Podcasts about appeals

Delcianna J. Winders is an associate professor of law and Director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School. Professor Winders previously taught at Lewis & Clark Law School, where she directed the world's first law school clinic dedicated to farmed animal advocacy. She served as Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at the PETA Foundation, was the first Academic Fellow of the Harvard Animal Law & Policy Program, and was a visiting scholar at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University. Her primary interests are in animal law and administrative law. She has also taught animal law at Tulane University School of Law and Loyola University New Orleans College of Law. Her work has appeared in the Denver Law Review, Florida State Law Review, Ohio State Law Journal, NYU Law Review, and the Animal Law Review. Winders has also published extensively in the popular press, including The Hill, National Geographic, Newsweek, New York Daily News, Salon, U.S.A. Today, and numerous other outlets. Winders received her BA in Legal Studies with highest honors from the University California at Santa Cruz, where she was named a Regents' Scholar and received the Dean's Award for outstanding achievement in Social Sciences, and her JD from NYU School of Law, where she was awarded the Vanderbilt Medal for outstanding contributions to the law school, named as a Robert McKay Scholar, and served as the Senior Notes Editor of the NYU Law Review. Following law school, Winders clerked for the Hon. Martha Craig Daughtrey on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and practiced animal law in a variety of settings.     Links mentioned in the podcast: For information about the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, including degree programs and classes,(including online classes and short summer courses, which are open to auditors quite affordably): vermontlaw.edu/animallaw Winders' chapter Farmed Animal Welfare (United States), which examines recent and emergent developments around legal oversight of on-farm welfare, confinement bans, slaughter regulation (and deregulation), humanewashing, and welfare on certified organic farms and concludes with a call for establishment of an animal protection agency, is available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5342182. The chapter is in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook on Global Animal Law, which will be available in full online for free once published next year. Winders' encyclopedia entry, Legal Standing – Access to Court in the US, is in the Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Animal Law, which is forthcoming this month at https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/elgar-concise-encyclopedia-of-animal-law-9781803923666.html. Listeners can use the code ANML35 for a 35% discount. Winders' other animal law scholarship is available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2433383.     Have you Will Potter‘s book yet called LITTLE RED BARNS, Hiding the Truth, from Farm to Fable Share? Get it now!

The Transparency in Coverage (TiC) Final Rule represents one of the most significant regulatory shifts in healthcare pricing since the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.During the next live edition of Monitor Mondays, senior healthcare analyst Frank Cohen will walk you and your team through the comprehensive labyrinth of changes.Recent enforcement developments, including President Trump's Executive Order 14221, directing actual hospital price disclosure within 90 days, also signal an intensified regulatory environment requiring proactive compliance strategies.The venerable broadcast will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Moesha Baptiste, intern regulatory analyst for Zelis, will report on the news happening at the intersection of healthcare and congressional action.

Looking back and looking ahead, we must reckon with a major shift in America's judicial landscape: the elimination of the so-called Chevron Deference. Last year, at about this same time, physician and attorney Dr. John K. Hall was the special guest here on Monitor Mondays, and he began his segment explaining the legal concept.Now, more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision overturning 40 years of judicial precedent and upending statutory construction and enforcement, we must ask, has anything really changed?Dr. Hall will return to examine the changes – or maybe lack of changes – and what we might still expect regarding legal challenges to executive actions.The venerable broadcast will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Adam Brenman, senior regulatory affairs analyst for Zelis, will report on the news happening at the intersection of healthcare and congressional action.

Ali Velshi is joined by Fmr. Federal Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Lead Plaintiff on the Texas Abortion Ban lawsuit Amanda Zurawski, Professor of Constitutional Law & Global Health Policy at Georgetown Law Michele Goodwin

The past few days in the world of Donald Trump's court battles have been nothing short of electrifying, with headline-grabbing moments and precedent-setting judicial rulings dominating the national conversation. Let's dive straight into the latest developments—no time to waste, because what's happened in the courts is directly shaping the political landscape as we head deeper into 2025.Last week, the Supreme Court closed its 2023-24 term with a bombshell ruling that gave Donald Trump, the former—and now current—President, a sweeping legal victory. In a deeply consequential decision, the justices held that former presidents have at least presumptive immunity for their official acts. This decision didn't just help Trump in his ongoing legal fights; it arguably paved the way for his dramatic return to the presidency in January 2025. Legal experts and commentators have pointed out that the court's conservative majority delivered a string of wins for Trump and his administration, tilting the legal battlefield in his favor for the foreseeable future, especially as his administration frequently turns to the Supreme Court with emergency requests—and often walks away victorious, reinforcing the administration's power and agenda.But that wasn't the end. On the very last day before summer recess, the Supreme Court handed down another powerful decision benefitting Trump's administration, ruling that federal district judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions blocking laws or policies. This decision has massive implications for how challenges to presidential actions unfold, further shifting the balance of power toward the White House.Meanwhile, down in Florida, Trump's classified documents case saw its own dramatic twist. Back in July of last year, Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's motion to dismiss the superseding indictment; the government appealed, and legal briefs have been flying between the parties ever since. Appeals and procedural battles are ongoing in a web of cases, from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's state prosecution to the high-profile New York civil fraud case, where New York Attorney General Letitia James and her team are consolidating multiple appeals in their fight against the Trump Organization.In the midst of these appeals, the legal maneuvering is relentless: Trump's legal team continues to seek every possible avenue to move cases to federal court or appeal adverse rulings. Judges like Justice Juan Merchan in New York are under constant pressure, issuing rulings on motions for recusal, immunity, and discovery sanctions, while also managing a flurry of filings and court appearances related to Trump's criminal and civil cases.All of this courtroom drama isn't happening in a vacuum—it's reverberating through the halls of power. Journalists and legal scholars are watching closely, not just for the results themselves but for what they mean for the limits of presidential power. With more cases likely to make their way up to the Supreme Court in the months ahead, each ruling is setting new precedent and fueling fierce debate about law, politics, and the presidency itself.Thanks for tuning in to this week's breakdown of Donald Trump's court trials. Check back next week for more updates as this historic legal battle continues to unfold.

In the Hot Notes: the illegitimate Supreme Court killed President Biden's student debt forgiveness plan and gutted LGBTQ+ rights on Friday; the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congressional Republicans must pay their mask fines; Fox News settled with Abby Grossberg for $12M; a January 6th defendant is arrested near Obama's home with guns and 400 rounds of ammunition; a federal judge has ordered the Proud Boys to pay $1M to the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church; plus AG and Dana deliver your Good News.Our GuestBen LaBolt; White House Communications Director (former)https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-labolt-52b52969 Donate to the MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fundhttps://secure.actblue.com/donate/msw-bwcFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good Trouble Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

