Podcasts about argued

Send us your voice memo questions, thoughts or advice requests at the BLT Hotline: loveyouboys@bltpod.comB.L.T features Blake Pavey, Luke Kidgell & Tyler Cahill. New Episode Every Wednesday.Blake Pavey's Tour:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://blakepavey.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Luke Kidgells Tour:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://www.lukekidgell.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Tyler Cahill's music:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ https://linktr.ee/BlankFaceMelb⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

guest host Heidi Harris argued that the U.S. is not winning in Iran because Donald Trump underestimations of the enemy and misunderstanding of Iranian strategic motivations. These topics were discussed during the second hour of the program, specifically within segments five and six.

During the third hour of The Charlie James Show on Monday, June 8, 2026, guest host Heidi Harris examined domestic and strategic angles of the conflict with Iran before transitioning to local politics. Harris began by analyzing the stark political divide over the war, noting that Donald Trump's base defends the military efforts while the left condemns his actions. She then reiterated her stance that the U.S. is not winning the Iran war because Trump fundamentally misunderstands the enemy, a point that sparked listener call-ins focused on the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz. The hour concluded with a shift to local affairs, featuring an interview with Joe Deal, a candidate running for Greenville County Council District 17.

In a recorded jailhouse call, Richard Allen asked his own father how much longer he could stay lucid. That call was excluded from trial. The jury that convicted him on a 130-year sentence never heard it. But three judges at the Indiana Court of Appeals are now reading the full record — including the calls the jury didn't get and the confessions that don't match the forensic evidence.Allen told a prison psychiatrist he shot Abby Williams and Libby German. The medical examiner determined they were killed with a blade. The State played one jailhouse call for the jury and excluded two others. The voluntariness of Allen's statements is now a question three judges have to answer, and the excluded calls speak directly to his mental state when those statements were made.Defense attorney Bob Motta joins Tony Brueski to walk through what the selective admission of Allen's calls means at the appellate level. He also addresses the alternative suspect whose interview was allegedly recorded over by investigators — weapon never collected, phone never searched — and the van timeline the defense says FBI cell data and surveillance footage contradict.Indiana's response brief met most of these challenges with procedural objections rather than factual engagement. Filed wrong. Argued too late. Harmless error. The defense has formally requested oral arguments. Indiana has not. Meanwhile, the search warrant that produced the .40-caliber pistol faces de novo review — no deference owed to the trial judge. If it fails, the weapon is gone from any future proceeding.Allen sits in an Oklahoma prison more than a thousand miles from Indiana. Three judges are reading. A decision is coming.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #DelphiAppeal #AbbyAndLibby #BobMotta #IndianaCourtOfAppeals #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #JailhouseCalls #HarmlessError

The Delphi defense identified an alternative suspect. According to the appeal, that suspect's interview was recorded over by investigators. His weapon was never collected. His phone was never searched. Those aren't things that happen by accident in a case where two girls were found dead and a community spent years waiting for answers. And now three judges at the Indiana Court of Appeals are looking at the full record — including what investigators did and didn't do with the leads that didn't point toward Richard Allen.Defense attorney Bob Motta walks through the significance of the recorded-over interview with Tony Brueski. He explains why it lands harder in an appeal than it did at trial — because the appellate standard asks whether the outcome was reliable, and investigative gaps that were hand-waved in front of a jury look different when judges are reading transcripts and measuring the record against constitutional standards.Motta also gets into the confession problem. Allen told a prison psychiatrist he shot the victims. The medical examiner said they were killed with a blade. The State is relying on confessions that don't match the forensic evidence, from a man whose own jailhouse call to his father — asking how much longer he could stay lucid — was excluded from the jury.Indiana's response brief answered most of the defense's factual challenges with procedural objections, not substantive ones. Filed wrong. Argued too late. The defense has now requested oral arguments. Indiana hasn't. If the search warrant fails under the de novo review, the .40-caliber pistol is gone from the case permanently. Three judges are sitting on the full record. A decision is coming.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #DelphiAppeal #IndianaCourtOfAppeals #AbbyAndLibby #BobMotta #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #AlternativeSuspect #SearchWarrant

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.ryandawson.orgFull music video for paid subscribers. ALL music videos for PrimeLol at these noobs talking about “ow IQ antisemitism.” This coming from the idiot who thinks dinosaurs lived with people, who supported super Zionist Laura Loomer for congress, thinks the US should have a Catholic monarchy and praised Hitler, Stalin and Epstein. Argued adults f*****g 14 ye…

Episode 51: Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of JusticePerkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and Judge Neomi Rao of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026. Argued by Paul Clement (on behalf of the Law Firm Appellees), Abbe Lowell (on behalf of Appellee Mark Zaid), and Abhishek Kambli (on behalf of the federal government).Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP:  One year ago, the President did something no other president had done before: issue an executive order declaring a law firm whose clients and representations he dislikes “dishonest and dangerous” and deploying the levers of federal power to try to put the firm out of business. That was a perilous moment for appellee Perkins, the legal profession, and the rule of law. Nine law firms, cowed by the threat of firm-ending sanctions, “settled” with the President. But Perkins, followed by Jenner, WilmerHale, and Susman, sued to defend themselves and their clients. Four different district judges recognized the President's executive orders for what they are: shocking abuses of power that trample the constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients. This Court should recognize the same.The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Yet here, the President did not hide his intent to punish Perkins for its expression and that of its clients. He openly declared that he targeted Perkins because it represented his “failed” opponent in the 2016 election, challenged election laws alongside so-called “activist donors,” and brought purportedly “partisan lawsuits,” including “against the Trump Administration.” The President designed the Order to do more than just damage Perkins; he intended to intimidate the bar into submission.Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid: The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am. v. Vullo. This case concerns an unconstitutional policy enacted to do just that. Shortly after taking office, the President issued a memorandum (the Presidential Memorandum) targeting the security clearances of a sprawling group of his perceived enemies, their lawyers, and their family members. As interpreted by the relevant agencies, the Presidential Memorandum constituted a directive to disregard then-existing procedures and institute a blanket revocation of the security clearances of those it named. Appellant Mark S. Zaid, an attorney who has represented government whistleblowers, is among those whose clearances were revoked...Rather than contesting whether they retaliated against Mr. Zaid or deprived him of the processes to which he was entitled under the applicable regulations, Appellants double down on the extraordinary position that their unlawful actions are entirely insulated from judicial review.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP:  Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment Whether Perkins is entitled to summary judgment on the additional ground (raised but not reached below) that Sections 1, 3, and 5 violate the separation of powers.Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid:  Whether a court may review a policy providing for the revocation of a group of security clearances without process or individualized review.Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction.Resources:    Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLPBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings for the law firms' cases)Brief of Appellee Mark ZaidBrief for the Government AppellantsCourtListener Docket (includes all filings in the appeal of Mark Zaid v. Executive Office of the President)

Description: The trial is over. The conviction is on paper. And yet, inside that courtroom at sentencing, Kouri Richins' defense team argued as if the fight was nowhere close to finished.Defense attorney Wendy Lewis opened by addressing what the court couldn't ignore — the absence of remorse. Her answer was direct: Richins can't express remorse for something she maintains she didn't do. Lewis also told the judge this was the first time in her career that she'd watched a client she genuinely believed to be innocent walk out of a courtroom convicted. Whether that lands as heartfelt conviction or strategic positioning, it was a moment that stopped the room.The defense's sharpest shots were aimed at the prosecution's sentencing memorandum. Lewis and Nester called it a "character assassination" — an attempt to define Richins through information that was never tested at trial. Lewis pushed back hard: sentence her on the convictions, not on a narrative the state built outside of evidence. "They do not know Kouri Richins," she said. Attorney Nester echoed that, asking the judge to look at who Richins actually is — not the monster portrayed by both the prosecution and the victim's family.The defense made a pointed statistical argument against life without parole. Of the 72 people serving that sentence in Utah, only five killed a spouse. Lewis argued the maximum penalty is reserved for serial killers and child murderers, not this case, and that the state's trial evidence never reached the threshold required to justify it.Richins' mother wrote a letter, read aloud in court, calling her daughter incapable of murder and asking — from one mother to anyone listening — for a sentence that includes the possibility of parole.Attorney Nester confirmed the defense intends to appeal. So no, this isn't over. Not by a long shot.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#KouriRichins #Sentencing #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #UtahCrime #FentanylMurder #CourtTV #TrueCrimeCommunity #CriminalJustice #JusticeForEric

Episode 50: The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue ServiceThe Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service, argued before Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Chad A. Readler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan (on behalf of The Buckeye Institute) and Michael Weisbuch (on behalf of the federal government). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech website:  The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a tax law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities disclose the private information of their largest donors each year. Represented by attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech and its own attorneys, Buckeye's lawsuit says the law violates the First Amendment and the requirement chills free speech and association. The IRS has admitted that it does not need these donor records, and it issued a rule in 2020 to stop collecting the same from other tax-exempt groups that are not classified as section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities. The agency noted in that 2020 rulemaking that its collection of this sensitive personal data on Form 990 Schedule B “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure” of private, non-public information. Even though the IRS has stated in similar contexts that it would prefer not to collect this information from charities, federal law requires doing so for 501(c)(3)s.  The lawsuit claims that Buckeye's work “would be significantly damaged” if it could not maintain the confidentiality of its donor relationships, as Buckeye's supporters “risk retribution from some who oppose its mission.” The recent leak to ProPublica of “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands” of individual taxpayers and other IRS leaks understandably give financial supporters of certain charities, including Buckeye, justified pause...A special procedure in federal law allows federal appellate courts to review a ruling before the case is decided. That's the situation in this appeal. The government disagreed with Judge Watson's ruling that exacting scrutiny applied, and asked the appeals court for permission to review his opinion. Both Judge Watson and the Sixth Circuit granted the request for review. Statement of Issues, from the Appellee's Brief:Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)'s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.”Whether the Court can enter judgment against the plaintiff-appellee, determining that § 6033(b)(5) does not violate the First Amendment, without affording the plaintiff-appellee an opportunity for discovery or factual development. Resources:    Institute for Free Speech case page (contains all documents)Opening Brief for the AppellantAppellee's BriefSixth Circuit Order Granting the Petition for Interlocutory ReviewInstitute for Free Speech Blog Post, “Court: IRS Donor Disclosure Law Must Overcome Exacting Scrutiny”The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

During the first hour of the April 27, 2026, broadcast, Charlie James argued that the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner serves as definitive proof that radical left ideology and rhetoric have become dangerously violent and normalized. He detailed how suspect Cole Tomas Allen exploited security gaps by checking into a hotel room as a registered guest, allowing him to bypass external checkpoints with multiple weapons. James also took aim at "liberal teachers" who he claims are lamenting the suspect's failure rather than condemning the violence, further fueling a toxic political climate. Finally, the segment questioned how Allen knew exactly where to strike, noting that while the event is an annual tradition, the suspect likely targeted the Hilton because it was a matter of public record that the President and political elite would be gathered in the ballroom that night.

From the beginning of creation, to when He walked among us, to where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, Jesus has gone by many names: King of Kings, Emmanuel, Lion of Judah, Prince of Peace, Savior, Lamb of God, Redeemer.People have talked about Him for thousands of years.Preached about Him.Debated Him.Argued over Him.But after all of that, one question still remains:Do we actually know who Jesus is?--------Sign up for Pillars: A 12 Week Discipleship JourneyBuilding Saints who are STRONG, SMART, and STABLE.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/pillars⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠--------Text the We Are One Hotline for prayer needs and all things We Are One: 844-641-8147For bibles, prayer requests, giving, and more, click the link below to get connected!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/fam⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you just accepted Jesus, if you have a prayer request, or you want to know more about us, CLICK THIS LINK! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/fam⁠⁠

Send us Fan MailIn this episode we was meant to do an Underrated or Overrated episode about recently retired former Arsenal player Aaron Ramsey, But we just ended up arguing over football instead and decided to release it as an episode....I blame Ball And Banter members Cig and Wingz personally!Support the showBall And Banter Website:https://ballandbanter.buzzsprout.comBall And Banter Instagram Page:https://Instagram.com/ball_and_banterBall And Banter YouTube channel:https://youtube.com/channel/UC_d9jnnTdxAoReNZUkW8xDw

Episode 48: Media Matters for America (MMFA) v. Federal Trade Commission Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, argued before Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins, and Gregory G. Katsas of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 13, 2026. Argued by Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky (on behalf of Media Matters of America) and H. Thomas Byron, III (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission).Case Summary, adapted from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee Media Matters:When Elon Musk purchased X, he modified the rules about violent posts and misinformation, laid off staff responsible for moderating the site, and reinstated accounts of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. As a result, MMFA alleged that extremist content surged.MMFA is a nonprofit media watchdog that chronicled what it described as the increasingly disturbing content on X. In November 2023, one of Media Matters' articles about X went viral. It claimed advertisements for some companies, including Apple and IBM, were still appearing alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content.The article struck a nerve and, along with other reporting about X, has made MMFA a target for Musk and his allies, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who blamed the organization for advertisers leaving the site. Musk immediately vowed to bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against MMFA.Musk's company also filed suit in the Northern District of Texas—not in California, as required by X's terms of service. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller—today, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate MMFA for its speech. In response, Texas and Missouri issued intrusive document demands to MMFA.The district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC investigation of MMFA, finding that it violated the First Amendment. The FTC appealed.Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee MMFA:Whether the district court had jurisdiction.Whether Media Matters has a cause of action.Whether the FTC forfeited its exhaustion argument.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding retaliation.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the CID would deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking.Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the equities. Resources:    Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee – Media Matters for AmericaBrief for the Appellants – Federal Trade Commission, et al.CourtListener DocketDistrict Court Opinion Granting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

From the beginning of creation, to when He walked among us, to where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, Jesus has gone by many names: King of Kings, Emmanuel, Lion of Judah, Prince of Peace, Savior, Lamb of God, Redeemer.People have talked about Him for thousands of years.Preached about Him.Debated Him.Argued over Him.But after all of that, one question still remains:Do we actually know who Jesus is?--------Sign up for Pillars: A 12 Week Discipleship JourneyBuilding Saints who are STRONG, SMART, and STABLE.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/pillars⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠--------Text the We Are One Hotline for prayer needs and all things We Are One: 844-641-8147For bibles, prayer requests, giving, and more, click the link below to get connected!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/fam⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you just accepted Jesus, if you have a prayer request, or you want to know more about us, CLICK THIS LINK! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/fam⁠⁠

Episode 47: Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al.Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. argued en banc before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2026. Argued by Jack Bartholet (on behalf of Brian Hussey) and Robert M. Loeb (on behalf of the City of Cambridge officials).  Case Summary, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: “This case raises fundamental questions about a state employee's right as a citizen to speak out on pending federal legislation — on his own time, at home, via his own private Facebook page, and in a manner that caused no disruption in the eight days before the post came to the attention of his superiors and two months before his suspension — under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…Plaintiff Brian Hussey is a veteran police officer (and now Sergeant) who is a lifelong resident of the City of Cambridge… “In February 2021, Hussey re-posted a WHDH news article on his private Facebook page. The article, entitled “House Democrats reintroduce police reform bill named in honor of George Floyd,” referenced proposed federal legislation on police reform —H.R. 7120, titled the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.” Hussey, believing that naming this landmark legislation after someone who had a long criminal and drug history was inappropriate, posted a comment along with the article's link (featuring a preview that included its headline), writing, “This is what its come to ‘honoring' a career criminal, a thief and druggie … the future of this country is bleak at best.”  “Hussey did not identify himself as a Cambridge police officer on his Facebook page or in the post, nor did the post in any way reference his position with the police department…The Department then placed Officer Hussey on administrative leave for approximately two months while they investigated…and ultimately issued him a four-day suspension.”   Statement of the Issue, from the Appellants' Opening Brief:  Whether the District Court incorrectly applied the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) by determining that the City of Cambridge's interest in suppressing plaintiff`s speech on a clear matter of public concern based on its distaste for the speech without any evidence of disruption in operations outweighed the interest of Plaintiff and the public at large in free expression and robust public debate.Resources:    Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Defendants-Appellees' Brief Appellees' En Banc Brief  Appellants' En Banc Supplemental Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

From the beginning of creation, to when He walked among us, to where He now sits at the right hand of the Father, Jesus has gone by many names: King of Kings, Emmanuel, Lion of Judah, Prince of Peace, Savior, Lamb of God, Redeemer.People have talked about Him for thousands of years.Preached about Him.Debated Him.Argued over Him.But after all of that, one question still remains:Do we actually know who Jesus is?--------Sign up for Pillars: A 12 Week Discipleship JourneyBuilding Saints who are STRONG, SMART, and STABLE.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/pillars⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠--------Text the We Are One Hotline for prayer needs and all things We Are One: 844-641-8147For bibles, prayer requests, giving, and more, click the link below to get connected!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/fam⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠If you just accepted Jesus, if you have a prayer request, or you want to know more about us, CLICK THIS LINK! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://weareoneyouth.com/fam⁠⁠

'WE ARGUED, HE CALLED ME A FAT B*****' -SHANE FURY NOT HOLDING BACK ON BROTHER TYSON, JOSHUA, ITAUMA Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Department of Defense filed a 40-page rebuttal in federal court yesterday arguing that Anthropic might secretly disable or alter Claude AI during active warfighting operations. No evidence was cited. No investigation was conducted. No incident occurred. Meanwhile, Anthropic's annualized revenue crossed $19 billion — nearly triple what it was at the end of last year. One source told Fortune the most recent weekly run rate extrapolates closer to $30 billion annualized. The government tried to punish them. The market rewarded them. Here is what else happened this week that matters for your business: OpenAI rolled out GPT-5.4 Mini and Nano to free users. The best model from six months ago is now the free tier. When intelligence becomes a commodity, the differentiator is what you BUILD with it. Jensen Huang projected $1 trillion in Nvidia chip purchase orders through 2027, doubling last year's forecast on stage at GTC. The new Vera Rubin platform is built specifically for inference — running AI at scale — not training. The money is shifting from building models to deploying them. 19 out of 20 AI-funded candidates won recent primary elections. AI companies are not just building products. They are shaping the political environment they operate in. And Anthropic published the largest qualitative AI user study ever conducted — 81,000 participants across 159 countries. The finding that should stop every business leader: people do not want AI to make them more productive. They want AI to give them their time back. That is the real use case. That is the business opportunity hiding in plain sight. If you are a business owner, the gap between companies that deploy AI and companies that do not is about to become structural. Not a competitive disadvantage you can overcome by working harder. A permanent gap. I deploy AI voice agents, automated follow-up systems, and CRM infrastructure for businesses every day. The cost of entry is a few hundred dollars a month. The cost of waiting is measured in lost transactions and lost years. Full episode breakdown: https://youtu.be/9sU8S6dodOg 

Gio returned from his golf trip a day late following airport delays, leading into a discussion on Team USA facing Venezuela in the World Baseball Classic championship tonight. Gio argued the event lacks Olympic-level intensity due to MLB pitch counts, followed by news on CBS and the NFL renegotiating their TV deal. Jerry's update featured Venezuela's win over Italy, Carlos Mendoza's mixed feelings on Nolan McLean starting, and Chris Russo's critique of the WBC being on FS1. After hearing from Rick Pitino ahead of the tournament, the hour closed with Gio noticing a garlic scent in the studio.

Episode 46: Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. argued before Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy, and Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on March 17, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller (on behalf of Utah Political Watch) and Daniel Vitagliano (on behalf of Utah legislative officials).   Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: Bryan Schott, a journalist with 25 years of experience covering Utah politics, is fighting back after being denied press credentials under a newly revised policy that appears designed to silence independent reporting. Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed suit on behalf of Schott and his outlet, Utah Political Watch (UPW), against Utah legislative officials who denied Schott's application for press credentials. The denial came after the Utah Legislature changed its credentialing rules in November 2024 to exclude “blogs, independent media outlets or freelance media,” a change made just weeks after Schott inquired about obtaining credentials for the 2025 session.  Despite receiving press credentials every year they were offered since at least 2013, Schott, a recipient of the National Press Foundation's Election Journalism Fellowship and Utah's Best Newspaper Reporter award, was denied access for the 2025 legislative session. The denial followed Schott's hard-hitting coverage of Senate President Stuart Adams. Schott was blocked from covering key events, including the House GOP's legislative priorities announcement and the governor's monthly press conference. Additionally, without credentials, he cannot attend the legislative session itself or daily leadership meetings, participate in Friday media availabilities with the Speaker, or access areas of the Capitol reserved for press coverage. Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants' Opening Brief: Are any of the following allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging First Amendment violations for viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, prior restraint and unconstitutional vagueness?  A government media credentialing policy that expressly excludes “independent media” from receiving media credentials constitutes viewpoint discrimination against independent voices;  A media credentialing policy that uses subjective and vague terms such as “established reputable news organization,” and “blogs, independent media and other freelance media” affords too much discretion to government officials issuing credentials;  Government officials apply criteria not included in the written credentialing policy, including requiring institutional ownership and editorial control; or,   A media credentialing policy was revised and applied inconsistently to deny credentials and access to a single reporter who had gotten under the skin of elected officials. Should a preliminary injunction issue to prevent the defendants from denying media credentials based on the viewpoint expressed? Resources:    Appellants' Opening Brief Appellees' Response Brief Our Client's Story blog Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Arthur Herman discusses the Scottish Enlightenment and the philosophical origins of "common sense," highlighting the influence of Thomas Reid, who argued that all humans share a basic set of perceptions that allow for shared judgments and the construction of relationships.

Today's story follows our familiar friends, the Fox and Crocodile. When the two new friends have a disagreement, their friend, the Butterfly, helps them forgive each other. Narrated By: Thomas JonesWritten By: Laila WeirWelcome to Snuggle! The best kid's story-telling podcast. Enter a cozy world of imagination perfect for bedtime, quiet time, or any time you want to embark on an enchanting adventure. Our cozy stories present a wide selection of calming tales for not just kids and toddlers, but for the whole family too! Enjoy some relaxing family time every day, when the children can parents can snuggle up together and venture into imaginative worlds, fairy tales, and other heartwarming stories. Develop deeper connections when you make Snuggle stories a routine at bedtime or anytime!Learn more at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠slumberstudios.com/snuggle⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠To enjoy ad-free listening and exclusive bonus episodes, start your 7-day free trial of Snuggle Premium: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://snuggle.supercast.com/⁠

Justice Scalia and the Unitary Executive Theory. Reflecting on Justice Antonin Scalia's legacy, Professor John Yoodetails the concept of the unitary executive. Scalia powerfully argued that the Constitution vests all executive power directly in the president, warning that independent agencies fragment federal authority, diminish democratic accountability, and disrupt the essential separation of powers. #151910 BOOK OF MINES

Guest: Michael Vorenberg. Vorenberg discusses Richard Henry Dana's "Grasp of War" speech, which argued the war could not end until the victor secured guarantees against future conflict. This philosophy, demanding the enemy be held down, contrasted sharply with Lincoln's "let 'em up easy" wrestling metaphor, fueling Congressional debates over reconstruction.1888 GAR MERRIMAC FLOAT

Guest: David Davenport. Davenport discusses FDR and LBJ, who argued government must actively create opportunity through programs like the New Deal and Great Society to ensure fair results.

This episode's a wild ride. We've got a Census Bureau rep calling up a guy with some, uh, interesting questions. We're talking about zebras, computers, and slow cookers - but it's not just small talk. Our caller's got some unique perspectives on life, from the meaning of "hammer time" to the importance of not pleasing everyone. It's a conversation that's equal parts humorous and thought-provoking. Join us as we explore the unexpected twists and turns of this chat.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Episode 385, the crew is back with a packed show! We kick things off by celebrating the Patriots heading to the Super Bowl and joking about the "MAGA influencers" on the panel. Then, things get heated as we dive into a raw debate about Kobe Bryant's legacy—asking if he's truly Top 2 or if the "fake love" after his passing has inflated his ranking. We also break down the hit Netflix series His & Hers, discussing the insane plot twists, Jon Bernthal's performance, and that shocking ending. Plus, we analyze CJ Stroud's playoff struggles, reminisce on the "Booty Talk" Hall of Fame (Jada Fire vs. Pinky), and roast the city of Houston for shutting down over a fake snowstorm. ( Excuse our audio issue!) Follow the crew: @ThePourHorsemen @ShyThugg | @HardbodyKiotti | @Phi1TheDon | @LebronaldPalmer I @yo.dj.silk I @armourie.official Production Crew @TheJohnSims | @1Kharyy Shot at @TheHiveHouston Hurt At Work? Contact our partners at https://crockett.law for all of your legal needs. @bankonbriantx is ready to help. Join our Patreon for more exclusive content: https://www.patreon.com/thepourhorsemen. By supporting us, you're not just a listener but a valued part of our community. Use our Code POUR at Bluechew.com for your discount. Follow The Pour Horsemen on Instagram @thepourhorsemen and email at thepourhorsemen@gmail.com. Chapters: 00:00 - Intro 01:28 - Patriots Heading to the Super Bowl and MAGA 03:36 - Seahawks & That Super Bowl Loss Discussion 07:13 - Rams vs. Seahawks game 11:23 - CJ Stroud & The Psychology of Pressure 16:05 - The "Racist" Boston Sports Debate 26:40 - Kobe Bryant: The "Fake Love" 36:20 - Netflix's His & Hers: The Review (SPOILERS) 41:55 - His & Hers, the "angry" letter, 47:25 - TV Recommendations 50:04 - The Hall of Fame 52:54 - The Houston Snow Storm That Wasn't 55:00 - Outro

January 30, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, a landmark First Amendment speech clause case. While the podcast normally airs current oral arguments, we thought that it would be interesting to spotlight the oral arguments in this landmark case during month of its anniversary.Episode 44: Buckley v. ValeoJames L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975 and decided on January 30, 1976. Argued by Ralph K. Winter, Joel M. Gora, Brice M. Claggett, and  (on behalf of James L. Buckley) and Daniel M. Friedman, Archibald Cox, Lloyd N. Cutler, and Ralph S. Spritzer (on behalf of Francis R. Valeo).   Case Background [from the Federal Election Commission]:On January 2, 1975, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, Eugene McCarthy, Presidential candidate and former Senator from Minnesota, and several others. The defendants included Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and Ex officio member of the newly formed Federal Election Commission, and the Commission itself. The plaintiffs charged that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), under which the Commission was formed, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act were unconstitutional on a number of grounds.On January 24, 1975, pursuant to Section 437h(a) of the FECA, the district court certified the constitutional questions in the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 15, 1975, the appeals court rendered a decision upholding almost all of the substantive provisions of the FECA with respect to contributions, expenditures and disclosure. The court also sustained the constitutionality of the method of appointing the Commission.On September 19, 1975, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which reached its decision on January 30, 1976. Questions Presented, from the Appellants' Brief: 1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on expenditures by political candidates and organizations are constitutional?2. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitation imposed by FECA on expenditures by any person relative to a clearly identified candidate are constitutional?3. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on contributions to political candidates and organizations are constitutional?4. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the disclosure requirements imposed on political candidates, organizations and individuals by FECA are constitutional?5. Did the courts below correctly conclude that the public financing provisions of FECA and Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code are constitutional?6. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the method provided by FECA for appointing members of the Federal Election Commission is constitutional?7. Did the Court of Appeals properly decline to decide whether certain powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA are constitutional?8. Are the powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA constitutional?Resources:   Supreme Court OpinionInstitute for Free Speech AnalysisC-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 1C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 2C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 3The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

It took two days for everything to blow up, and it's all thanks to 'The Price Is Right'. Chicago’s best morning radio show now has a podcast! Don’t forget to rate, review, and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts and remember that the conversation always lives on the Q101 Facebook page. Brian & Kenzie are live every morning from 6a-10a on Q101. Subscribe to our channel HERE: https://www.youtube.com/@Q101 Like Q101 on Facebook HERE: https://www.facebook.com/q101chicago Follow Q101 on Twitter HERE: https://twitter.com/Q101Chicago Follow Q101 on Instagram HERE: https://www.instagram.com/q101chicago/?hl=en Follow Q101 on TikTok HERE: https://www.tiktok.com/@q101chicago?lang=enSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Please don't be a fake marine on the internet.

Episode 43: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 9, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of National Republican Senatorial Committee), Sarah M. Harris (on behalf of the federal respondents in support of petitioners), Roman Martinez (Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae defending the law), and Marc Elias (Counsel for Intervenor-Respondents DNC, DSCC, and DCCC).  Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d).  In an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, a 10-judge majority of the en banc Sixth Circuit agreed that these so-called “coordinated party expenditure limits” stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. App.10a-15a. It nevertheless upheld them as constitutional, both on their face and as applied to coordinated political advertising (“party coordinated communications”), believing the case to be controlled by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (Colorado II). In doing so, the majority acknowledged that in the 23 years since Colorado II, this Court “has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation,” that “tension has emerged between the reasoning of Colorado II and the reasoning of later decisions of the Court,” and that relevant facts have “changed, most notably with 2014 amendments” to the limits and “the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees.” App.3a-4a, 11a. But it thought “any new assessment of the validity of the limits” remained the Supreme Court's “province, not ours.” App.14a-15a.  The question presented is:  Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. Resources:   Brief for the Petitioners NRSC Brief for the Respondents FEC Supreme Court Docket Sixth Circuit Oral Argument Audio Institute for Free Speech SCOTUS Amicus Brief Campaign Regulations Are Unconstitutional, by Bradley A. Smith, The Wall Street Journal The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 42: First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. PlatkinFirst Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2025. Argued by Erin Morrow Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Vivek Suri, Assistant Solicitor General (on behalf of First Choice Women's Resource Centers), and Sundeep Subramanian Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General of New Jersey (on behalf of the state of New Jersey).  Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: First Choice Women's Resource Centers is a Christian medical nonprofit serving pregnant women, new mothers, and fathers. The Attorney General of New Jersey has specifically singled out this organization due to its religious beliefs and pro-life stance. New Jersey thus issued a sweeping and unjustified subpoena, demanding extensive documentation from the nonprofit. This places a heavy burden on the organization, forcing it to allocate its limited resources to comply or face legal consequences. Despite this, the Attorney General has not provided any concrete evidence of wrongdoing to warrant such intrusive measures. Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta, 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?Resources:   Brief for Petitioner First Choice Women's Resource Center Brief for Respondent Matthew Platkin Institute for Free Speech Amicus Brief Supreme Court Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 41: Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al.Scaer, et al. v. City of Nashua, et al. argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on December 2, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Attorney Nathan Ristuccia (on behalf of Stephen and Bethany Scaer) and Steven A. Bolton (on behalf of the City of Nashua, NH). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: Should a city be able to pick and choose whose messages are “worthy” to appear on its public “Citizen Flag Pole?” The City of Nashua thinks so—but a federal lawsuit aims to change that. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Roy S. McCandless filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of Bethany and Stephen Scaer (pronounced “scare”), two Nashua residents whose flag requests have been denied. The suit challenges the constitutionality of Nashua's policy governing the use of its Citizen Flag Pole. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin Nashua city officials from denying flag applications based on viewpoint and from enforcing parts of its flag policy that limit acceptable flags. Nashua residents have long used the Citizen Flag Pole to fly flags representing various causes and heritages. However, after a 2022 Supreme Court decision protecting speech in such forums, Nashua officials hastily implemented a new policy to take control over the messages expressed. Under the policy, residents can apply to fly flags on the Citizen Flag Pole in front of City Hall. However, the policy states that any message “will be allowed only if it is in harmony with city policies and messages that the city wishes to express and endorse.” The Scaers have had multiple flag requests denied, including most recently the Pine Tree Flag to commemorate the Battle of Bunker Hill. The city provided no explanation beyond stating their flags were “not in harmony” with the city's message. The lawsuit argues that Nashua's policy violates the First Amendment by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on speech, creating an unconstitutional prior restraint, and being impermissibly vague and overbroad.  Statement of the Issues, from the Plaintiffs-Appellants Opening Brief: Whether governments may avoid First Amendment limits in regulating speech by adopting it as government speech, without acquiring any property interest or permanent possessory interest over that private speech?  Whether a government speaks or merely regulates private speech when it uses its final approval authority to permit or to prohibit the display of certain messages on government property, without shaping or altering the content of those messages?  Whether Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the City of Nashua's policies and practices regarding flags displayed on its Citizen Flag Pole and flag-raising ceremonies conducted on its City Hall Plaza constitute viewpoint discrimination, or are vague, overbroad, or effect a prior restraint on speech?  Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction against those policies and practices? Resources:   Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) Plaintiffs-Appellants Stephen and Bethany Scaer's Opening Brief Brief For Defendants-Appellee, City Of Nashua, New Hampshire The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

What happens when an AI won't agree with your interpretation of Scripture? In this dramatic retelling, I walk through a late-night study session where the AI pushed back, argued, and refused to move on 1 Corinthians 11. This is the story of that debate—and what it reveals about hermeneutics, truth, and the future of Bible study.

Jase and Missy team up for a lively retelling of the sweet, slightly improvised “Footloose moment” she and Cole pulled off during their mother–son dance at his wedding. Missy discovers a hidden family heirloom that makes the perfect wedding gift, and takes a moving look at how the Mia Moo Fund quietly saved a National Guard family during the government shutdown. She and Al also open up about the importance of mentorship, the powerful spiritual breakthroughs she's witnessed, and why being a Titus 2 woman still matters today. In this episode: James 1, verse 19; Acts 2, verses 42–47; Titus 2, verses 3–5 “Unashamed” Episode 1216 is sponsored by: Stand firm for values that matter. Join the fight today at https://www.frc.org/unashamed https://cozyearth.com/unashamed — Get up to 40% off when you use our link or code UNASHAMED! https://bravebooks.com/unashamed — Get 20% off AND get Missy's book “Because You're My Family” and Jep and Jessica's book “Dear Valor” free with code UNASHAMED https://on.auraframes.com/UNASHAMED — Get $45 off Aura's best-selling Carver Mat frames by using promo code UNASHAMED at checkout! https://andrewandtodd.com or call 888-888-1172 — These guys are the real deal. Get trusted mortgage guidance and expertise from someone who shares your values! http://unashamedforhillsdale.com/ — Sign up now for free, and join the Unashamed hosts every Friday for Unashamed Academy Powered by Hillsdale College Check out At Home with Phil Robertson, nearly 800 episodes of Phil's unfiltered wisdom, humor, and biblical truth, available for free for the first time! Get it on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, and anywhere you listen to podcasts! https://open.spotify.com/show/3LY8eJ4ZBZHmsImGoDNK2l Listen to Not Yet Now with Zach Dasher on Apple, Spotify, iHeart, or anywhere you get podcasts. Chapters: 00:00-07:45 Al & Missy throw Jase right under the bus 07:46-12:40 Jase gives Zach a new unflattering nickname 12:41-17:59 The Robertsons show up for each other in a big way 18:00-26:00 The importance of fine china in a marriage 26:01-31:23 Jase & Missy are loving being empty nesters 31:24-39:30 When Christian's start dancing anything could happen 39:31-47:15 Missy gets political for a moment 47:15-55:31 The importance of mentorship — Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 40: Associated Press v. Tayor Budowich, et al.Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, et al. argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on November 24, 2025. Argued by Yaakov M. Roth, Principal Deputy Attorney General of the United States (on behalf of Taylor Budowich, et al.) and Charles D. Tobin (on behalf of the Associated Press).  Case Background, from the Memorandum and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:  About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary (collectively, “the Government”), seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint.   Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views.  No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press:  Under the First Amendment, the government may not coerce the press and public into using state-preferred language, or punish those who do not comply. The government violated those basic principles when it excluded the AP from the White House press pool and from events open to the White House press corps based solely on the government's dislike of the term Gulf of Mexico. The White House also took this action without notice to the AP, content-neutral guidelines, or an opportunity for the AP to be heard, violating its Fifth Amendment rights.  The questions presented are: whether the District Court correctly entered a preliminary injunction ordering the government to immediately rescind this access ban, pursuant to the First Amendment; and whether the Fifth Amendment also prevents such targeting in the absence of due process. Resources:  Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on the original panel circuit argument Statement of the Issues District Court Memorandum and Order Court Listener Docket  Brief for the AppellantsBrief for the Plaintiff-Appellee The Associated Press The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

As the Cold War set in (1948), George Kennan urged MacArthur to halt progressive liberalization policies. Kennan argued that extensive democratization risked communist subversion, emphasizing the need for a strong, stable, anti-communist Japan. This marked a major shift, recognizing Japan, rather than China, as the crucial strategic anchor for American foreign policy in Asia.

 Yesterday, Benjamin Gutman made his first appearance on the biggest stage possible. In his role as solicitor general of Oregon, Gutman argued in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court on behalf of a coalition of a dozen states that sued over the president’s signature tariff trade strategy. The states argued the U.S. Congress, not the president, has the power to impose and collect taxes under the U.S. Constitution. Gutman joins us to talk about the experience.

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

Episode 38: State of Washington v. Meta Platforms, Inc.State of Washington v. Meta Platforms, Inc., argued before the Supreme Court of Washington on October 28, 2025. Argued by Robert McKenna (on behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc.) and Cristina Sepe, Deputy Solicitor General of the State of Washington (on behalf of State of Washington) .Background of the case, from the Supplemental Brief of Petitioner Meta:The campaign finance law at issue here has made it irrational and unworkable for digital platforms to carry political ads targeting Washington state and local elections. Major platforms have banned these ads as a result. The law tips the scales against disempowered political actors who need low-cost but effective digital advertising to communicate with voters. And the State has failed to justify that result under the First Amendment.In 2018, the State expanded the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) to impose burdensome disclosure obligations on “digital communication platforms.” The State now requires such platforms to maintain extensive information about any advertisement in the last five years that constitutes “political advertising,” and disclose this information upon request to any person or entity—anywhere in the world and at any time—within two business days. Candidates and campaigns, meanwhile, have less demanding disclosure obligations.And even minor noncompliance carries significant penalties for platforms: Based on its failure to timely satisfy 12 requests for information from just three individuals, Meta faces a $35 million judgment. There is no reason for Meta—or any other platform operator—to incur the threat of massive penalties (and high compliance costs), by continuing to carry ads that provide very little revenue. It is no surprise, then, that Meta and others banned Washington political ads from their platforms.Statement of the Issues, from the Supplemental Brief of Petitioner Meta:Whether the FCPA and implementing regulations violate the First Amendment because they impose unjustifiable burdens on digital communication platforms and fail to further the State's purported interest in educating its electorate about political ad purchasers and their expenditures through narrowly tailored means. See RCW 42.17A.345(1); WAC 390-18-050 (together, “disclosure law”).Whether a penalty imposed for violating the disclosure law's obligation to provide responsive information “promptly upon request” should be calculated based on the number of requests or the number of ads subject to each request.Whether a $35 million judgment against Meta for failing to respond to 12 requests with every piece of required information within two business days is an unconstitutionally excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.Resources:Institute for Free Speech amicus brief in Meta v. State of WashingtonDisclosure law text (RCW 42.17A.345)Disclosure law text (WAC 390-18-050)Supplemental Brief of Petitioner MetaSupplemental Brief of Respondent State of WashingtonThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 37: Chiles v. Salazar Chiles v. Salazar, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 7, 2025. Argued by James Campbell (on behalf of Kaley Chiles), Hashim Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General (on behalf of the United States), and Shannon Stevenson, Colorado Solicitor General (on behalf of Patty Salazar).Case Background (from the Supreme Court question presented): Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex. Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express. Its content- and viewpoint-based Counseling Restriction prohibits counseling conversations with minors that might encourage them to change their “sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions,” while allowing conversations that provide “[a]cceptance, support, and understanding for … identity exploration and development, including … [a]ssistance to a person undergoing gender transition.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 12- 245-202(3.5).  The Tenth Circuit upheld this ban as a regulation of Chiles's conduct, not speech. In doing so, the court deepened a circuit split between the Eleventh and Third Circuits, which do not treat counseling conversations as conduct, and the Ninth Circuit, which does.  Question presented: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause Resources: Merits brief of the Petitioner Supreme Court docket Institute for Free Speech amicus brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

The JL boys continue their coverage of a fascinating international legal battle over an alleged $50 million estate that pits an Australian widow against a Chinese mother. In a case that crossed continents and legal systems it would ultimately hinge on the concept of true domicile - not just where one lives, but where one’s life is centered.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sean and Daniel conclude a $30 million Balinese estate case as it ultimately settles out of court despite questions of citizenship, international law, and family ongoing drama. The focus then switches to another, even larger estate, again with international ties, competing familial interests and yet another set of complex legal conundrums at its core.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The JL boys continue their coverage of the international inheritance dispute of a former surf gang member the decision is made to adjudicate this case in an Australian court. But as a mother and ex-partner battle over an estate, a judge takes issue with intent as allegations of fake divorces, invalid wills, and undisclosed children would emerge.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A psychiatrist has told a jury the man who lit the fatal Loafers Lodge fire was insane at the time and had no intention of hurting anyone. The 50-year-old defendant has denied murdering five people by setting the Wellington boarding hostel alight in 2023. Lauren Crimp is following the trial at the High Court in Wellington.

Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – Conservative parents challenge government overreach as the Supreme Court weighs their right to withdraw children from LGBTQ+ or objectionable content in schools. From drag queen story hours to pandemic vaccine mandates, this landmark case could redefine parental authority, educational boundaries, and the balance between community standards and individual personal convictions.

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices