans has been suspended because of the shutdown. Appeals are underway.   Two ---  Police are ruling out a terror attack in a mass stabbing on a London train.  Two British nationals have been arrested in the incident that left eleven people injured.  In an update Sunday morning, police said two victims suffered life-threatening injuries while four others have been treated and released.   And number three --- U.S. forces carried out another deadly strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean Sea.  In a post on X on Saturday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said three alleged narco-terrorists were killed in the operation. This marks the 15th strike the U.S. has conducted since they began in early September.

This is the evening All Local for November, 3 2025.

Reform has set out its plan for the British economy, but will the sums add up? And why has Farage recycled a Nick Clegg slogan from 2011? Hugo Rifkind unpacks the politics of today with Seb Payne and Charlotte Ivers Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Happy Monday! Tune in to hear Judge Toby Hampson of the NC Court of Appeals chat with Eva about his background, legal career, why he's running again, and where he believe courts get their power.  We hope you enjoy this conversation and we'll see you next time for another interview! 

Two weeks ago, the Virginia Court of Appeals (finally) ruled on whether law enforcement needs a search warrant to use FLOCK license plate reader cameras. Today we discuss that ruling and its implications.

Young lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg & her husband Marty team up with the ACLU to bring a groundbreaking case before the U.S Court of Appeals. The case could be the catalyst to overturning a century of gender discrimination.

John welcomes conservative legal eminence and former U.S. Court of Appeals judge J. Michael Luttig to discuss his new piece in The Atlantic about the prospect of Donald Trump remaining in office after his second term ends. Luttig argues that Trump isn't joking or trolling when he floats the notion of running for president again in 2028, despite the Constitution's clear proscription against him doing so; that in the past nine months he has already amassed enough executive power to “subvert or even cancel both the midterms next year and the 2028 election;” and that we dismiss or ignore those possibilities “at our peril.” To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The last 24 hours have seen three important developments, both legal and political, that spell real trouble for Donald Trump and his administration.First: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court opinion in which two Trump-appointed judges decided Trump should be able to militarize the streets of Portland, Oregon. The appeals court will now sit in judgement en banc (full court) and hopefully put a more permanent stop to Trump's attempts to send troops into Portland based on Trump's "assertions that are untethered to the facts," as the trial court judge found.Second: As NPR reported, "Senate Republicans deal Trump a rare rebuke on trade with vote against Brazil tariffs."And Third: a federal judge in California ruled that the US Attorney for the Middle District of California was appointed unlawfully by Trump. This ruling has important implications for the prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James, and may result in those cases being dismissed.For Glenn's Substack: hhtps://glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Air traffic controllers are asking for financial assistance from travelers as the government shutdown continues. The Tacoma Dome is playing host to a food distribution center as SNAP benefits are due to expire on Friday. Washington is directing $2.2 million in state funds towards food banks. The family of a teen who died at Gas Works park is suing the city of Seattle. // The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is going to reconsider Trump’s ability to deploy the National Guard to Portland. KGW in Portland amplified a story about ICE that seems fake but fits their narrative. // JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon called out employees for texting during meetings.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis took the unusual step of ordering Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino to appear in court every day to report on “use of force incidents” after a series of tear gassings in Chicago neighborhoods flouted her past orders.On Wednesday, less than two hours before Bovino — the head of Trump's Chicago immigration crackdown — was set to appear before Ellis for his first check-in, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals put a temporary halt to the judge's order. On today's podcast, federal defense attorney Mike Leonard on the role of federal judges in Operation Midway Blitz. Host - Jon HansenGuest - Mike LeonardRead More Here Want to donate to our non-profit newsroom? CLICK HEREWho we areBlock Club Chicago is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit news organization dedicated to delivering reliable, relevant and nonpartisan coverage of Chicago's diverse neighborhoods. We believe all neighborhoods deserve to be covered in a meaningful way.We amplify positive stories, cover development and local school council meetings and serve as watchdogs in neighborhoods often ostracized by traditional news media.Ground-level coverageOur neighborhood-based reporters don't parachute in once to cover a story. They are in the neighborhoods they cover every day building relationships over time with neighbors. We believe this ground-level approach not only builds community but leads to a more accurate portrayal of a neighborhood.Stories that matter to you — every daySince our launch five years ago, we've published more than 25,000 stories from the neighborhoods, covered hundreds of community meetings and send daily and neighborhood newsletters to more than 130,000 Chicagoans. We've built this loyalty by proving to folks we are not only covering their neighborhoods, we are a part of them. Some of us have internalized the national media's narrative of a broken Chicago. We aim to change that by celebrating our neighborhoods and chronicling the resilience of the people who fight every day to make Chicago a better place for all.

The last 24 hours have seen three important developments, both legal and political, that spell real trouble for Donald Trump and his administration.First: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the lower court opinion in which two Trump-appointed judges decided Trump should be able to militarize the streets of Portland, Oregon. The appeals court will now sit in judgement en banc (full court) and hopefully put a more permanent stop to Trump's attempts to send troops into Portland based on Trump's "assertions that are untethered to the facts," as the trial court judge found.Second: As NPR reported, "Senate Republicans deal Trump a rare rebuke on trade with vote against Brazil tariffs."And Third: a federal judge in California ruled that the US Attorney for the Middle District of California was appointed unlawfully by Trump. This ruling has important implications for the prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James, and may result in those cases being dismissed.For Glenn's Substack: hhtps://glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Tales from the 10th, host Erin Gust interviews her former boss, Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, about his life, career, and more than two decades on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Judge Tymkovich reflects on his Colorado roots, his early influences, and his path from the Attorney General's Office to the federal bench. He shares insights into his time as Chief Judge, the challenges of leading during the pandemic and the McGirt decision, and his service on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.The conversation also explores his friendship with Justice Neil Gorsuch, the collegial culture of the 10th Circuit, and the court's significant role in shaping areas like First Amendment, Indian law, and environmental law. Judge Tymkovich discusses memorable cases such as Hobby Lobby, 303 Creative, and Bishop v. Utah, as well as his dedication to mentoring clerks and supporting judicial education.The episode closes with reflections on the judiciary's vital role in maintaining constitutional balance, his optimism for the future of the republic, and personal stories from his travels to Ukraine and Israel.

Founder of Fireside Project, Joshua White, reflects on becoming a ‘loving rock' and how Ram Dass's teachings sparked his creation of a psychedelic peer support line.Today's podcast is brought to you by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/beherenow and get on your way to being your best self.This time on the BHNN Guest Podcast, Joshua White outlines:How Joshua grew up feeling alienated from his Jewish rootsThe realization that we truly can just be observers of our own thoughtsThe inner knowing that there is more to this world Service as the highest form of psychedelic integrationBeing a ‘loving-rock' for people in a psychedelic experienceBecoming an environment in which someone can come up for airConnecting with our sense of ‘enoughness' rather than brokennessActive listening and simply showing up for another person as a loving witnessWelcoming all emotions and not referring to any as ‘wrong'About Joshua White:Joshua (he/him) is Fireside Project's founder, the world's first psychedelic peer support line. He is a lawyer, peer support advocate, and psychedelic researcher who believes in the power of peer support and the role of support lines as foundational components of an equitable mental-health ecosystem.Prior to founding Fireside Project, Joshua volunteered for many years as a counselor on Safe & Sound's TALK Line and a psychedelic peer support provider for the Zendo Project.Before devoting his life to the psychedelic field, Joshua spent more than a decade as a Deputy City Attorney at the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, where he focused on suing businesses exploiting vulnerable communities, serving as general counsel to City departments, and co-teaching a nationally renowned clinic at Yale Law School. He also clerked on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and practiced civil litigation at Conrad | Metlitzky | Kane. “Ram Dass's experience encountering Maharaj-ji and having these magical experiences with him and all of the impact LSD and other psychedelics had on him, really showed me that these substances could be responsible tools for profound inner work.” –Joshua WhiteAbout The Host, Jackie Dobrinska:Jackie Dobrinska is the Director of Education, Community & Inclusion for Ram Dass' Love, Serve, Remember Foundation and the current host of Ram Dass' Here & Now podcast. She is also a teacher, coach, and spiritual director with the privilege of marrying two decades of mystical studies with 15 years of expertise in holistic wellness. As an inter-spiritual minister, Jackie was ordained in Creation Spirituality in 2016 and has also studied extensively in several other lineages – the plant-medicine-based Pachakuti Mesa Tradition, Sri Vidya Tantra, Western European Shamanism, Christian Mysticism, the Wise Woman Tradition, and others. Today, in addition to building courses and community for LSRF, she leads workshops and coaches individuals to discover, nourish and live from their most authentic selves. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Case Law Update   •          James Bowles v Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 19, 2025 (Docket No. 369258) •          Miracle Hands Homecare, Inc. v Geico General Insurance Company and Jorge L. Fuentes and US Rehabilitation & Health Services v Geico Insurance Company, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 18, 2025 (Docket Nos. 368827 and 369858)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •          Fee Schedules of MCL 500.3157 •          Michael Angelo Favot v Jimarion Brown, et al., ___ Mich App ___ (2025) (Docket Nos. 368733 and 368734)

Today's Headlines: The fragile Gaza ceasefire is officially over after 18 days, with Israel launching new airstrikes in Rafah after claiming Hamas fired rockets and mishandled the return of hostage remains. Hamas still holds the bodies of 13 hostages, and the stalled recovery effort is blocking the next phase of negotiations — including disarmament and postwar governance. Meanwhile, the U.S. carried out deadly strikes on boats off Colombia's coast, killing 14 people; Mexico's president condemned the attack as a breach of international law. Back home, Trump's legal team is appealing his 34 felony convictions from the hush money case, arguing the trial violated his supposed immunity. A federal judge extended an order blocking the administration from firing federal employees during the shutdown, which continues to drag on. ICE is seeing a wave of leadership purges as the White House pushes for higher deportation numbers, and Trump just greenlit over 1.5 million acres of Alaska's Arctic refuge for oil drilling, reversing Biden-era protections and alarming conservationists. Globally, the U.N. warned that the world will “inevitably” overshoot the 1.5°C warming target, while Bill Gates called for a “strategic pivot” away from limiting warming toward reducing poverty and disease instead. Hurricane Melissa slammed Jamaica as a catastrophic Category 5 storm — one of the strongest in Atlantic history — and Trump's Truth Social is launching Truth Predict, a crypto betting platform for everything from sports to elections, because of course it is. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: AP News: Gaza ceasefire tested as Israel and Hamas exchange fire and blame AP News: US launches strikes on 4 alleged drug-running boats in the eastern Pacific, killing 14 Axios: Trump appeals felony conviction citing Supreme Court immunity Axios: Trump indefinitely barred from firing federal workers during shutdown Axios: Trump administration purges ICE field officials The Guardian: White House approves increased oil and gas drilling in Alaska's national wildlife refuge The Guardian: Afternoon Update: 1.5C climate target missed; Queensland puberty blocker ban overturned; and is period blood a ‘medical miracle'? AP News: Bill Gates calls for climate fight to shift focus from curbing emissions to reducing human suffering AP News: Live updates: Hurricane Melissa hits Jamaica with historic 185-mph winds Wired: Donald Trump's Truth Social Is Launching a Polymarket Competitor Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal originated from her conviction in December 2021 for facilitating the sexual abuse of underage girls by Jeffrey Epstein. After being found guilty on five of six counts and sentenced in June 2022 to 20 years in prison, her legal team sought to overturn the conviction largely by arguing that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) made between Epstein and federal prosecutors in Florida should have shielded her from being prosecuted in New York. They contended that the language in the NPA (“the United States … will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”) prevented her prosecution as a co-conspirator.However, her appeal ultimately failed. On September 17 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction, finding the Florida NPA did not bind the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. It also held the indictment was timely under the statute of limitationsto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In December 2023, Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered a massive unsealing of Jeffrey Epstein–related documents from the Ghislaine Maxwell defamation case. These files, long kept under seal, contained names of associates, depositions, and exhibits that had been hidden for years. Preska ruled that the public interest outweighed any remaining privacy concerns, emphasizing that secrecy was no longer justified except for information identifying minor victims. The decision paved the way for one of the largest Epstein document releases yet—revealing hundreds of pages that shed light on how Epstein and Maxwell operated their network and who may have been connected to it.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later affirmed the underlying principle behind Preska's ruling, upholding that the presumption of public access applies to judicial records in Epstein-related litigation. This affirmation followed the precedent set in Brown v. Maxwell (2019), where the court found that lower courts must provide a “particularized review” before keeping such documents sealed. By affirming the transparency mandate, the Second Circuit reinforced the public's right to know and ensured that future attempts to hide materials related to Epstein's crimes would face steep judicial resistance. Together, these rulings represent a rare and decisive push toward accountability in a case long plagued by secrecy and institutional protection.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A round-up of the main headlines in Sweden on October 29th 2025. You can hear more reports on our homepage www.radiosweden.se, or in the app Sveriges Radio. Presenter/Producer: Kris Boswell.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has put a temporary pause on Donald Trump's ability to send National Guard troops into the streets of Portland, Oregon. The court issued the stay or pause while it decides if the full appeals court (sitting en banc) will review a lower court ruling allowing Trump to militarize the streets of Portland.The incessant back and forth between and among the trial courts, the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court - is enough to make folks throw up their hands at the complete injustice of it all. Glenn discusses how the endless legal back and forth regarding Trump's abuse of presidential power and his determination to weaponize the streets of America is beginning to feel like the highest stakes and most dangerous game of tennis imaginable. For Glenn's Substack: hhtps://glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has put a temporary pause on Donald Trump's ability to send National Guard troops into the streets of Portland, Oregon. The court issued the stay or pause while it decides if the full appeals court (sitting en banc) will review a lower court ruling allowing Trump to militarize the streets of Portland.The incessant back and forth between and among the trial courts, the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court - is enough to make folks throw up their hands at the complete injustice of it all. Glenn discusses how the endless legal back and forth regarding Trump's abuse of presidential power and his determination to weaponize the streets of America is beginning to feel like the highest stakes and most dangerous game of tennis imaginable. For Glenn's Substack: hhtps://glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

1. Immigration Enforcement 480,000 illegal immigrants have been arrested in the first nine months of Trump’s administration. 70% of those arrested had criminal convictions or pending charges. Specific cases of individuals with serious criminal histories (e.g., murder, sexual assault, DUI) who were deported or incarcerated. 2. Sanctuary Cities & Political Opposition Sanctuary cities and the “radical left” are protecting illegal immigrants. Frames Democrats as obstructing law enforcement and enabling crime. 3. Law and Order Narrative Trump’s efforts to make cities safer, including Memphis, Portland, Washington D.C., and Chicago. The deployment of the National Guard and a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, allow Trump to send troops to Portland. 4. Violence Against Law Enforcement “1000% increase” in violence against police due to anti-cop rhetoric. Incidents such as a shooting at an ICE facility and threats against law enforcement officers, including bounties placed on officials. 5. Public Opinion & Polling 54% of Americans support deporting illegal immigrants. 78% want criminal illegal aliens brought to justice. 6. Media Criticism MSNBC and other liberal outlet's reaction to Trump’s policies and court victories. The mainstream media is biased and resistant to Trump’s agenda. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast and Verdict with Ted Cruz Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.