It's the Fourth of July, 2025, and as I sit back reflecting on this intense stretch in American legal and political history, nothing dominates conversation quite like the ongoing court trials involving former President Donald Trump. Let's get right into what's unfolded these past days and where things now stand.Just last week, the legal drama surged ahead in New York, where Donald Trump faced the fallout from his historic criminal trial. This trial, which centered around falsifying business records related to hush money payments, continues to make headlines. Judge Juan Merchan has presided over a series of sharp procedural disputes. The defense, led by Trump's legal team, has filed a flurry of post-trial motions challenging the verdict and raising constitutional arguments, especially emphasizing claims of presidential immunity. Prosecutors, on the other hand, have remained steadfast, filing extensive memoranda in opposition to these defense motions, determined to see the conviction stand. Letters and filings have crisscrossed the docket, with July seeing multiple exchanges, including Trump's team's pushback on the scope of the immunity decision and calls for the verdict to be set aside. The next milestone the legal world is watching: Trump's sentencing, which remains scheduled but could be delayed further if these post-trial motions gain traction or if appeals courts intervene.While the New York criminal case may be the most closely watched, it's far from the only legal battle on Trump's plate. Down in Florida, another extraordinary turn happened in the classified documents case. Judge Aileen Cannon granted Trump's request to dismiss the superseding indictment, arguing the appointment and funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unlawful. This was a major win for Trump, but it was only a brief respite. Immediately, the Department of Justice filed an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, setting the stage for a high-stakes appellate showdown later this summer.Meanwhile, the civil fraud case in New York, involving Attorney General Letitia James and allegations of inflating asset values, is now in the appellate courts as well. Trump and his co-defendants have filed appeals against the sweeping penalties and business restrictions imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron earlier in the year. The appellate division consolidated several appeals, ensuring that a single panel will review both the summary judgment decision from September 2023 and the final decision issued this February.On top of those headline cases, there's a steady drumbeat of related litigation. Federal courts are still wrestling with Trump's repeated attempts to move the New York state prosecution to federal court, and the U.S. Supreme Court was recently drawn into high-profile disputes about the scope of presidential authority and the implementation of executive orders. These aren't just legal maneuvers—they're shaping the political landscape heading into a pivotal election cycle.It's a staggering, even dizzying, calendar of court action—a judicial master class in complexity, political stakes, and historic firsts. The only thing certain is that the legal and political fate of Donald Trump is far from settled.Thanks for tuning in. Don't forget to come back next week for more updates on this unprecedented chapter in American history.

On our season 6 finale, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman explore some of the consequential decisions from the final days of the Supreme Court term, including Mahmoud v. Taylor – which involves parents who want to opt their children out of curriculum they find in conflict with their religious beliefs – and U.S. v. Skrmetti, which focuses on access to medical care for transgender youth. They discuss the real world implications of these and other recent rulings. Amanda and Holly also celebrate a decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Louisiana's law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom and share why this case might find its way up to the Supreme Court before too long.     SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): Recent activities and news For the latest on the budget reconciliation bill and ways to make your voice known, visit BJConline.org/budgetbill2025   Segment 2 (starting at 07:01): A federal court decision and a Supreme Court case with far-reaching implications Roake v. Brumley is the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case that struck down the Louisiana law mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Read more about the decision and BJC's brief on our website: Federal appeals court finds Louisiana's Ten Commandments law unconstitutional as Texas enacts a similar measure Trump v. CASA is the case often called the “birthright citizenship” case that is about national injunctions. Amanda and Holly recommended listening to the oral arguments and reading the decision and the dissent. All are available on the Supreme Court's website.    Segment 3 (starting at 19:07): The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor and its potential impact Amanda and Holly discussed oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor in episode 15 of season 6. You can read the decision and the dissent on the Supreme Court's website. Holly mentioned this piece on the case from Religion News Service: ‘We were called book burners': Families react to SCOTUS LGBTQ+ books decision   Segment 4 (starting 46:13): U.S. v. Skrmetti and what's ahead for the Court Amanda and Holly discussed U.S. v. Skrmetti in episode 6 of season 6. You can read the decision and the dissent on the Supreme Court's website. For more on the case involving the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that the Supreme Court will hear this fall, read this piece by Adam Liptak for The New York Times: Supreme Court to Hear Rastafarian Prisoner's Suit Over Shaved Dreadlocks Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

In October 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team filed a motion requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hold his bail appeal in abeyance. This request aimed to pause the appellate proceedings to allow the district court to consider a renewed bail application based on new information.Prosecutors opposed this motion, arguing that it was a tactic to delay the appellate process and potentially "forum shop" due to the assignment of a new district judge. They contended that the appeal should proceed without delay.In this episode, we take a look at the back and forth.   (commercial at 7:37)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.32.0.pdfgov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.30.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A wedding bus driver impaired by an opioid during a horror crash that killed 10 and injured 25 people has appealed against his 32-year jail sentence; A US judge has denied Sean "Diddy" Combs' request for release from jail ahead of sentencing; A former criminology doctoral student has pleaded guilty to murdering four roommates in an Idaho college town in 2022; Qantas customers are finding out if their personal information was exposed in a cyber attack, as they are warned to be on high alert for scams. The Quicky is the easiest and most enjoyable way to get across the news every day. And it’s delivered straight to your ears in a daily podcast so you can listen whenever you want, wherever you want...at the gym, on the train, in the playground or at night while you're making dinner. Support independent women's media CREDITS Host/Producer: Ailish Delaney Audio Production: Lu HillBecome a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: George Carlin's Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin's infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin's monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin's routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn't definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court's conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts' leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court's emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court'A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy's reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK Jr.'s Overhaul of HHS Blocked But Workers Won't Return NowA federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that Trump exceeded his legal authority. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that Trump's January 2025 proclamation, which barred migrants deemed part of an “invasion” from seeking asylum, violated both federal immigration law and the Constitution. The 128-page opinion emphasized that neither Congress nor the Constitution gave the president power to bypass existing asylum laws, even in the face of immigration challenges.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of advocacy groups and asylum seekers, arguing the ban contradicted U.S. and international legal standards. Moss's ruling temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy and allows 14 days for the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies broadly to a certified class of affected migrants, sidestepping recent Supreme Court limitations on national injunctions.Trump's policy built on but exceeded a similar effort by President Biden in 2024, which also faced judicial setbacks. The ruling marks another legal rebuke to Trump's aggressive immigration stance since returning to office. The administration maintains the judge overstepped and vows to appeal. Meanwhile, civil liberties groups hail the decision as a necessary check on executive overreach and a reaffirmation of asylum protections.US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his effort to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court's ruling that blocked their dismissal. The commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.—were appointed by President Biden and make up the majority of the five-member board. They were fired in May, prompting a lawsuit that argued the president lacks authority to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.A federal judge, Matthew Maddox, sided with the commissioners, stating Trump had overstepped his authority and finding no misconduct to justify their termination. The Justice Department claims Trump acted within his constitutional powers, asserting that the commissioners were obstructing his policy agenda. The administration is seeking to pause the reinstatement order while the case proceeds.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt the lower court ruling, emphasizing that Congress lawfully limited presidential removal powers in this context. Trump's team now wants the Supreme Court to override that decision, citing a recent high court ruling that allowed Trump to temporarily remove members of a federal labor board in a similar dispute.This case adds to a growing list of legal battles testing the limits of executive power since Trump returned to office. It also raises broader constitutional questions about the balance of power between the president and independent regulatory agencies.Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of consumer product safety commissioners | 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

Today, the legal battles surrounding Donald Trump have reached an intensity and frequency that even seasoned court-watchers find staggering. In just the past few days, Trump's criminal conviction in New York has continued to dominate headlines, as his legal team pushes hard to overturn the verdict in an unprecedented appeal before the federal courts. This is not just another routine motion—Trump's lawyers are arguing that his case should move from state court to federal court, based on a law designed for federal officials if the conduct in question occurred while in office. Jeffrey Wall, a distinguished Supreme Court litigator and former acting solicitor general, stood before a federal appeals panel in New York and claimed, boldly, “Everything about this cries out for a federal courtroom.” The heart of their argument hinges on testimony from figures like Hope Hicks, who served during Trump's first term, as evidence supposedly linking the case to his presidential duties.But the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, led by Alvin Bragg, isn't backing down. Steven Wu, the office's appeals chief, shot back that the law was never intended to allow cases to be shifted after sentencing, emphasizing that the real purpose was to establish the proper court for trial from the outset. The judges themselves, including Judge Myrna Pérez, openly acknowledged the historic nature of the case, noting, “We got a very big case that created a whole new world of presidential immunity, and the boundaries are not clear at this point.” This sense of legal limbo has kept attorneys on both sides—and everyone watching—on edge.Meanwhile, these legal maneuvers haven't been limited to New York. Trump's classified documents case in Florida is also swirling through the appellate system, ever since Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed parts of the indictment based on arguments over the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith. The government has appealed, setting up another legal showdown in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.What's clear is that Trump's lawyers are exploiting every possible avenue—presidential immunity, forum shopping between courts, and procedural technicalities—to try to erase his convictions or delay any final reckoning. In every courtroom, historic questions about the limits of presidential immunity and whether a former president can be held to account are being argued fiercely, with the full resources of both government prosecutors and Trump's high-profile legal team.Whether you're tracking filings in the Second Circuit or watching the legal chess match in Florida, these trials are reshaping the legal landscape, with implications that reach far beyond Trump himself. Thanks for tuning in—come back next week for more developments as the nation continues to watch these historic events unfold!

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Passes First Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, amid the mounting costs of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the nation's first true federal income tax under the Tax Act of 1862. This legislation imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes exceeding $10,000—significant thresholds at the time. The tax was part of a broader revenue strategy that included an expansion of excise taxes and the creation of the Internal Revenue Office, the predecessor to today's IRS. It marked a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as the federal government, for the first time, claimed broad authority to directly tax personal income.Though innovative, compliance with the law was inconsistent, reflecting both limited administrative capacity and public resistance. The tax was designed to be progressive and temporary, aimed solely at funding the Union war effort. After the Civil War, political pressure mounted against its continuation, and public sentiment shifted toward limiting federal power in peacetime.The law remained controversial until it was effectively struck down decades later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a similar federal income tax law was unconstitutional, declaring it a "direct tax" not properly apportioned among the states. This decision undermined the legal foundation of the 1862 tax, though it had long since lapsed. It wasn't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that a permanent federal income tax regime was constitutionally authorized.The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued several rulings that significantly reduced federal environmental protections, continuing a broader judicial trend. In one of the most consequential decisions, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 8-0 ruling allows federal agencies to narrow the scope of environmental reviews, excluding indirect and future project impacts, which could expedite infrastructure projects like a proposed crude oil railway in Utah. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must defer to agency discretion in such matters, reinforcing agency authority but limiting public scrutiny.The Court also restricted EPA powers under the Clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision concerning a wastewater permit for San Francisco. The majority found the EPA's water quality requirements too vague, weakening enforcement capabilities and potentially harming water quality in affected areas. This decision strips the agency of a key tool used to maintain federally regulated waters' safety.Additionally, the justices allowed fuel producers to challenge California's stringent vehicle emissions standards in a 7-2 ruling, broadening legal standing for businesses in environmental litigation. These moves collectively signal a judicial shift favoring regulatory leniency and business interests over expansive environmental oversight.US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections | ReutersFollowing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits nationwide injunctions, two federal judges are expediting legal challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The order, which takes effect July 27, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. During hearings in Maryland and New Hampshire, a Department of Justice lawyer confirmed that no deportations of affected children will occur before the order becomes active.Judges Deborah Boardman and Joseph LaPlante demanded written assurances from the government, and plaintiffs in both cases—immigrant rights advocates and pregnant non-citizens—pushed for immediate class-wide relief due to fears surrounding their children's legal status. The Supreme Court's ruling last Friday did not validate Trump's policy but did restrict judges from issuing broad injunctions that halt federal policies for the entire country, unless done through class action lawsuits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion suggested that class actions remain a viable path to broader judicial relief.Trump's administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, a position rejected by many lower courts. The Maryland judge scheduled a ruling after July 9, while a hearing in the New Hampshire case is set for July 10.Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision that struck down an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, known for its past representation of Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a May ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that permanently blocked the order, which aimed to bar Perkins Coie's clients from federal contracts and restrict the firm's attorneys from accessing federal buildings.Judge Howell condemned the order as an abuse of presidential power meant to punish political adversaries, stating that using government authority to settle personal scores is not a lawful use of executive power. Similar executive orders against three other law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—were also struck down by different judges in Washington. The Justice Department has not yet appealed those rulings.Perkins Coie, along with the other firms, argued that the orders violated constitutional rights, including free speech, and were designed to intimidate attorneys from representing clients disfavored by Trump. The firm expressed confidence in presenting its case to the appeals court. Meanwhile, nine other firms have reportedly settled with the administration, offering nearly $1 billion in pro bono work and other terms to avoid being targeted.Trump administration appeals blocking of executive order against law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the explosive growth of tax breaks for data centers—driven by the demands of artificial intelligence—is creating unsustainable losses for state budgets. While these facilities are essential for powering AI models, states are racing to hand out subsidies with little oversight or accountability. I point out that what began as modest tech incentives have ballooned into open-ended giveaways, with Texas' projected tax losses surpassing $1 billion and Virginia now dedicating nearly half of its economic development incentives to data centers.I argue that states should not abandon data center investment but must start demanding more in return. That means linking tax breaks to responsible energy use, such as locating facilities near stranded renewable power or requiring dry cooling and on-site energy storage. These measures would mitigate the strain on local water and power systems, especially since AI data centers use far more energy than traditional ones and often during peak demand hours.The current model rewards scale rather than innovation or job creation, essentially turning data center exemptions into bottomless credits for big tech firms. Many states don't even track the actual cost of these subsidies, creating a feedback loop of growing losses and minimal scrutiny. I call for stronger transparency and for aligning data center growth with public interests—especially as AI infrastructure becomes embedded in state economies. Without intervention, we risk reinforcing outdated, inefficient policy frameworks just as computing becomes more powerful and energy-intensive.AI Boom Should Prompt States to Rein in Data Center Tax Losses This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Should challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program be heard exclusively in the U-S Court of Appeals for the D-C Circuit because the agency's denial actions are “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect”?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions from renewable fuel requirements must be challenged in the D-C Circuit because they are locally applicable actions based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The Clean Air Act establishes a tripartite venue system for reviewing EPA actions. “Nationally applicable” EPA actions must be challenged exclusively in the D-C Circuit, while “locally or regionally applicable” actions ordinarily belong in regional courts of appeals. However, locally or regionally applicable actions that are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” must be reviewed in the D-C Circuit if EPA finds and publishes that such basis exists. To identify the relevant “action” for venue purposes, courts must look to the specific statutory authority EPA is exercising rather than how EPA packages its decisions. Each EPA denial of an individual refinery's exemption petition constitutes its own “action” because the Clean Air Act allows each small refinery to petition EPA separately and requires EPA to act on each petition. An action is “nationally applicable” if it applies on its face throughout the entire country; alternatively, it is “locally or regionally applicable” if it applies only to particular places. EPA's denial of a single refinery's exemption petition applies only to that specific refinery in a particular location, making such denials paradigmatically locally or regionally applicable actions.The “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies because EPA's statutory interpretation and economic theory formed the core basis for its denials. A “determination” refers to EPA's justifications for taking action, and determinations have nationwide “scope” if they apply throughout the country as a legal matter or nationwide “effect” if they apply as a practical matter. An EPA action is “based on” such a determination only if that determination lies at the core of the agency action and forms the primary explanation for EPA's decision—requiring more than but-for causation. EPA's interpretation of “disproportionate economic hardship” and its RIN passthrough theory constitute clear determinations of nationwide scope because they apply generically to all refineries regardless of location. These determinations formed the core basis for EPA's denials because EPA used them to reach a presumptive resolution to deny all petitions, then considered refinery-specific factors only to confirm it had no reason to depart from this presumptive disposition. Where EPA relies on determinations of nationwide scope or effect to reach a presumptive resolution, those determinations qualify as the primary driver of its decision, making EPA's confirmatory review of refinery-specific facts merely peripheral by comparison.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, arguing that the Clean Air Act's substantive provisions do not call for EPA to make determinations of nationwide scope or effect when acting on individual small refinery hardship petitions, and that the majority's new test will make simple venue questions unnecessarily difficult and expensive to resolve.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Episode 67 In 1989, a fire at a religious camp in Pennsylvania claimed the life of 20-year-old Ji Yun Lee. Her father, Han Tak Lee, a Korean immigrant with no criminal record, was swiftly arrested, tried, and sentenced to life in prison. But what seemed like a clear-cut arson case quickly unraveled into a cautionary tale of flawed fire science, cultural bias, and the dangers of rushing to judgment. In this episode, we examine how prosecutors built a case on burn patterns and cultural ignorance—and how modern fire investigation and one relentless expert helped expose the truth. Han Tak Lee spent 24 years behind bars for a crime that science would later prove never happened. This is the story of how culture was put on trial—and how justice failed. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources: From Magic to Law: The Han Tak Lee Case and Arson Investigation — National Association for Public Defense https://publicdefenders.us/blogs/from-magic-to-law-the-han-tak-lee-case-and-arson-investigation Locked Away for 24 Years, Han Tak Lee Still Feels Imprisoned — The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/nyregion/locked-away-for-24-years-han-tak-lee-still-feels-imprisoned.html Han Tak Lee v. Houtzdale — U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2015) https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-3rd-circuit/1710954.html Old Arson-Murder Rap Tossed, Man is Set Free— USA Today https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/22/arson-murder-han-tak-lee/14451491/ Kim Honors Han Tak Lee with Legislation — Queens Chronicle https://www.qchron.com/editions/north/kim-honors-han-tak-lee-with-legislation/article_ddc61e5b-e920-5ac7-a1e9-18955a35763f.html Han Tak Lee Case Overview — International Network for Innocent Arson Defendants https://www.niad.info/Han_Tak_Lee.html Han Tak Lee — Pennsylvania Innocence Project https://painnocence.org/hantaklee A Calculated Arson: The Han Tak Lee Case — John J. Lentini https://www.academia.edu/38962288/A_Calculated_Arson_The_Han_Tak_Lee_case_John_Lentini Author Blurb for Upcoming Book on Han Tak Lee — David DeKok https://daviddekok.com

When is discrimination not discrimination? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have you think that reverse discrimination is not only legal, but OK. However, discrimination is discrimination, even when it's used in an attempt to right some past wrong.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have exclusive jurisdiction to review an Environmental Protection Agency action that affects only one state or region, simply because the EPA published that action alongside actions affecting other states in a single Federal Register notice?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act requires that EPA state implementation plan (SIP) disapprovals be reviewed in regional circuit courts rather than the D-C Circuit when they are "locally or regionally applicable" actions not based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-2 majority opinion of the Court.The Court applied a two-step framework established in EPA v Calumet Shreveport Refining to determine proper venue under the Clean Air Act's venue provision. First, courts must identify the relevant EPA “action” and determine whether it is “nationally applicable” or “locally or regionally applicable.” An “action” under the statute means a particular exercise of EPA authority undertaken pursuant to a particular Clean Air Act provision, determined by reference to the underlying statutory provision rather than how EPA presents its decision. Here, EPA's disapprovals of Oklahoma's and Utah's state implementation plans constitute separate “actions” because the Clean Air Act treats individual SIP approvals and disapprovals as discrete actions under Section 7410. Each SIP disapproval applies only to the specific state that proposed the plan, making them “locally or regionally applicable” actions—the prototypical example of such actions under the statute.Because the SIP disapprovals are locally or regionally applicable, the Court proceeded to the second step: determining whether the “nationwide scope or effect” exception applies to require D-C Circuit review. This exception requires that EPA's action be “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” and that EPA find and publish this basis. Although EPA made the required finding, the Court held that EPA's disapprovals were not actually based on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. The exception applies only when “a justification of nationwide breadth is the primary explanation for and driver of EPA's action.” Here, EPA's disapprovals resulted from predominantly fact-intensive, state-specific analysis of each SIP's contents, producing unique lists of deficiencies for each state. The four nationwide determinations EPA cited—including use of updated modeling and a 1% contribution threshold—were merely analytical tools that aided EPA's review rather than primary drivers of the disapprovals.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreeing with the judgment but following a different analytical path as explained in their dissenting opinion in a companion case, Environmental Protection Agency v Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Michael and I have received a certified letter from the National Committee on Appeals, and once again, they have ruled in our favor. If you're keeping score at home, that's ANOTHER sweet victory for our branch's reform movement, and another loss for the good ol' boys who have been running our branch into the ground.

Intense and nerve energy fills courtroom as prosecutors paint a picture of power, fear and manipulation behind the scenes of the life of music mogul Sean Diddy Combs. The government alleged that Combs used his influence to orchestrate and conceal criminal activity, urging jurors to connect the dots from years of disturbing testimony from various witnesses who knew Diddy. Welcome to Surviving The Survivor, the show that brings you the #BestGuests in all of #truecrime. In this episode, Emmy award-wining host Joel Waldman breaks down the biggest moments in court and brings in analysis from our STS #BestGuests who are closely following the case. STS #BestGuests Lauren Conlin: Podcaster, Reporter & Host of POPCRIMETV, has been covering Diddy's Trial from inside the courtroom Stephen Cazares: a former Asst United States Attorney who has tried 17 federal jury trials, and argued 12 appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Amy Shlosberg: Criminologist, Professor and Co-Host of Women & Crime and Direct Appeal Podcast “Sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery and obstruction of justice" are how prosecutors describe the case. Prosecutors painted Combs as the mastermind of a long criminal enterprise fueled by fear, control, and violence. At stake: decades in prison if convicted, and this could forever reshape Diddy's legacy. Sean Diddy Combs face five counts of sex trafficking and racketeering.⸻ #Support the show:All Things STS: Https://linktr.ee/stspodcastGet Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxSTS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/Support the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorCatch us live on YouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeVenmo Donations: @STSPodcast or Https://www.venmo.com/stspodcast#truecrimecommunity #truestory #celebrity #diddytrial #diddy #stsnation

Michael Popok is back with Karen Friedman Agnifilo with the Legal AF podcast, the #1 law and politics podcast on this week's YouTube rankings, and they take on: 1) a judge finding that the Trump Administration's "evidence" did not support holding Kilmar Abrego in jail nor prove that he was in the MS13 gang; 2) Trump suing all the federal district judges in Maryland in a blatant example of forum shopping; 3) the ultimate DOJ insider blowing the whistle on the DOJ and its assault on federal judges and its impact on the confirmation hearings of Trump's top lawyer Emil Bove for a lifetime appeals court judge position; 4) the Trump Administration running back to the Supreme Court because a Federal Judge ruled that he still has jurisdiction to stop removals without due process to third world countries; 5) E Jean Carroll winning again for the second time in 2 weeks at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm her almost $100 million in judgments against Trump, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. One Skin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF Uplift: Elevate your workspace and energize your year with Uplift Desk. Go to https://upliftdesk.com/legalaf for a special offer exclusive to our audience. Mud/Wtr: Start your new morning ritual & get up to 43% OFF your @MUDWTR by going to https://mudwtr.com/LEGALAF #mudwtrpod Honey Love: Get 20% Off your entire order with our exclusive link: https://honeylove.com/LEGALAF Subscribe to the NEW Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf 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

“How close was he to getting away with murder? Really close.”In the early hours of April 8th, 2006, Pastor Matt Baker makes a frantic 911 call to Waco police—he's just found his wife, Kari, unresponsive in their bed. As police race to the scene, they also call in Linda Dulin, Kari's mother, to take care of the couple's two young daughters. Though the cops don't see anything suspicious, Linda slowly realizes that Kari's husband, Pastor Matt, in spite of his Baptist faith and proclaimed innocence, hides many sins, including a damning search history, secret phone calls, and a past as a predator. Without Linda, the truth might've stayed buried - but the Texas mother is determined to uncover what really happened to her daughter, and get justice for her & her granddaughters.CreditsWritten, directed & edited by Matthew RiceResearched by Manon LafosseVoiceover by William AkanaProduced by Alexandra Salois & Salim SaderSources:“Dirty Little Secret.” 20/20: ABC, 2025 (Disney Media Distribution)“The Preacher's Hidden Life.” 20/20 on ID: ABC, 2011. (Discovery Studio, Tom Jennings Productions & Peacock Productions / Investigation Discovery)“Twist of Faith.” True Crime with Aphrodite Jones: Discovery Communications LLC, 2011. (Discovery Studios / Investigation Discovery). “The Mask of God.” Prosecuting Evil with Kelly Siegler: Magical Elves LP, Wolf Reality LLC., Top Alternative Studio LLC, 2023. (Magical Elves Productions, Green Lake Productions, Wolf Films, Universal Television Alternative / Oxygen True Crime)“The Preacher, His Mistress & Murder.” It Takes A Killer: Bellum Entertainment, 2016. (Bellum South LLC / Sky Vision, Oxygen).“The Preacher's Wife.” 48 Hours Mystery: CBS News, 2010. (CBS News Productions / CBS ).“Dirty Little Secrets.” 48 Hours Mystery: CBS News, 2010. (CBS News Productions/ CBS).“TX. v. Baker.” Court TV, 2010. Skip Hollingsworth, “The Valley of the Shadow of Death.” Texas Monthly, March 2008.Kathryn Casey, “Deadly Little Secrets: The Minister, His Mistress, and a Heartless Texas Murder,” HarperCollins, 2012.Matt Baker v. State of Texas, 10th Court of Appeals in 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas, June 11 2008.Susan Shafer & Crawford Long, “The Murdering Minister.” The Texas Prosecutor Journal, March-April 2010.

Case Law Update  •             Ana Maria Sandoval v Farmers Insurance Exchange, Henry Ford Health System, and Valdimir Boshevski and Zurich American Insurance Company, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 9, 2025 (Docket No. 336116) •             Michigan Head & Spine Institute, PC, and McLaren Macomb and Daniel Crane and Regents of the University of Michigan v Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___ (May 15, 2025) (Docket No. 367681)  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •             Opt-Outs of PIP Coverage •             Tiffany Carroll and Kayla Carroll v Progressive Michigan Insurance Company and Allstate Insurance Company, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 15, 2025 (Docket No. 366626)  

What are the pre-political grounds of property rights? What are the just uses of property according to natural rights and the natural law? In this Anchoring Truths Podcast episode, Prof. Eric Claeys, presents his research on these questions inspired by his new book Natural Property Rights. Claeys, discusses the ways a natural right to property is justified and limited, drawing on sources from ancient, medieval and contemporary analytic philosophy. Claeys also describes the history of how a natural right understanding of property has influenced American positive law and jurisprudence. Eric R. Claeys is Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University. In his scholarship, Professor Claeys studies theories of natural law and natural rights and their implications in property law. Professor Claeys is a member of the American Law Institute, he serves on the ALI's Members' Consultative Group for the first Restatement of Copyright, and he also serves as an adviser to the Restatement (Fourth) of the Law of Property.Professor Claeys received his AB from Princeton University and his JD from the University of Southern California Law School. After law school, Professor Claeys clerked for the Hon. Melvin Brunetti, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Hon. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States. He has also taught at Saint Louis University, the University of Chicago Law School, and Harvard Law School, and he is a member of the Princeton Politics Department's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.  

As a result of a new ruling by a California appeals court, the people's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly suffered a setback. The rule of law suffered a setback. Justice suffered a setback.The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left a stay in place, blocking the trial court's order that Trump must turn control of the California National Guard back to Governor Gavin Newsom.Fortunately, the ruling is a temporary/interim ruling and the case is far from over.Glenn discusses some of the unfortunate aspects of this ruling, including how Trump gets to create chaos and confusion in California and then uses that chaos as a pretext to order the military into the streets of California. No court should endorse such a transparent ruse and abuse of power.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sean "Diddy" Combs is making a third attempt to secure his release on bail after being denied twice by the court. Currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on charges including racketeering, sex trafficking, and obstruction of justice, Diddy's legal team filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.In this latest bid, Diddy has offered a $50 million bail package, which includes significant restrictions to address concerns about witness tampering and flight risk. The conditions proposed include home detention, GPS monitoring, 24/7 supervision, barring female visitors, and selling his private jet. Diddy also agreed to weekly drug tests and to avoid contact with grand jury witnesses. Despite these assurances, federal prosecutors remain concerned that his wealth and resources could allow him to flee or intimidate witnesses if released.The court has not yet ruled on this latest appeal, but the stakes are high as Diddy continues to fight the serious charges against him while being held without bail​.In this episode, we get a look at that attempt in full.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:sean-combs-bail-appeal-1.pdf (deadline.com)

As a result of a new ruling by a California appeals court, the people's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly suffered a setback. The rule of law suffered a setback. Justice suffered a setback.The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left a stay in place, blocking the trial court's order that Trump must turn control of the California National Guard back to Governor Gavin Newsom.Fortunately, the ruling is a temporary/interim ruling and the case is far from over.Glenn discusses some of the unfortunate aspects of this ruling, including how Trump gets to create chaos and confusion in California and then uses that chaos as a pretext to order the military into the streets of California. No court should endorse such a transparent ruse and abuse of power.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's been another whirlwind week in the courts when it comes to Donald Trump and his ongoing legal battles. The spotlight right now is on his criminal conviction out of New York, the so-called hush money case that's become a fixture in headlines for more than a year. Let's get right into it: Trump, who was found guilty last year on all 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide a payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, is now pressing hard to have that conviction erased. Just this month, his legal team was back before a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan. Their main argument is that the case should never have been handled by a state court in the first place. They're relying on an old, rarely used statute to try and move the whole thing to federal court—hoping that a federal bench might be more favorable, or at least that the whole process could get bogged down in even more appeals.Trump himself was not present for the hearing. But he's been anything but silent, maintaining through virtual appearances and statements to the press that he's innocent, and that the legal system has treated him unfairly from the start. Worth noting, though: ten days before Trump was sworn in for his second term, he was sentenced in New York. The judge gave what's known as an unconditional discharge—so no fines, no jail time, but the conviction remains on his record. The rationale from the court was clear; any harsher punishment would encroach on the presidency, and that's something the courts are entering with extreme caution.These aren't the only courtroom dramas involving Trump right now. A recent case at the Supreme Court saw his administration win a pair of crucial victories related to government data and access. On top of that, just this week, the Trump administration accused a district court of openly defying a Supreme Court order over the deportation of immigrants—a stark sign of just how fraught and contentious the legal landscape remains around anything Trump touches, even as president again.Legal scholars say that the strategy his attorneys are using in the appeal, especially trying to broaden the reach of the Federal Officer Removal Statute, could have consequences far beyond just Trump, potentially shifting how future presidents and federal officials are treated in the courts.With all these moving parts, from hearings in Manhattan to wrangling at the Supreme Court and legal fights over immigration policy, the Trump legal saga continues to evolve at a dizzying pace. Thanks for tuning in and following along as we track these developments. Make sure to join us next week for more updates on the court cases and political headlines that are shaping the nation.

A week ago, E. Jean Carroll beat Trump in his appeal of the $5 million jury award in one of her defamation cases. Now, Ms. Carroll has won another victory in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in her $83.3 million defamation case against Trump. Specifically, the court rejected AG Bondi and the DOJ's attempt to get Trump out of the case and insert the DOJ into the case as the defendant. Glenn discusses the importance of this court loss for Trump/Bondi/&the DOJ. One wonders if Trump is second-guessing the wisdom of making Bondi his Attorney General when Bondi's DOJ is losing Trump-related cases in court an overwhelming majority of the time.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's Tuesday, June 24th, A.D. 2025. 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 Adam McManus Syrian suicide bomber A suicide bomber entered an Orthodox Church in Damascus, Syria on Sunday killing 22 people and wounding at least 63 others, reports ABC News. The ISIS terrorist group has claimed responsibility. No increased nuclear radiation levels after U.S. bombing in Iran The International Atomic Energy Agency reports no increase in off-site radiation levels at the three Iranian sites bombed by the United States and Israel. The neighboring Kuwait government has also confirmed that “no abnormal radiation levels have been detected in any of the member states.” The whereabouts of 400 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium in Iran is still a mystery. Israel bombed Iran's Evin Prison Israel continues its bombardment on Iran, including a bombing of the notorious Evin prison, where a number of Christians are held, and have been tortured over the last several decades. Trump: Israel & Iran agreed to cease-fire to end “12-Day War” On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a cease-fire, declaring an end to what he referred to as “The 12 Day War,” reports The Epoch Times. In a Truth Social Post, Trump wrote,  “It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE … for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered ENDED!” Both sides will wind down their final military operations within 12 hours, beginning what Trump expects to be “PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL” on both sides. The conflict will be declared over within 24 hours. However, The New York Times indicated that there is no confirmation yet from Israel and Iran. Russia bombed Ukraine with 16 missiles and 352 drones The Russian army unleashed a heavy bombardment on Kiev, Ukraine yesterday involving 352 drones and 16 missiles, reports Reuters. At least 10 Ukrainians died in the attack. This follows another attack last week which killed 28 people.  Zelensky assassination plot foiled Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was the target of an assassination plot to be carried out by a Polish elderly man who had first been recruited by the Soviet Union decades ago, reports Newsweek. The man was activated to take out Zelensky at Poland's Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport using either a first-person view drone or a sniper rifle. The would-be assassin was a firm believer in Soviet ideology. The assassination plot was foiled by a joint effort of Ukraine's SBU, the main internal security agency, and the Polish internal security service known as ABW. Americans less isolationist Americans are moving away from isolationism according to a recent survey by the Ronald Reagan Institute. In the last three years, Americans who believe the United States should be more engaged in international events has seen a 24% increase. Specifically, 69% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, and 73% of MAGA/Trump Republicans want to see more engagement internationally. A supermajority of Americans – 84% -- state their support for preventing the Islamic Republic from gaining access to nuclear weapons. Only 57% of Americans would agree with the statement that “the United States is better served by withdrawing from international events and focusing on problems here at home.” The major shift in American opinions on this has occurred since the November election.  Russia economy expanded by 4.3% last year Despite international pressures, the Russian economy expanded by 4.3% last year. This compares to a 1.1% bump for the United Kingdom, and a 2.8% bump for the U.S. economy last year. Supreme Court temporarily allows deportations to third countries In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court temporarily lifted a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants to so-called third countries to which they have no connection, reports The Epoch Times. The unsigned order came in the case known as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. Michigan church shooting prevented   A heavily-armed man attempted a massacre at the Wayne, Michigan Crosspointe Community Church, reports CBS News. Thankfully, he didn't make it into the building. A parishioner rammed him with his truck, and the security team engaged him in the parking lot.  The suspect was pronounced dead when police arrived on the scene. One security guard took a shot in the leg. Based on national news sources, there are 1-2 church shootings per year in this country. That's 1 out of 380,000 churches.  Psalm 27:1-2 is always the right mindset. It says, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; Of whom shall I be afraid?  When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell.” Ohio pro-life legislators want to protect babies from conception Several Ohio legislators are floating a bill that outlaws the willful murder of a child from the point of conception. The "Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act,” introduced by state Representatives Levi Dean and Johnathan Newman, would overturn the 2023 referendum amendment that legalized abortion in Ohio.  In Psalm 22, the psalmist confesses, “You … took me out of the womb; You made me trust while on my mother's breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. from my mother's womb You have been my God.”  Older Americans more likely to have Biblical worldview George Barna's 2025 American Worldview Inventory report has been released and he concludes that only 1% of adults under 30 have a Biblical worldview. That compares with 5% for adults over 50, and 8% for adults over 65. Also, 69% of young Gen Z Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable. That's up from 60% for the Gen X and Boomer generations. Then, 73% of Gen Zers agree that sex outside of marriage is okay.  That's up from 59% with the Boomer Generation.  Fifth Circuit deems Louisiana Ten Commandments law unconstitutional The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Louisiana's law requiring the posting of The Ten Commandments in public schools, reports Courthouse News Service. The Louisiana law required schools which receive public funding to post a framed copy of The 10 Commandments in the classrooms. Observatory identified and photographed 10 million galaxies The Rubin Observatory, located in South America's Andes Mountain, has completed its first 10 hours of operation and identified 2,104 new asteroids never seen before, and photographed 10 million galaxies, reports the BBC. The observatory features a 28-foot telescope and an ultra-wide, ultra-high definition camera.  Sperm donor passed cancer gene to 67 children In other science news, a sperm donor in Europe has passed a cancer gene on to 67 children. Already, at least ten of the children have signs of cancer, all of them born between 2008 and 2015. The case was discussed at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Edwige Kasper, a specialist in genetic predisposition to cancer at the Rouen University Hospital in Rouen, France, said, “The variant would have been practically undetectable in 2008 when the individual started to donate sperm.” U.S. housing prices spike Housing prices in the U.S. are still reaching record highs. The median price of homes sold last month was $423,000, up 1.3% from May of 2024. 7 Worldview listeners gave $2,828.30  to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our final $123,500 goal by Monday, June 30th to fully fund The Worldview annual budget for our 6-member team, 7 listeners stepped up to the plate. Our thanks to Nathan in Cleveland, Tennessee who gave $25, N.B. in Ripon, North Yorkshire, England who gave $30, and Logan and Bianca in Manzini, Eswatini, Africa who gave $70. And we're grateful to God for Gloria in  Westminster, Colorado who gave $103.30, Payton in Georgetown, Texas who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600, Amy in Eldorado, Wisconsin who gave $1,000, and Pamela in Sierra Madre, California who also gave $1,000. Those 7 Worldview listeners gave a total of $2,828.30. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $65,401.55 (People clapping and cheering sound effect)  Still need to raise $58,098.45!  Looking for 9 Super Donors! That means by this coming Monday, June 30th, we need to raise a whopping $58,098.45 in just 7 days.  Oh my!  I've got butterflies in my stomach. Is there 1 businessperson who could donate $10,000?  3 businesspeople who could give $5,000?  5 businesspeople who could contribute $2,500? If so, those donations would total $37,500. Then we would need another 8 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 16 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600? Please, go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. If everybody does something – no matter how big or small – we will knock this relatively modest budget out of the park. Attention donors from this year: Send email urging others to donate! Lastly, I would love to feature a 2-3 sentence email from those who have already given this year, whose names I will not cite, with your encouragement for your fellow listeners to consider a last minute gift.  Just include your city and state send it to Adam@TheWorldview.com Speak from your heart about why you gave and why you would urge others to join you to fund The Worldview in 5 Minutes. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, June 24th, in the year of our Lord 2025.  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.

A week ago, E. Jean Carroll beat Trump in his appeal of the $5 million jury award in one of her defamation cases. Now, Ms. Carroll has won another victory in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in her $83.3 million defamation case against Trump. Specifically, the court rejected AG Bondi and the DOJ's attempt to get Trump out of the case and insert the DOJ into the case as the defendant. Glenn discusses the importance of this court loss for Trump/Bondi/&the DOJ. One wonders if Trump is second-guessing the wisdom of making Bondi his Attorney General when Bondi's DOJ is losing Trump-related cases in court an overwhelming majority of the time.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Sean "Diddy" Combs is making a third attempt to secure his release on bail after being denied twice by the court. Currently detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn on charges including racketeering, sex trafficking, and obstruction of justice, Diddy's legal team filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.In this latest bid, Diddy has offered a $50 million bail package, which includes significant restrictions to address concerns about witness tampering and flight risk. The conditions proposed include home detention, GPS monitoring, 24/7 supervision, barring female visitors, and selling his private jet. Diddy also agreed to weekly drug tests and to avoid contact with grand jury witnesses. Despite these assurances, federal prosecutors remain concerned that his wealth and resources could allow him to flee or intimidate witnesses if released.The court has not yet ruled on this latest appeal, but the stakes are high as Diddy continues to fight the serious charges against him while being held without bail​.In this episode, we get a look at that attempt in full.(commercial at 8:11)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:sean-combs-bail-appeal-1.pdf (deadline.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean Whelan, RTÉ Washington Correspondent, provides the point of view from the United States after President Donald Trump announces Iran-Israel ceasefire.

In this episode of See You In Court, hosts Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate sit down with one of Georgia's most dynamic legal voices—Attorney Joyce Gist Lewis. From her early days in theater to becoming co-managing partner of one of the largest women-owned law firms on the East Coast, Joyce shares her inspiring story, her landmark legal battles, and her unwavering commitment to the rule of law.

Part 2 of 2: On the afternoon of July 24, 2002, Clara Harris learned that her husband, David Harris, was having an affair with his secretary. Incensed, Clara went to the hotel where the David and his mistress had just checked in and confronted the couple before being escorted out by hotel staff. However, the argument between David and Clara continued in the parking lot, only ending when Clara ran her husband down with her car, driving over him three separate times and killing him.The trial of Clara Harris proved to be as exciting and dramatic as the marriage and the explosive argument that ended David's life. The defense had tried to frame the murder as a crime of passion, an act of “sudden passion” committed by a woman rejected and scorned. That defense fell apart immediately when, without warning or expectation, Clara Harris decided to testify on her own behalf, at which point she essentially confessed to murder, sending the courtroom into chaos.The trial of Clara Harris for the murder of her husband garnered national attention, not only for the defense of “sudden passion,” but also for the unusually high amount of drama and scandalous details that emerged in the testimony at trial.Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research and Writing support!ReferencesClara L. Harris v. The State of Texas. 2004. 01-03-00177-CR (Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, December 16).Hollandsworth, Skip. 2002. "Suburban madness." Texas Monthly, November: 117-169.Long, Steven. 2004. Out of Control. New York, NY: St. Martin's.Madigan, Nick. 2003. "Houston woman on trial in killing of husband testifies." New York Times, February 6.—. 2003. "Jury gives 20-year term in murder of husband." New York Times, February 15.—. 2003. "Trial in killing of orthodontist goes to jury." New York Times, February 13.—. 2003. "Wife testifies she was 'in a fog' just before her car struck." New York Times, February 8.—. 2003. "Woman who killed spouse with car is guilty of murder." New York Times, February 14.—. 2003. "Youth who saw killing says stepmother 'stomped' accelerator and 'went for' father." New York Times, January 30.Zernike, Kate. 2003. "A wife betrayed finds sympathy at murder trial." New York Times, January 24.Stay in the know - wondery.fm/morbid-wondery.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Is anyone listening as Emmanuel Macron appeals for restraint in the Middle East? And: France braces itself for a heatwave.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In This Hour:-- Incredibly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down California's gun rationing (only 1 gun in 30 days) law.--  What's the best upgrade for an AR-15?--  A man shoots up a Michigan church only to be run over by a deacon and then shot to death by a church security guard.Gun Talk 06.22.25 Hour 3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist, was freed on bail from an immigration detention centre in Louisiana where he had been detained for 104 days

Let's talk about Trump, Newsom, the National guard, and appeals....

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump can maintain control of the National Guard in California. The King County Housing Authority could be facing cuts from the federal government. Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson performed a shockingly bad anti-Trump version of Jimi Hendrix’s song “Hey Joe.” // Jason made a guest appearance on CNN and lived to tell the tale. The world waits to see if the United States will get involved in Iran. // The Oregon legislature invited a black drag show to perform at the opening ceremony of the legislative session. ‘The View’ is blaming Sunny Hostin for Kamala Harris’s election loss.

Nice! Another victory for the president and this time in California courts to Gavin Newsom's behest. Also in this episode: Chris Bedford joins the show to talk big picture about the Dems plans to retake power. Appeals court blocks Newsom's bid to reclaim control of National Guard from Trump ⁠https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/19/appeals-court-national-guard-ruling-00414717⁠ Gavin Newsom Sipped Cabernet While Los Angeles Burned ⁠http://city-journal.org/article/los-angeles-riots-california-governor-gavin-newsom-wine⁠ East Palestine residents to benefit from new health study after train derailment ⁠https://wtov9.com/news/local/east-palestine-residents-to-benefit-from-new-health-study-after-train-derailment⁠ SponsorsExpress VPN - ExpressVPN.com/VINCE Pocket Hose - Text VINCE to 64000 Birch Gold - Text the word VINCE to 989898. Bon Charge - ⁠boncharge.com⁠ and use the code VINCE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John Fawcett breaks down today's biggest stories, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on President Trump's deployment of the National Guard in California, the ongoing debate surrounding the 2020 election fraud claims, and Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's call to subpoena George Soros for his alleged role in destabilizing American democracy. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In today’s live edition of the Trish Regan Show — MAJOR headlines breaking right now:

California Governor Gavin Newsom just lost a major court battle in federal court against President Trump, effectively delaying the removal of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that for now the Trump Administration could keep the troops in LA because of the anti-ICE riots and protests against mass deportations of illegal immigrants. The Sekulow team discusses a "BIG WIN" (according to Trump's Truth Social) for the Trump White House, Newsom's lawsuit against the Trump Administration, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, President Trump announces a two week timeline allowing for an Iranian diplomatic solution to the war. Also a WSJ story on how the U.S. intel on Iranian nuclear capabilities went back the the Biden administration, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously leaves California Governor Gavin Newsome and all of the "No Kings" protesters disappointed with a big win for the President and his authority to deploy the National Guard anywhere he sees fit, audio from Karoline Leavitt on the SCOTUS decison, audio from Barak Obama rambling about the importance of social media, a new poll on what democrats want, audio from Jasmine Crockett badmouthing Republicans and praising Kamala Harris, democrats love secretly taxing the poor and middle class, audio from Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson on President Trump trying to eradicate black people, and much more. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Israel vows to hold Iran's leader accountable for "war crimes" after Iranian missile slams into hospital, Appeals court lets Trump keep control of California National Guard troops in L.A., what's the going rate for kids' allowances in 2025.

 In early June, a federal judge found the state in contempt of a court order that requires people with severe mental illness in custody to be quickly admitted to the the Oregon State Hospital.  Now, the state is appealing that decision and has asked the court to pause the contempt ruling. Amelia Templeton is OPB’s health reporter and has been following this story. She joins us to share more on what is happening at the state’s psychiatric hospital.

Part 1 of 2: On the afternoon of July 24, 2002, Clara Harris learned that her husband, David Harris, was having an affair with his secretary. Incensed, Clara went to the hotel where the David and his mistress had just checked in and confronted the couple before being escorted out by hotel staff. However, the argument between David and Clara continued in the parking lot, only ending when Clara ran her husband down with her car, driving over him three separate times and killing him.The trial of Clara Harris proved to be as exciting and dramatic as the marriage and the explosive argument that ended David's life. The defense had tried to frame the murder as a crime of passion, an act of “sudden passion” committed by a woman rejected and scorned. That defense fell apart immediately when, without warning or expectation, Clara Harris decided to testify on her own behalf, at which point she essentially confessed to murder, sending the courtroom into chaos.The trial of Clara Harris for the murder of her husband garnered national attention, not only for the defense of “sudden passion,” but also for the unusually high amount of drama and scandalous details that emerged in the testimony at trial.Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research and Writing support!ReferencesClara L. Harris v. The State of Texas. 2004. 01-03-00177-CR (Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, December 16).Hollandsworth, Skip. 2002. "Suburban madness." Texas Monthly, November: 117-169.Long, Steven. 2004. Out of Control. New York, NY: St. Martin's.Madigan, Nick. 2003. "Houston woman on trial in killing of husband testifies." New York Times, February 6.—. 2003. "Jury gives 20-year term in murder of husband." New York Times, February 15.—. 2003. "Trial in killing of orthodontist goes to jury." New York Times, February 13.—. 2003. "Wife testifies she was 'in a fog' just before her car struck." New York Times, February 8.—. 2003. "Woman who killed spouse with car is guilty of murder." New York Times, February 14.—. 2003. "Youth who saw killing says stepmother 'stomped' accelerator and 'went for' father." New York Times, January 30.Zernike, Kate. 2003. "A wife betrayed finds sympathy at murder trial." New York Times, January 24.Stay in the know - wondery.fm/morbid-wondery.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, referencing the movie PCU the "causehead" protesters for the Israel/Iran war show up a bit late for the cause. Also democatic hearings on Joe Biden's cognitive condition, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backs President Trump's ability to deploy the National Guard to the LA riots, audio from a CNN reporter interrupted by President Trump calling them fake news and audio from The View as Whoopi rants. Also breaking news from Tel Aviv as Iran bombards Ireael and damages the largest hospital facility and other residential targets, we await the President's decision on how the U.S. will get involved in the war as he issues an "unconditional surrender" warning to Iran and Israel immediately fires back targeting Iran's defense and military facilities. Also President Trump says he has a plan for a regime change in Iran and SCOTUS rules on state ban on gender transtion "treatments" for minors in landmark case, For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's been a big week for some of the dumber litigation we follow around here. It's not all dumb — we start with an update on California's litigation over the deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, where the state has gotten relief at the trial court level but faces a tough road in the appeals courts. And we look at a case in Boston where a federal judge has blocked, for now, the cancellation of certain grants the National Institutes of Health have deemed excessively DEI-related.Then we have updates on Mike Lindell, who says the $2.3 million defamation judgment against him is actually a victory; Michael Avenatti, who appealed his sentence and got it reduced very slightly (rare win!); and various Proud Boys, who made the mistake of hiring a felon to be their lawyer; some weird drama at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judge Stephen Menashi is really annoyed his colleagues didn't want to reopen the E. Jean Carroll litigation. And we look at juror drama at the P. Diddy trial. And — most excitingly — Josh makes Ken talk about the Real Housewives.Visit serioustrouble.show to sign up for our newsletter and find a transcript of this episode. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

My guest is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Professor Emeritus of Health Policy at Stanford University. We discuss which scientific questions ought to be the priority for NIH, how to incentivize bold, innovative science especially from younger labs, how to solve the replication crisis and restore trust and transparency in science and public health, including acknowledging prior failures by the NIH. We discuss the COVID-19 pandemic and the data and sociological factors that motivated lockdowns, masking and vaccine mandates. Dr. Bhattacharya shares his views on how to resolve the vaccine–autism debate and how best to find the causes and cures for autism and chronic diseases. The topics we cover impact everyone: male, female, young and old and, given that NIH is the premier research and public health organization in the world, extend to Americans and non-Americans alike. Read the episode show notes at hubermanlab.com. Thank you to our sponsors AG1: https://drinkag1.com/huberman David: https://davidprotein.com/huberman Eight Sleep: https://eightsleep.com/huberman Levels: ⁠https://levels.link/huberman⁠ LMNT: https://drinklmnt.com/huberman Timestamps 00:00:00 Jay Bhattacharya 00:06:56 National Institutes of Health (NIH), Mission 00:09:12 Funding, Basic vs. Applied Research 00:18:22 Sponsors: David & Eight Sleep 00:21:20 Indirect Costs (IDC), Policies & Distribution 00:30:43 Taxpayer Funding, Journal Access, Public Transparency 00:38:14 Taxpayer Funding, Patents; Drug Costs in the USA vs Other Countries 00:48:50 Reducing Medication Prices; R&D, Improving Health 01:00:01 Sponsors: AG1 & Levels 01:02:55 Lowering IDC?, Endowments, Monetary Distribution, Scientific Groupthink 01:12:29 Grant Review Process, Innovation 01:21:43 R01s, Tenure, Early Career Scientists & Novel Ideas 01:31:46 Sociology of Grant Evaluation, Careerism in Science, Failures 01:39:08 “Sick Care” System, Health Needs 01:44:01 Sponsor: LMNT 01:45:33 Incentives in Science, H-Index, Replication Crisis 01:58:54 Scientists, Data Fraud, Changing Careers 02:03:59 NIH & Changing Incentive Structure, Replication, Pro-Social Behavior 02:15:26 Scientific Discovery, Careers & Changing Times, Journals & Publications 02:19:56 NIH Grants & Appeals, Under-represented Populations, DEI 02:28:58 Inductive vs Deductive Science; DEI & Grants; Young Scientists & NIH Funding 02:39:38 Grant Funding, Identity & Race; Shift in NIH Priorities 02:51:23 Public Trust & Science, COVID Pandemic, Lockdowns, Masks 03:04:41 Pandemic Mandates & Economic Inequality; Fear; Public Health & Free Speech 03:13:39 Masks, Harms, Public Health Messaging, Uniformity, Groupthink, Vaccines 03:22:48 Academic Ostracism, Public Health Messaging & Opposition 03:30:26 Culture of American Science, Discourse & Disagreement 03:36:03 Vaccines, COVID Vaccines, Benefits & Harms 03:47:05 Vaccine Mandates, Money, Public Health Messaging, Civil Liberties 03:54:52 COVID Vaccines, Long-Term Effects; Long COVID, Vaccine Injury, Flu Shots 04:06:47 Do Vaccines Cause Autism?; What Explains Rise in Autism 04:18:33 Autism & NIH; MAHA & Restructuring NIH? 04:25:47 Zero-Cost Support, YouTube, Spotify & Apple Follow & Reviews, Sponsors, YouTube Feedback, Protocols Book, Social Media, Neural Network Newsletter Disclaimer & Disclosures Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices