Podcasts about Appointments Clause

A federal judge who presided over Trump's criminal case just refused to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that Trump violated the Appointments Clause by letting Musk take control of 17 agencies and departments without Congressional approval, a suit that she claims addresses “tyranny” and illegal attempts by a president to abuse power. Michael Popok explains why Trump was dismissed as a party, but why that doesn't really matter in the suit. Dose: Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/LEGALAF or entering LEGALAF at checkout. 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

In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. the Supreme Court will consider "Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision."In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., several Christian-owned businesses, along with six individuals in Texas, brought suit alleging that the Affordable Care Act's preventative services coverage requirement was illegal and unconstitutional. They contend it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the ACA required them to fund preventative services that conflicted with their religious beliefs, and that it violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, given the controlling effect of a non-appointed advisory body over which preventative treatments were required. Given those issues, the case sits at an interesting intersection of health law, religious liberty law, and administrative procedure, and the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on April 21, 2025.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyse how oral argument went before the Court.Featuring:Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs, Goldwater Institute

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Administrative Law: Does the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violate the Appointments Clause? - Argued: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 11:23:10 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide whether the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's Appointments Clause, and whether the provision that insulates the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision is severable from the rest of the statute.

This Day in Legal History: Maryland Toleration Act PassedOn April 21, 1649, the Maryland Assembly passed the Maryland Toleration Act, a landmark piece of colonial legislation that granted freedom of worship to all Christians in the colony. Also known as the Act Concerning Religion, it was one of the first legal efforts in the American colonies to protect religious liberty through statutory law. The act was enacted under the leadership of Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who sought to maintain peace in Maryland's religiously diverse population, which included both Catholics and Protestants.The law's preamble acknowledged the dangers of religious coercion, stating that "the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence." To preserve harmony, it declared that no Christian should be "troubled, Molested or discountenanced" for practicing their faith, provided they did not threaten the colony's civil government or the authority of the Lord Proprietor.While progressive for its time, the Act's protections were limited to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ, excluding Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Violators of the law's religious tolerance provisions faced harsh penalties, including fines, public whipping, or even death for blasphemy.The Act was repealed just five years later during a period of Protestant ascendancy, reflecting the fragile nature of religious tolerance in colonial America. Nonetheless, it remains significant as an early attempt to codify the principle that faith should not be a basis for persecution.A federal judge has ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can no longer direct the termination of probationary federal workers based on performance-related justifications that were, according to the court, misleading. U.S. District Judge William Alsup called OPM's use of standardized termination letters citing performance as the reason for firing thousands of employees a “total sham.” He emphasized that falsely attributing the dismissals to performance could harm the affected workers' reputations and career prospects for years to come.The ruling affects employees at six federal agencies and prohibits further terminations under these pretenses. Judge Alsup's decision underscores that these workers were dismissed under false narratives while still in their probationary period—either newly hired or recently promoted—and should not have been labeled as underperformers without proper evaluation or process.Though Alsup's ruling offers protection against future actions, he declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the state of Washington, stating the state lacked standing because it could not show concrete harm from the federal firings, such as a clear loss of federal services.This legal challenge comes amid a broader judicial tug-of-war. In March, Alsup had initially ordered the reinstatement of 16,000 workers pending resolution of a lawsuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that injunction on April 8, suggesting that nonprofit organizations representing federal workers may lack the legal standing to sue on their behalf. Following that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also halted a separate injunction from a Maryland judge that would have reinstated probationary employees in 19 states and Washington, D.C.Despite the limits imposed by the higher courts, Alsup's decision focuses on the reputational harm caused by labeling the dismissals as performance-based, rather than procedural or administrative. He signaled that the government must correct the record for those terminated workers.Performance-Based Federal Worker Layoffs a ‘Sham' Judge RulesThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that mandates insurers cover certain preventive medical services—like cancer screenings and diabetes testing—without cost-sharing by patients. The case centers on the constitutional validity of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of medical experts that identifies which services should be covered. The panel's 16 members are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) but are not confirmed by the Senate.A group of Texas-based Christian individuals and businesses filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the USPSTF wields too much authority and must therefore comply with the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause. This clause requires that significant federal officers—known as "principal officers"—be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The plaintiffs claim the task force has evolved from a purely advisory body to one that effectively imposes binding legal obligations on insurers, all without proper accountability.In 2024, the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the task force's structure unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration originally filed the appeal, and it was later continued by the Trump administration. Government lawyers argue that the task force should be classified as comprising "inferior officers," since their recommendations are only made binding when approved by the HHS Secretary, who can remove task force members at will.The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the Secretary lacks actual power to stop recommendations from taking effect, making the task force's authority effectively unchecked. They also argue that this lack of oversight elevates the members to principal officer status, necessitating Senate confirmation.Before narrowing the lawsuit to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs also challenged the ACA's requirement to cover HIV prevention medication on religious grounds, asserting it promoted behaviors they opposed. The appeals court declined to sever portions of the law that might otherwise save the provision, another aspect now before the Supreme Court.If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, key preventive healthcare services could become subject to out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays, potentially deterring millions from accessing early detection and prevention tools. The Court's decision, expected by the end of June, could reshape how health policy is implemented under the ACA and may further weaken one of its core patient protections.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Obamacare preventive care | ReutersIn a rapidly unfolding legal confrontation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants from Texas, sparking a strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The court intervened early Saturday morning, acting on urgent filings by detainees' lawyers who said the migrants were already being loaded onto buses for imminent deportation to El Salvador. The migrants were accused of gang affiliation, but their legal team argued they hadn't been given fair notice or time to challenge their removal. The administration attempted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law, to justify these expulsions.Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, sharply criticized the majority's decision, calling it "unprecedented and legally questionable." He argued that the Court acted without giving lower courts adequate time to review the claims and issued its order with limited evidence and no explanation. The justices' ruling paused deportations “until further order of this Court,” leaving room for future legal developments.The Trump administration quickly responded, filing a motion urging the Court to reverse its stay. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the detainees' lawyers bypassed proper procedure by going directly to the Supreme Court and that lower courts had not yet had a chance to establish key facts. He maintained that the migrants received legally sufficient notice, though reports suggested the notices were in English only and lacked clear instructions.The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members is highly controversial. Originally passed in 1798 during hostilities with France, the law has been used sparingly and almost exclusively during wartime. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether its application in this immigration context is constitutional. Migrants' advocates, including the ACLU, maintain that many of the men deported or at risk of deportation are not gang members and were denied due process.The legal conflict reflects a broader tension between Trump's immigration enforcement efforts and judicial oversight. Last month, Trump ordered the deportation of more than 200 men to a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, reportedly ignoring a judge's oral order to halt at least two flights. The White House has not signaled any intent to defy the current Supreme Court stay but remains committed to its immigration crackdown.The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, now becomes a focal point in ongoing disputes about executive authority, due process rights for detainees, and the scope of immigration enforcement under rarely invoked legal provisions. As the Court weighs further action, the lives of dozens of migrants hang in the balance, caught between legal technicalities and broader political pressures.Supreme Court's Alito Calls Block of Deportations ‘Questionable' - BloombergAlito criticizes US Supreme Court's decision to 'hastily' block deportations | ReutersTrump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Deportation Halt - BloombergA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals is likely unconstitutional. The policy, which followed an executive order signed by President Trump immediately after returning to office, required passport applicants to list their biological sex at birth and allowed only "male" or "female" markers. This reversed prior policies that permitted self-identification and, under the Biden administration, had allowed the use of a gender-neutral "X" option.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of the policy against six of the seven plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. She held that the policy discriminates based on sex and reflects a bias against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Kobick described the administration's approach as rooted in "irrational prejudice" and said it runs counter to the Constitution's promise of equality.Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, Kobick declined to issue a nationwide injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not justify the need for broad relief. Still, the ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's broader effort to redefine federal gender recognition policies.The executive order at the center of the case mandated all federal agencies, including the State Department, to recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biology at birth. The State Department then revised its passport application process to align with this directive.The case is part of a wave of legal challenges to Trump's rollback of gender recognition policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, vowed to continue fighting to expand the ruling's protections to all affected individuals.Trump passport policy targeting transgender people likely unconstitutional, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In a news cycle that keeps on churning, Main Justice hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord wade through the nonstop dispatches to set some focal points for this episode. They begin with the hearing held by Judge Dale Ho last week over the Eric Adams dismissal and the Judge's appointment of Paul Clement as amicus, a.k.a. a friend of the court. Andrew details the important decisions Judge Ho has before him as Mary drives home why this case will reverberate beyond the embattled New York Mayor. Then, they touch on the latest resignation- this one, from Denise Cheung, the chief of the criminal division in the DC US Attorney's office, after being asked to do something by the administration she believed was unsupportable.  And last up, Andrew and Mary look at the Supreme Court denial of a stay in the case involving Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, and the disconnect between DOJ representations about Elon Musk's role in court versus what Musk is saying and doing in practice.Further reading: Here is Andrew's piece on Just Security: Why the Rule of Law Depends on an Evidentiary Hearing in Mayor Eric Adams' Case.And HERE is the letter of resignation from the head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in D.C.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office, and if so, to what extent? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a former U-S President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court majority, concluded that a former President has some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. This immunity stems primarily from constitutional separation of powers principles and precedents recognizing similar immunities in civil contexts. The President has absolute immunity from prosecution for actions taken pursuant to his exclusive constitutional powers, such as pardoning offenses or removing executive officers. This absolute immunity exists because Congress cannot criminalize, and courts cannot review, the President's exercise of these core constitutional authorities. For official actions outside the President's exclusive constitutional powers, there is at least a presumptive immunity from prosecution. This presumptive immunity is rooted in the need to ensure the President can perform his duties without undue caution or distraction, as established in cases like Nixon v Fitzgerald. The government may attempt to rebut this presumption by demonstrating that prosecution would not unduly intrude on executive functions. However, evidence of immune official acts cannot be used to prove liability for unofficial acts, as this would undermine the purpose of the immunity. Finally, drawing on Clinton v Jones, the Court affirmed that the President has no immunity for actions taken in an unofficial or personal capacity. To apply this framework, courts must carefully analyze alleged conduct to determine whether it qualifies as official or unofficial. The Court rejected both Trump's argument for broader immunity absent impeachment and conviction, and the government's contention that the President has no immunity from criminal prosecution whatsoever. Instead, it established a nuanced approach requiring case-by-case analysis of presidential conduct to determine the applicable level of immunity, if any. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurrence to highlight that he believes the Special Counsel's prosecution of Trump may be unconstitutional because there are serious questions about whether the office of the Special Counsel was properly “established by Law” as required by the Constitution's Appointments Clause. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a separate opinion concurring in part to argue that rather than framing the issue as “immunity,” the Court should have adopted a two-step analysis for assessing the validity of criminal charges against a President for official acts: first determining if the relevant statute applies to the President's conduct, and then evaluating whether prosecuting the President under that statute would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented because she believes the majority's decision to grant former Presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts is unjustified by constitutional text, history, or precedent, and dangerously places the President above the law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented because she believes the majority's creation of a new “Presidential accountability model” that sometimes exempts Presidents from criminal law for official acts fundamentally alters the balance of power, undermines the rule of law, and risks incentivizing presidential abuses of power. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Alpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“Alpine’) raises a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure and regulatory authority of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Alpine Securities, a brokerage firm, argues that the structure of FINRA violates the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2), and the separation of powers doctrine. The company contends that FINRA, which operates as a self-regulatory organization (SRO), is improperly structured because its disciplinary and regulatory authority is exercised without sufficient oversight by the federal government or the President, who would normally appoint officers exercising such powers.Alpine's central argument is that FINRA's board members are not appointed by the President, nor are they subject to Senate confirmation, as required by the Appointments Clause and the private non-delegation doctrine for officers of the United States. Alpine contends that, as a private, non-governmental entity, FINRA is composed of individuals who are not accountable to the public or elected officials in the same way that government agencies are. This, Alpine argues, makes its regulatory and enforcement powers unconstitutional. FINRA argues, however, that its regulations and enforcement decisions are under close scrutiny by the SEC, and, thus, that this delegation of federal power to it, a private regulator, is constitutionally permissible. FINRA also worries that accepting Alpine’s arguments could bring destabilizing and potentially disastrous consequences to the self-regulatory framework of the markets.The case involves questions about the balance between public regulatory authority and private self-regulation within the securities industry. The outcome could have significant implications for the structure of SROs like FINRA, which play a key role in regulating the securities industry but operate outside the direct control of the government.The Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group of the Federalist Society is pleased to present this FedSoc Forum on the Alpine case. Join us in discussing the arguments raised in the case and the DC Circuit’s opinion, as well as the implications for securities industry self-regulation going forward.Featuring:Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Lead Counsel for AlpineW. Hardy Callcott, Partner, Sidley Austin LLPModerator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.--To register, click the link above.

Administrative Law: Does the Appointments Clause require Administrative Law Judges to be removable at will? - Argued: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:41:31 EDT

With eight days to go until Election Day, veteran prosecutors Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann tackle several issues related to the vote and its aftermath: if Donald Trump doesn't win the election, could his DC criminal case be dismissed based on the Appointments Clause? Can a president use the military domestically against "the enemy within" despite the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act? Will another ‘red mirage' followed by a ‘blue shift' cause the former president to cry foul and call for stopping the electoral count? And, will Elon Musk and his America PAC be held liable for paying residents in swing states to register?  Andrew and Mary address these questions and remind listeners to vote!Further Reading: Andrew and Ryan Goodman's recent piece on Just Security: An Overlooked January 6 Charge: The “Stop the Count” SchemeWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. As a subscriber you'll also be able to get occasional bonus content from this and other shows.

United States of America v. Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, and Carlos De Oliveira marked the first federal indictment of a former U.S. president. The prosecution, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, argued that Trump illegally retained hundreds of classified government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence after leaving office and obstructed efforts to retrieve them. He said this posed a national security risk and violated laws governing the handling of sensitive information. Trump's defense team, however, argued that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was unconstitutional, violating the Appointments Clause. They claimed that Smith lacked the proper authority to bring charges, as he was not a Department of Justice employee at the time of his appointment. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case on July 15, ruling that the appointment of Smith had been unconstitutional. Join us as we discuss the case and its implications.

In this episode of the Wolf Of All Streets podcast with Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, we delve into the ongoing regulatory challenges facing the crypto industry. We discuss the political dynamics affecting Bitcoin and crypto regulations, highlighting the impact of Operation Choke Point 2.0 and SAB 121. Caitlin also provides insights into Custodia Bank's legal battles and the broader implications for the industry, emphasizing the importance of legal structures and regulatory compliance. The conversation explores potential future changes in the regulatory environment and the resilience of Bitcoin amidst these challenges. Caitlin Long: https://x.com/CaitlinLong_ ►► Sponsored by iTrust Capital Invest in Bitcoin, Crypto Assets & Gold with Your IRA Using iTrust Capital.

Threats against conservativism and Republican hate has seen its time. Thank God we are celebrating the nomination from the Republican Party of Donald Trump and J.D. Vance as our choice for President and Vice President of the United States. AS PREDICTED, we are witnessing the COMPLETE MELTDOWN of the Democrat Party. However they have released the whirlwind.  While conspiracy theory conversation ferments, Donald Trump's near assassination has awakened America. If Trump and J.D. Vance can make it to November, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will eat their words. They have "released the whirlwind and will pay the price." They will suffer consequences for having gone so far with the attacks on Donald Trump. The hate spewed from dozens of elected officials, "celebrities", and broadcast media has gone too far against Trump, his campaign and his family. The "Deep State" is coming to an end! Joe Scarborough and Mika have been pulled off "Morning Joe" on MSNBC. They're taking a desk job for now while proof now shows the mainstream media has fostered the radicalization of extreme behavior. Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler is reckless! There will be a reckoning... Florida District Court Judge Aileen Cannon dismisses the Jack Smith indictment. The dismissal is based on the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. You're witnessing malicious, unjust, and selective prosecution of political opponents. Jack Smith, the prosecutor, was NOT approved of by the Congress or the President. Yet, he had the authority and money to unilaterally attack Donald Trump. Shame of us, the citizens, for not going after people in the system who have perverted the judicial process. Smith came through the back door through demonic Merrick Garland, Attorney General under Biden's direction. Chuck Schumer attacks two Supreme Court Justices while the DOJ attacks Trump and a bevy of others. Some are now behind bars like Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon for unjust prosecution! How many more attacks can occur against Republicans!? 100% of the attacks since JFK have been against Republicans, spurred on by inflammatory comments from Democrats at ALL levels!?Democrats ~ “Have Released the Whirlwind and Will Pay the Price!”Gene Valentino on TNT State of the NationORIGINAL MEDIA SOURCE(S):Originally Recorded on July 15, 2024America Beyond the Noise: Season 5, Episode 537Image courtesy of: TNT State of the Nation➡️ Join the Conversation: https://GeneValentino.com➡️ WMXI Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/NewsRadio981➡️ More WMXI Interviews: https://genevalentino.com/wmxi-interviews/➡️ More GrassRoots TruthCast Episodes: https://genevalentino.com/grassroots-truthcast-with-gene-valentino/➡️ More Broadcasts with Gene as the Guest: https://genevalentino.com/america-beyond-the-noise/ ➡️ More About Gene Valentino: https://genevalentino.com/about-gene-valentino/

This week Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett to talk through one of the most eventful weeks in national security news in recent history, including:“Too Close for Comfort.” Former President Trump narrowly avoided an assassination attempt this past weekend that ultimately left one rally-goer dead and two others critically wounded. While Trump and President Biden both made calls for national unity, several of Trump's close allies were quick to blame the Biden administration's rhetoric painting Trump as a threat to democracy. What will this historic event mean for the 2024 election—and for the rise in political violence and related rhetoric that's preceded it?“Cannon Fodder.” After months of glacial judicial proceedings, federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon finally did what many of her critics had long expected and dismissed the special counsel's criminal case against former President Trump, based in large part on an aggressive reading of the Appointments Clause and narrow reading of the legislation allowing for the special counsel's appointment. How credible is her holding? And what will it mean for the future of the trial?“Hillbilly Pedigree.” Former President Trump opened the Republican Party's national convention this week by announcing his new pick for Vice President: J.D. Vance, the first-term senator from Ohio, author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” and a one-time critic of Trump who has since become one of his most aggressive ideological allies, going even further than Trump on issues ranging from economic populism to opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine. What does his nomination mean for the race, for the Republican Party, and for the future of national security policy? For object lessons, Alan shared how he rediscovered his love of video games. Quinta brought us another update from the Garden State, regarding the conviction of its senior senator. Scott shared a great story from political history, about the origins of the weird relationship between Richard Nixon and NBA star Wilt Chamberlain. And Natalie endorsed her latest TV indulgence: the HBO show Hacks.Promotion: Use code RATIONALSECURITY at the link here to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: https://incogni.com/rationalsecurity.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett to talk through one of the most eventful weeks in national security news in recent history, including:“Too Close for Comfort.” Former President Trump narrowly avoided an assassination attempt this past weekend that ultimately left one rally-goer dead and two others critically wounded. While Trump and President Biden both made calls for national unity, several of Trump's close allies were quick to blame the Biden administration's rhetoric painting Trump as a threat to democracy. What will this historic event mean for the 2024 election—and for the rise in political violence and related rhetoric that's preceded it?“Cannon Fodder.” After months of glacial judicial proceedings, federal District Court Judge Aileen Cannon finally did what many of her critics had long expected and dismissed the special counsel's criminal case against former President Trump, based in large part on an aggressive reading of the Appointments Clause and narrow reading of the legislation allowing for the special counsel's appointment. How credible is her holding? And what will it mean for the future of the trial?“Hillbilly Pedigree.” Former President Trump opened the Republican Party's national convention this week by announcing his new pick for Vice President: J.D. Vance, the first-term senator from Ohio, author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” and a one-time critic of Trump who has since become one of his most aggressive ideological allies, going even further than Trump on issues ranging from economic populism to opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine. What does his nomination mean for the race, for the Republican Party, and for the future of national security policy? For object lessons, Alan shared how he rediscovered his love of video games. Quinta brought us another update from the Garden State, regarding the conviction of its senior senator. Scott shared a great story from political history, about the origins of the weird relationship between Richard Nixon and NBA star Wilt Chamberlain. And Natalie endorsed her latest TV indulgence: the HBO show Hacks.Promotion: Use code RATIONALSECURITY at the link here to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: https://incogni.com/rationalsecurity. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Monday's Mark Levin Show, the purposeful, relentless, coordinated effort to de-humanize President Trump had a predictable outcome, as we've feared. Will media executives take steps to deal with their on-air hosts and guests who use their platforms to invoke the worst kind of images and fears to incite hate? And what of the hideous political strategy and propaganda against Trump and his supporters? President Biden's speech from the Oval Office about unity was pathetic. Political through and through. He didn't take any responsibility for his central role in hatemongering and fear-mongering, the core of his campaign, rhetoric, and entire career. Where were all the good guys during the Trump rally? How does a 20-year-old evade the Secret Service, and local law enforcement, get to the rooftop and almost assassinate a former and hopefully future president? One of the people responsible starts at the top – the head of the Secret Service. Nobody ever gets fired in the bureaucracy. Afterward, MRC's Brent Bozell calls in to explain the out-of-control media's role in the attempted assassination of Trump. Also, the media is already trashing Trump's VP pick, JD Vance. Does the media forget when Kamala Harris all but called Biden a racist at the 1st Democrat debate in 2020 and later was the first Democrat to drop out? Nonetheless, Biden chose her as his vice president. All this talk that J.D. Vance was critical of Trump in the past (although he has been a big Trump supporter since and was endorsed by Trump for the Senate) doesn't matter. Later, Mark is joined by Landmark Legal Foundation's VP of Legal Affairs Mike O'Neill to discuss Judge Cannon's decision concluding that Jack Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and Smith's use of a permanent indefinite appropriation violates the Appropriations Clause. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

She did it! Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the Mar-a-Lago case. She bought Justice Clarence Thomas's drive-by concurrence in the immunity ruling saying Jack Smith was appointed unconstitutionally.Jack Smith has requested permission from Merrick Garland to appeal Cannon's ruling. Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ Brian Greer's Quick Guide to CIPAhttps://www.justsecurity.org/87134/the-quick-guide-to-cipa-classified-information-procedures-act/ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to know:Rule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

On July 15, Judge Cannon granted former President Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith for the alleged mishandling of classified documents. She found that Smith was appointed as a special counsel in violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.In a live podcast recording, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes talked to Lawfare Executive Editor Natalie Orpett, Legal Fellow and Courts Correspondent Anna Bower, Senior Editors Alan Rozenshtein and Quinta Jurecic, and Columbia Law professor Michel Paradis about Judge Cannon's decision, what Special Counsel Jack Smith may do next, how the Eleventh Circuit may rule on an appeal, how Justice Thomas's immunity concurrence plays a role, and more.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jace Lington chats with Jenn Mascott about Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the broader context of the debate surrounding the special counsel investigation of the former president. Notes: Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision in US v. Trump Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in […]

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we delve into a shocking yet somewhat unsurprising ruling from judge Aileen Cannon on the Mar-a-Lago case against former president Trump. On July 15th, Judge Cannon dismissed all charges related to Trump's unlawful retention of sensitive government documents, citing unconstitutional appointment of special counsel Jack Smith. Host Jessica Levinson takes us through the intricacies of the appointment clause of the constitution, Judge Cannon's legal reasoning, and the likely path forward, including a potential appeal to the 11th Circuit. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1️⃣ Dismissal of the Mar-a-Lago Case Against Trump: Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the federal case against former president Trump involving his retention of sensitive government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence. 2️⃣ Appointments Clause and Constitutionality: Judge Cannon's decision to dismiss the case was based on her interpretation of the Appointments Clause in the Constitution. 3️⃣ Potential Impact on Other Cases: The ruling could potentially affect the DC election interference case but does not impact state cases. Other federal judges, including Judge Chutkan in the DC case, have not made similar rulings regarding Jack Smith's appointment.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

In the 8 AM Hour: Larry O'Connor and Julie Gunlock discussed: WMAL GUEST: 8:05 AM - INTERVIEW - GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER - former Wisconsin governor – discussed the GOP Convention: J.D. Vance Is Trump's Choice for Vice President  What happened on the first day of the convention: Hung Cao to Speak at RNC Convention in Milwaukee Rachel Morin's family to attend Republican National Convention on Tuesday WMAL GUEST: 8:35 AM - CULLY STIMSON  - Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center, Manager, National Security Law Program, and Senior Legal Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President at the Heritage Foundation – discussed the Judge's ruling on Trump's classified docs case  CULLY'S PIECE: Federal Judge's Dismissal of Trump Classified Documents Case Appears to Be on Solid Constitutional Ground Judge dismisses Trump's Mar-a-Lago classified docs criminal case. Cannon, in a 93-page ruling, concluded that special counsel Jack Smith's  appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Smith  is likely to appeal the ruling. Trump's Florida case stunningly dismissed after judge finds appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution Kanye West's ex Amber Rose claims media ‘lied about Trump' as she takes to stage at RNC Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock, and @patricepinkfile.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / 8 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

WMAL GUEST: 8:35 AM - CULLY STIMSON  - Deputy Director, Edwin Meese III Center, Manager, National Security Law Program, and Senior Legal Fellow, Senior Advisor to the President at the Heritage Foundation – discussed the Judge's ruling on Trump's classified docs case  CULLY'S PIECE: Federal Judge's Dismissal of Trump Classified Documents Case Appears to Be on Solid Constitutional Ground Judge dismisses Trump's Mar-a-Lago classified docs criminal case. Cannon, in a 93-page ruling, concluded that special counsel Jack Smith's  appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Smith  is likely to appeal the ruling. Trump's Florida case stunningly dismissed after judge finds appointment of special counsel Jack Smith violated the Constitution Where to find more about WMAL's morning show:  Follow the Show Podcasts on Apple podcasts, Audible and Spotify. Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor,  @Jgunlock, and @patricepinkfile.  Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Show Website: https://www.wmal.com/oconnor-company/ How to listen live weekdays from 5 to 9 AM: https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/ Episode: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / 8 AM Hour  O'Connor and Company is proudly presented by Veritas AcademySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jace Lington chats with Jenn Mascott about Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the broader context of the debate surrounding the special counsel investigation of the former president.Notes:Judge Aileen Cannon's decision in US v. TrumpJustice Thomas's concurring opinion in Trump v. USJenn Mascott's Stanford Law Review article on the Appointments Clause

Jeremy Rosenthal, founder of the TexasDefenseFirm.com, joined The WBAP Morning News. A judge in Florida has dismissed the case against former President Trump's handling of classified documents. The 37 federal counts were dismissed because Special Counsel Smith's appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution. Could this be refiled or is this over? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In a major ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday granted former President Donald Trump's request to dismiss his classified documents case. She ruled that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unlawful under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. The Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee Monday, where former President Trump is expected to formally accept the Republican nomination for president. The former president said he has rewritten his speech for the convention following Saturday's assassination attempt. U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said the agency will “participate fully” in an investigation into the assassination attempt on former President Trump and work with Congress on “any oversight action.” She expressed confidence in the agency's security plan for the Republican National Convention. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

In a major ruling, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday granted former President Donald Trump's request to dismiss his classified documents case. She ruled that the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith was unlawful under the Constitution's Appointments Clause.The Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee Monday, where former President Trump is expected to formally accept the Republican nomination for president. The former president said he has rewritten his speech for the convention following Saturday's assassination attempt.U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle said the agency will “participate fully” in an investigation into the assassination attempt on former President Trump and work with Congress on “any oversight action.” She expressed confidence in the agency's security plan for the Republican National Convention.

Administrative Law: Are members of "Fishery Management Councils" principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause? - Argued: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 9:40:21 EDT

On todays Show we've got a Supreme Court case brewing that's spicier than a jalapeño pizza. Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to prosecute former President Donald Trump, is at the center of a legal circus. Some folks are questioning if he was appointed properly, and whether he's a principal or an inferior officer. It's like a legal version of "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" but with more robes and less Jeff Foxworthy.   The Appointments Clause is getting more attention than the latest TikTok dance craze, and everyone's wondering if the Supreme Court will actually make a ruling or just pass the hot potato back to the lower courts. You know, because it's not like they have anything better to do, like, I don't know, maybe watch "The Bachelor" or something.   Meanwhile, the gang's all here: presidential immunity, impeachment proceedings, election integrity, media bias, gun rights, student loan forgiveness – it's like a political potluck. And let's not forget the potential oral arguments, which I'm sure will be as entertaining as a stand-up comedy show at a retirement home.   So buckle up, folks! It's going to be a wild ride. And remember, no matter what the Supreme Court decides, at least we can all agree that pineapple on pizza is a crime against humanity. Don't miss this Special podcast!

Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcast

Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcast

Former President Donald Trump has proposed multiple arguments stating the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was not conducted properly. As of Thursday, his legal representatives have initiated several motions to push for the dismissal of this federal lawsuit. This case pertains to allegations made against Trump that he illegally retained classified documents after his term of office wrapped up in January 2021, while hindering the federal government from securing these materials. Trump's determined defense vehemently denies the total of 40 charges leveled against him, sticking firm in his claim of innocence. One of the defenses presented by Trump's attorneys is the assertion that Trump can rightfully seek absolute immunity. Additional arguments put forth by the legal representation hinge on the belief that the Presidential Records Act sanctions Trump's decision to hold onto these documents post-presidency, as these were classified as his possessions during his term in office. These detailed presentations further clarify that the former President's legal team continues to raise objections to his riddled session and later charges, but all fall within legal boundaries. The documents filed by Trump's legal team underscore that an earlier objection raised had pointed out a significant dilemma that is directly connected to the Appointments and Appropriations clause. The argument suggests that the Appointments Clause does not allow for the Attorney General to assign a like-minded ally, who is a private citizen, to exercise the United States' prosecutorial power without confirmation by the Senate. As such, they reason that Jack Smith has no jurisdiction to prosecute in this case.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Administrative Law: Is a technically private self-regulatory body that operates under the oversight of the SEC subject to the Appointments Clause? - Argued: Thu, 08 Feb 2024 15:15:15 EDT

SummaryThe conversation covers various topics related to the legal challenges faced by former President Trump and the decline of mainstream media. The chapters include an introduction and discussion of the election process, the use of insurrection and political lawfare, the 14th Amendment and disqualification of President Trump, the implications of a Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor, the razor wire incident and federal law, the challenge to Jack Smith as a special prosecutor, the decline of mainstream media and the rise of alternative sources, and a discussion on Daniel R. Street's books. The conversation explores the lack of skepticism and critical thinking in society, particularly in relation to news consumption. It highlights the need for individuals to question and dig deeper into information rather than accepting it at face value. The discussion then shifts to the spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the importance of discerning reliable sources and questioning official narratives. The impact of technology on curiosity and attention span is also examined, with the Xbox 360 generation being described as having a reduced attention span and a constant need for stimulus. The challenges in seeking the truth and the role of education are discussed, highlighting the importance of critical reading and analysis. The conversation concludes with appreciation for the guest's insights and the recommendation to follow his work on Substack.TakeawaysThe legal challenges against former President Trump are politically motivated and lack evidence of insurrection or incitement.The United States Supreme Court is likely to reverse the decisions made under the 14th Amendment and put an end to the legal challenges against Trump.The use of razor wire at the border by Texas is a state law matter and not subject to federal interference.The appointment of Jack Smith as a special prosecutor is being challenged on the grounds of the Appointments Clause.Mainstream media is experiencing a decline in credibility and influence, while alternative sources of information are gaining popularity.Chapters00:00Introduction and Discussion of Election Process03:00The Use of Insurrection and Political Lawfare06:00The 14th Amendment and Disqualification of President Trump10:00Implications of Supreme Court Ruling on Trump's Favor14:00The Razor Wire Incident and Federal Law20:00Challenge to Jack Smith as Special Prosecutor25:00Decline of Mainstream Media and Rise of Alternative Sources36:00Impact of Fake News and Misinformation45:00Discussion on Daniel R. Street's Books46:30Lack of Skepticism and Critical Thinking47:43Misinformation during COVID-1948:39Impact of Technology on Curiosity and Attention Span50:04Challenges in Seeking the Truth51:16Conclusion and AppreciationSupport the show"Wherever you find yourself is exactly and precisely where God wills you to be" Follow us on X: @CFC30290 Follow us on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-3123766 Website: https://clarityfromchaospodcast.buzzsprout.com/ Thanks for listening to Clarity from Chaos

Trump's defense filed their brief opposing Jack Smith's petition in the Supreme Court, arguing the appeals process should proceed in the ordinary course through the Court of Appeals. Still racing against the clock, Jack Smith's prosecutors replied urging the Court to hear the case and return the case to the trial track before the election in November.Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese submits a brief to the Supreme Court arguing Jack Smith was illegally appointed as "Special Counsel" and the prosecution against Trump is invalid. Citing the Appointments Clause, Meese argues that Garland overstepped his authority and the entire Special Counsel's office should be considered disqualified.Trump objects to Jack Smith's request to use a jury questionnaire in the Florida classified documents case, arguing the case is no where near ready for jury selection. Trump's defense asks Judge Cannon to order Jack Smith to stick to the previously ordered schedule and to stop wasting the Court's resources.

#BESTOF2021: The Constitution and the Removal Debate.  @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst https://www.hoover.org/research/bidens-latest-firings-are-unjustified "At this point, it is important to address the possible constitutional provisions that might give the president the power to dismiss individuals at will. That discussion begins with the so-called Appointments Clause in Article II, which applies to two kinds of public officers. First are principal officers of the United States, including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and most other federal judges. Their appointments require Senate confirmation. The secondary category includes so-called “inferior officers,” over whom Congress has discretion to insist on Senate confirmation or, alternatively, to allow these appointments to be made without Senate confirmation by the president, the judiciary, or the heads of departments." —Richard A Epstein 1909 White House

Administrative Law: Do SEC adjudications violate the Appointments Clause, Non-Delegation Doctrine, and Seventh Amendment? - Argued: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:10:44 EDT

#Bestof2021: The Removal debate.  @RichardAEpstein @HooverInst https://www.hoover.org/research/bidens-latest-firings-are-unjustified "At this point, it is important to address the possible constitutional provisions that might give the president the power to dismiss individuals at will. That discussion begins with the so-called Appointments Clause in Article II, which applies to two kinds of public officers. First are principal officers of the United States, including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and most other federal judges. Their appointments require Senate confirmation. The secondary category includes so-called “inferior officers,” over whom Congress has discretion to insist on Senate confirmation or, alternatively, to allow these appointments to be made without Senate confirmation by the president, the judiciary, or the heads of departments." —Richard A Epstein 1883 the Clevelands

Chen v. Garland, No. 19-715 (2d Cir. July 25, 2023) credibility; probative omission; trivial inconsistency; no requirement to list all persecution in asylum statement; supplemental rather than inconsistent; cultural context; totality of circumstances; de minimus inconsistency  Amador Duenas v. Garland, No. 18-71987 (9th Cir. July 27, 2023) Constitutionality of BIA members; Appointments Clause; Principal Officers; Inferior Officers  Diaz Mejia v. Garland, No. 21-2088 (7th Cir. July 27, 2023) failure to exhaust; waiver of argument  Cela v. Garland, No. 22-1322 (4th Cir. July 28, 2023) INA § 209 adjustment of status; asylee vs. refugee; termination of asylum status; Chevron deference; Matter of T-C-A-; statutory interpretation  Bouarfa v. DHS, No. 22-12429 (11th Cir. July 28, 2023) INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii); revocation of I-130 petition; INA § 204(c); discretion; jurisdiction  Clement v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 21-13382 (11th Cir. July 28, 2023)  forfeiture of judicial review; derivate citizenship; Equal Protection; final order; motion to withdraw appeal; Ng Fung Ho; waiver of constitutional right  Bekhbat v. Garland, No. 22-2379 (8th Cir. July 27, 2023) motion to reconsider; administrative closure; automatic termination of voluntary departure Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Joorney Business Plans"Business-critical documents for every stage of your journey"For 30% off use code: REVJOORNEY30  Capital Good Fund"A social change organization that uses financial services to tackle poverty in America."CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

National Security: Is the Convening Authority for Military Commissions a principal officer under the Appointments Clause? - Argued: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 13:48:41 EDT

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #Bestof2021: To be continued: The Constitution and the Removal Debate.  @RichardAEpstein (Originally posted October 21, 2021) https://www.hoover.org/research/bidens-latest-firings-are-unjustified "At this point, it is important to address the possible constitutional provisions that might give the president the power to dismiss individuals at will. That discussion begins with the so-called Appointments Clause in Article II, which applies to two kinds of public officers. First are principal officers of the United States, including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and most other federal judges. Their appointments require Senate confirmation. The secondary category includes so-called “inferior officers,” over whom Congress has discretion to insist on Senate confirmation or, alternatively, to allow these appointments to be made without Senate confirmation by the president, the judiciary, or the heads of departments." —Richard A Epstein

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected.Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. Tune in to hear a breakdown of the oral argument.

On November 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Michelle Cochran v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In April 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) brought an enforcement action against Michelle Cochran, a certified public accountant, alleging that she had failed to comply with federal auditing standards. A SEC administrative law judge (ALJ) determined Cochran had violated federal law, fined her $22,500, and banned her from practicing before the SEC for five years. The SEC adopted the ALJ's decision, and Cochran objected. Before the SEC could rule on Cochran's objection, the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC, in which it held that SEC ALJs are officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause, who must be appointed by the President, a court of law, or a department head. In response to the Lucia ruling, the SEC remanded all pending administrative cases for new proceedings before constitutionally appointed ALJs, including Cochran's. Cochran filed a federal lawsuit arguing that while Lucia may have addressed one constitutional issue with ALJs, it left uncorrected another problem: because SEC ALJs enjoy multiple layers of "for-cause" removal protection, they are unconstitutionally insulated from the President's Article II removal power. The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on five circuit courts of appeal ruling that the Exchange Act implicitly stripped district courts of the jurisdiction to hear challenges to ongoing SEC enforcement proceedings. Arguing that in 2010, the Supreme Court had unanimously ruled in Free Enterprise Fund that nothing in the Exchange Act stripped federal court jurisdiction either explicitly, or implicitly, Cochran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A three judge panel affirmed the dismissal 2-1, but later, the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, reversed 9-7, holding that Cochran had district court jurisdiction to bring her challenge to the SEC ALJ's removal protections. The case is set to be argued on Nov 7, 2022. We will break down the oral argument for this case on the next day, November 8, 2022. Featuring:--Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance

Join Prof. Steve Vladeck (U-Texas) & Prof. Jenn Mascott who discuss Prof. Mascott’s amicus brief in Nordlicht v. U.S. (21-1319), distributed for the Court’s 9/28 conference this week, that addresses Blackstone, Rule 33 motions, and a deep circuit split & Prof. Vladeck’s recently filed petition in Donziger v U.S. (22-274), addressing the Appointments Clause, special prosecutors, and a split Second Circuit decision dividing two President Trump-appointed […]

Join Prof. Steve Vladeck (U-Texas) & Prof. Jenn Mascott who discuss Prof. Mascott's amicus brief in Nordlicht v. U.S. (21-1319), distributed for the Court's 9/28 conference this week, that addresses Blackstone, Rule 33 motions, and a deep circuit split & Prof. Vladeck's recently filed petition in Donziger v U.S. (22-274), addressing the Appointments Clause, special prosecutors, and a split Second... Source

Join Prof. Steve Vladeck (U-Texas) & Prof. Jenn Mascott who discuss Prof. Mascott’s amicus brief in Nordlicht v. U.S. (21-1319), distributed for the Court’s 9/28 conference this week, that addresses Blackstone, Rule 33 motions, and a deep circuit split & Prof. Vladeck’s recently filed petition in Donziger v U.S. (22-274), addressing the Appointments Clause, special prosecutors, and a split Second... Source

Patent law and administrative law intersect in this case that raises a question about the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Patent law and administrative law intersect in this case that raises a question about the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Photo:  The US Constitution. The Constitution and the Removal Debate.  @RichardAEpstein https://www.hoover.org/research/bidens-latest-firings-are-unjustified "At this point, it is important to address the possible constitutional provisions that might give the president the power to dismiss individuals at will. That discussion begins with the so-called Appointments Clause in Article II, which applies to two kinds of public officers. First are principal officers of the United States, including cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, Supreme Court justices, and most other federal judges. Their appointments require Senate confirmation. The secondary category includes so-called “inferior officers,” over whom Congress has discretion to insist on Senate confirmation or, alternatively, to allow these appointments to be made without Senate confirmation by the president, the judiciary, or the heads of departments." —Richard A Epstein

In this episode of the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: Intellectual Property podcast, attorneys Drew DeVoogd and Dan Weinger break down the recent Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, where the Court found that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are hired in violation of the Appointments Clause, and crafted a new structure for the PTAB. The Arthrex case has far reaching implications not just in patent law, but across the administrative bodies of the federal government. Drew and Dan discuss the following in this episode: • The atypical breakdown of concurrences and dissents • Choices the Court could have made but did not • Effects Arthrex may have on government generally and the future of the PTAB