Podcasts about article iii

President Donald Trump's second term has seen a deliberate push to further entrench conservative influence in the federal judiciary, building on his first-term record of confirming 234 Article III judges (including three Supreme Court justices), which shifted the courts rightward and impacted rulings on issues like abortion, voting rights, and immigration. As of November 2025, the Senate has confirmed 253 total Article III judges from his nominations across both terms, with ongoing efforts to fill 47 current vacancies. However, Trump's pace has been slower this term—his first nomination came in late April 2025, compared to a rapid start in 2017—due to fewer vacancies (thanks to Biden's 235 confirmations) and a focus on executive branch roles. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Donald Trump's biggest legacy will be with the courts. And as I wrote recently, he's playing the long game better than any modern president. His second term has seen a deliberate push to further entrench conservative influence in the federal judiciary, building on his first-term record of confirming 234 Article III judges (including three Supreme Court justices), which shifted the courts rightward and impacted rulings on issues like abortion, voting rights, and immigration. As of November 2025, the Senate has confirmed 253 total Article III judges from his nominations across both terms, with ongoing efforts to fill 47 current vacancies. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lecture Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline (thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.html) Understanding Judicial Review: The Backbone of Constitutional Law This episode dives into the power of judicial review and why it sits at the core of United States constitutional law. We walk through the political brilliance of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, the birth of the Court's authority to strike down acts of Congress, and how that decision still frames modern debates about the separation of powers. You will hear how a late–night flurry of “midnight judges,” a refused commission, and a seemingly impossible dilemma gave Marshall the opportunity to announce a simple but revolutionary idea: the Constitution is supreme law, and it is the judiciary's duty to say what the law is. What we unpack in this episode The origin story of judicial review and the stakes in Marbury v. Madison. The “six rules” emerging from Marshall's opinion: remedy, constitutional supremacy, conflict resolution, judicial duty, and review of executive and criminal actions. How Article III justiciability cabins judicial power: no advisory opinions, only real “cases or controversies.” The role of Congress and the Exceptions Clause, including the lesson of Ex parte McCardle. Why some issues are unreviewable political questions left to other branches. Timing, Injury, and Justiciability Judicial power does not extend to every interesting dispute. Timing is everything: come too early and you face a ripeness problem; come too late and the case is moot. The plaintiff also needs a concrete, non-speculative injury to establish standing. When the alleged wrong is a vague “what if,” the Court steps back and the issue often becomes an unreviewable question better suited to the political branches. Across all of this runs a single theme: separation of powers. Judicial review is powerful, but it operates inside a constant negotiation with Congress and the Executive over who decides what, and when. Quick Takeaways Marshall's opinion in Marbury is a blueprint of political genius. Judicial review makes the Constitution enforceable, not just inspirational text. Cases that are too early (ripeness) or too late (mootness) fall outside Article III power. Keywords: judicial review, Marshall's political genius, ripeness, mootness, standing, unreviewable questions, political question doctrine, separation of powers, legal principles, landmark court cases.

The corruption of the feckless, unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, federal district trial court judges continues with the infamous Judge James "Jeb" Boasberg continuing to rule from the bench as if America itself was governed at his unaccountable whim. Articles of impeachment have been filed against Boasberg, and the Senate has sent a letter demanding his suspension during these impeachment proceedings--but will it make any difference to Boasberg's conduct? And what of all the other corrupt federal judges on the DC Circuit, and throughout the Article III federal judiciary. 

In this appeal from a now-settled defamation case brought by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, the Second Circuit held that many of the documents under seal were properly treated as “judicial documents” to which a strong presumption of public access attached. The court reaffirmed that the status of a document as a judicial document is “fixed at filing” — meaning that if the filing was relevant to the court's exercise of its Article III functions when filed, later events (e.g., the case being settled or the motion becoming moot) do not nullify the presumption of access. The court also clarified that a document does not lose the presumption of access simply because the court did not explicitly rely on it in rendering a decision, and that filings in connection with motions to seal or unseal are themselves judicial documents since they invoke the court's supervisory power.At the same time, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's orders. It agreed that the lower court did not err in declining to unseal certain documents — for example, segments of Maxwell's deposition involving her adult sexual relationships and redacted identifying information of pseudonymized third-parties — because in those instances countervailing privacy interests outweighed the access presumption. But the appellate court vacated the district court's categorical refusal to treat certain undecided motions as judicial documents subject to access, and remanded for further individual review of those materials (including a Florida deposition transcript and filings by non-parties) consistent with the correct standard.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In this appeal from a now-settled defamation case brought by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, the Second Circuit held that many of the documents under seal were properly treated as “judicial documents” to which a strong presumption of public access attached. The court reaffirmed that the status of a document as a judicial document is “fixed at filing” — meaning that if the filing was relevant to the court's exercise of its Article III functions when filed, later events (e.g., the case being settled or the motion becoming moot) do not nullify the presumption of access. The court also clarified that a document does not lose the presumption of access simply because the court did not explicitly rely on it in rendering a decision, and that filings in connection with motions to seal or unseal are themselves judicial documents since they invoke the court's supervisory power.At the same time, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's orders. It agreed that the lower court did not err in declining to unseal certain documents — for example, segments of Maxwell's deposition involving her adult sexual relationships and redacted identifying information of pseudonymized third-parties — because in those instances countervailing privacy interests outweighed the access presumption. But the appellate court vacated the district court's categorical refusal to treat certain undecided motions as judicial documents subject to access, and remanded for further individual review of those materials (including a Florida deposition transcript and filings by non-parties) consistent with the correct standard.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this appeal from a now-settled defamation case brought by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell, the Second Circuit held that many of the documents under seal were properly treated as “judicial documents” to which a strong presumption of public access attached. The court reaffirmed that the status of a document as a judicial document is “fixed at filing” — meaning that if the filing was relevant to the court's exercise of its Article III functions when filed, later events (e.g., the case being settled or the motion becoming moot) do not nullify the presumption of access. The court also clarified that a document does not lose the presumption of access simply because the court did not explicitly rely on it in rendering a decision, and that filings in connection with motions to seal or unseal are themselves judicial documents since they invoke the court's supervisory power.At the same time, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's orders. It agreed that the lower court did not err in declining to unseal certain documents — for example, segments of Maxwell's deposition involving her adult sexual relationships and redacted identifying information of pseudonymized third-parties — because in those instances countervailing privacy interests outweighed the access presumption. But the appellate court vacated the district court's categorical refusal to treat certain undecided motions as judicial documents subject to access, and remanded for further individual review of those materials (including a Florida deposition transcript and filings by non-parties) consistent with the correct standard.to contact me: bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The MAGA and America First political base of President Donald J. Trump continues to express outrage over his recent “America lacks talent” comments on the Laura Ingraham show, and the H1B defenders are only adding fuel to the fire.There IS a proper take on the H1B issue—and I'll share it with you—but the level of obfuscation taking place reveals the REAL drivers behind this America replacement program.Also, another feckless, unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior, federal district trial court judge—not surprisingly appointed by President Joe “autopen dementia” Biden—has issued another lawless order, this time ordering the Trump administration to release hundreds of demonstrably illegal third-world invaders from custody and back into the Chicago community from which they were detained in “Operation Midway Blitz” led by CBP Chief-at-Large Greg Bovino.Can there be any legal legitimacy behind this effort of this unelected Article III judge to override the immigration enforcement of the elected Article II Executive? The answer is NO!

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

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

MEMBERS! JOIN US FOR THE BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: INSERT HERE:  https://youtube.com/live/5O8bjulfflUJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join This week the unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial courts issued yet another feckless, sure-to-be-reserved, obstructionist Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) against our great and powerful elected Article II Executive Branch President Donald J. Trump in the exercise of his core and plenary powers as Commander in Chief of US military forces.This time the feckless and obstructionist order was issued by Federal Judge April Perry, class of Biden 2024, and raised to the federal bench on November 22, 2024, after Trump's election as President on a 51-44 Senate vote.  As is common to Biden federal bench nominees, Perry has zero prior judicial experience, and her background consists mostly of working for various left-wing organizations.Perry is obliged to simultaneously apply a tortured reading to the relevant statute that authorizes Trump's activation and deployment of the national guard, as well as simply override the Commander in Chief's judgment on whether the circumstances warrant calling out the guard—the combination resulting in a grotesque overreach far beyond the legitimate Article III authority of a federal court judge as well as being an obvious violation of the Constitution's separation of powers and infringement of the core and plenary Commander in Chief powers of the Article II. Executive Branch president. Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET as I break it all down!I also invite each of YOU to join me in our desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! EVEN BETTER, BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Episode 1043

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal candidates have Article III standing to challenge state election laws that extend the deadline for receiving and counting mail-in ballots beyond Election Day when they allege vote dilution and increased campaign costs from monitoring extended ballot counting.

Bost v. IL Bd. of Elections | 10/08/25 | Docket #: 24-568 24-568 BOST V. ILLINOIS BOARD OF ELECTIONS DECISION BELOW: 114 F.4th 634 CERT. GRANTED 6/2/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Federal law sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the federal Election Day. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 7; and 3 U.S.C. § 1. Several states, including Illinois, have enacted state laws that allow ballots to be received and counted after Election Day. Petitioners contend these state laws are preempted under the Elections and Electors Clauses. Petitioners sued to enjoin Illinois' law allowing ballots to be received up to fourteen days after Election Day. The sole question presented here is whether Petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-2644

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. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): 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 of the First Amendment. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255. Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable. Featuring: Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP (Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC

MEMBERS! JOIN US FOR THE BONUS SHOW IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS MAIN SHOW: https://youtube.com/live/SPQ0tGd3c_gJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join You've all heard my many rants on the plague on our great American nation that are our own feckless, unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior federal court judges, many of whom seem to have utterly lost their legal and human sensibilities as a result of a societally-threatening degree of Trump Derangement Syndrome.We've talked about the use of the impeachment power to remove these judges, as well as the prospect of removing them for their failing to “serve during Good behavior” as demanded by Article III of our glorious Constitution.Now, however, we can enjoy the keen insight of my friend, colleague, and lawyer, Ron Coleman, who has written a fantastic column on how America might go about saving itself from this plaque of rogue judges in a manner that is both constitutionally-sound AND actually practicable.Join me at 4 PM ET as I break it all down!COLEMAN on X:  https://x.com/RonColemanCOLEMAN ORIGINAL COLUMN: https://x.com/RonColeman/status/1973410849399214357COLEMAN YOUTUBE CHANNEL:  https://www.youtube.com/@roncolemanlawJOIN OUR COMMUNITY! Exclusive Members-only content & perks! Only ~17 cents/day! $5/month! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join I'm Andrew Branca, a 34-year attorney and member of the Supreme Court bar. My personal mission is to deliver to all of you political and legal analysis that is exuberantly pro-America as envisioned by our Founders, pro-Constitutional order, pro-WESTERN civilization, pro-meritocracy, pro-AMERICAN family, and adamantly opposed to everyone and everything degenerate and barbaric that undermines those great American values. America, and all of western civilization, is currently in a desperate and existential war against enemies foreign and domestic. All of us are called upon to save our great nation and western cultural tradition from a destruction that would cast ourselves, our posterity, and indeed the world into a dark ages for centuries to come. And I invite each of YOU to join me in this desperate but worthy mission to save our great nation. The easiest way to do that? SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! SUBSCRIBE! BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-GqXHAdxVUVMw2F_7h_X3Q/join : -)Intro song: "Back in the Saddle," Tone Seeker & Dan "Lebo" Lebowitz And even better, Episode 1032

Jace Lington chats with former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly about what the Constitution says regarding who may exercise the judicial power. They discuss his new Gray Center policy brief, Jarkesy and the End of Political Adjudication, and his argument that the Supreme Court should go further and hold that the Constitution requires many trials now handled by agency adjudicators to take place in the proper forum—an Article III court. Notes:Jarkesy and the End of Political Adjudication, Daniel Kelly

Guest: Richard Goldberg with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies on the situation on the ground in Gaza and how to bring the war to an end. // LongForm: GUEST: Mike Davis with the Article III project on the Trump Administration’s legal battles regarding Lisa Cook, flag burning, and the National Guard. // Quick Hit: Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Rebecca Heinrichs on the Ukraine-Russia peace talks.  

This Day in Legal History: Constitutional Convention–Article IIIOn August 27, 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia turned their attention to the judiciary. Debates centered on what would become Article III, particularly the scope of judicial power. The Convention approved language stating that federal judicial power would extend to “all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,” a formulation that blended common law tradition with equitable relief. This phrase would become foundational, granting federal courts broad jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Also debated was the method by which judges could be removed from office. A motion was introduced proposing that judges could be removed by the Executive if both Houses of Congress requested it. This raised immediate concerns about judicial independence. Critics argued that giving such removal power to the Executive would dangerously entangle the judiciary with the political branches. The proposal ultimately failed, with only the Connecticut delegation supporting it. The delegates chose instead to preserve the more rigorous process of impeachment as the mechanism for judicial removal. This decision reinforced the principle of judicial independence, anchoring it in the separation of powers. These discussions on August 27 set enduring boundaries around federal judicial authority and helped define the judiciary as a coequal branch of government.Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has retained high-profile Washington attorney Abbe Lowell to challenge President Donald Trump's attempt to remove her from the central bank. Trump cited alleged mortgage fraud as grounds for her dismissal, claiming she misrepresented two homes as primary residences in 2021. Cook, appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden, has denied any wrongdoing and faces no charges. Lowell, who recently launched a law firm to defend public officials targeted by Trump, announced plans to sue, arguing Trump lacks the legal authority to remove a sitting Fed governor. He characterized the removal attempt as politically motivated and baseless. Lowell's current and former clients include Hunter Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and several other prominent figures, both Democratic and Republican. His firm also represents ex-government lawyers who claim they were unlawfully dismissed by the Justice Department. Cook is the first Black woman to serve on the Fed's board and her removal would mark an unprecedented breach of the central bank's political independence.Fed's Lisa Cook turns to top Washington lawyer Lowell in Trump fight | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a federal injunction that is currently requiring it to continue foreign aid payments, despite an executive order halting such funding. In an emergency filing, the Department of Justice argued that the injunction, originally issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, interferes with the executive branch's authority over foreign policy and budgetary decisions. Trump issued the 90-day pause on foreign aid on January 20, his second inauguration day, and later took steps to dismantle USAID, including sidelining staff and considering its absorption into the State Department.Two nonprofits — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network — challenged the funding freeze, claiming it was illegal. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the injunction should be lifted, the full court declined to stay the order, and Judge Ali rejected another request to do so earlier this week. The administration warned that unless the Supreme Court intervenes, it will have to spend roughly $12 billion before September 30, when the funds expire, thereby undermining its policy goals.Previously, the Supreme Court narrowly declined to pause Ali's order requiring the release of $2 billion in aid. The D.C. Circuit panel later found that only the Government Accountability Office, not private organizations, had standing to challenge the funding freeze.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to halt foreign aid payments | ReutersAnthropic has reached a class-wide settlement with authors who sued the AI company for training its models on over 7 million pirated books downloaded from “shadow libraries” like LibGen. The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accused Anthropic of copyright infringement and gained momentum after U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status in July 2025—a ruling that Anthropic said put the company under “inordinate pressure” to settle. The potential damages, estimated at up to $900 billion if the infringement was found willful, created what the company described as an existential threat.In court, Anthropic admitted the magnitude of the case made it financially unsustainable to proceed to trial, even if the legal merits were disputed. Alsup repeatedly denied the company's motions to delay or avoid trial, criticizing Anthropic for not disclosing what works it used. While he ruled that training AI on copyrighted works could qualify as fair use, the piracy claims were left for a jury to decide. Anthropic appealed the class certification and sought emergency relief, but ultimately chose to settle.Critics say the settlement underscores how current copyright law's statutory damages—up to $150,000 per willful infringement—can distort outcomes and discourage innovation. The deal is expected to be finalized by September 3. Meanwhile, Anthropic still faces other copyright lawsuits involving song lyrics and Reddit content. Legal experts suggest the company's move was partly motivated by uncertainty over how courts interpret “willful” infringement, especially with a related Supreme Court case on the horizon.Anthropic Settles Major AI Copyright Suit Brought by Authors (3)Content warning: This segment contains references to suicide, self-harm, and the death of a minor. Discretion is advised.The parents of 16-year-old Adam Raine have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman in California state court, alleging that ChatGPT played a direct role in their son's suicide. They claim that over several months, the AI chatbot engaged in extended conversations with Adam, during which it validated his suicidal thoughts, provided instructions on lethal self-harm methods, and even helped draft a suicide note. The lawsuit accuses OpenAI of prioritizing profit over user safety, especially with the release of GPT-4o in 2024, which introduced features like memory, emotional mimicry, and persistent interaction that allegedly increased risks to vulnerable users.The Raines argue that OpenAI knew these features could endanger users without strong safeguards, yet proceeded with the product rollout to boost its valuation. They seek monetary damages and a court order mandating stronger user protections, including age verification, blocking of self-harm queries, and psychological risk warnings.OpenAI expressed condolences and noted that safety mechanisms such as directing users to crisis resources are built into ChatGPT, though they acknowledged these measures can falter during prolonged conversations. The company said it is working to improve safeguards, including developing parental controls and exploring in-chat access to licensed professionals.OpenAI, Altman sued over ChatGPT's role in California teen's suicide | ReutersOpenAI Hit With Suit From Family of Teen Who Died by Suicide This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Joe Pags Show is on fire this hour! VP J.D. Vance, Pete Hegseth, and Stephen Miller hit Union Station in D.C. to stand with the National Guard — and face off with protestors. One heckler tried to shout them down, and Vance's quick quip had the crowd buzzing. Then, Senator Eric Schmitt joins Pags for a no-holds-barred conversation about his new book The Last Line of Defense. They dig into Article III, who's going to pay for the Russiagate hoax, and why his book is the ultimate guide for crushing the left's machine. It's sharp, it's fun, and it's everything you tune in for. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The DC Court of Appeals has handed President Trump yet ANOTHER YUGE court legal victory in affirming the authority of the President to cut off funding from Progressive money laundering operations like USAID and various corrupt NGOs, which had been stealing US taxpayer dollars by the trillions—all to line the pockets of Progressive politicians, court followers, and their privileged families. The unelected, black-robed, tyrannical federal district court Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali, the first Muslim and Arab DC district court judge, raised to the bench on November 20 2024 by the Democrats AFTER Trump's re-election, by a mere 50-49 vote, who was also a past leader of a radical left-wing group that called for defunding the police, had issued an injunction freezing Trump's Article II Executive Branch authority.  This was at the behest of a gaggle of plaintiff USAID/NGO thieves looting the US Treasury for their own fattening. The court of appeals had initially paused much of Judge Amir Hatem Mahdy Ali's injunction, and today that same three-judge panel issued Judge Ali's injunction the death blow, making clear that if anyone could check Trump's Article II authority to freeze spending it was the Article I and Article II branches of government—and not some mere Article III judge, and certainly not some gaggle of USAID/NGOs who had been eating fat at the trough of stolen taxpayer moneys. The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

In this episode, Richard is joined by Alan Wilmit, serving as co-host, as they welcome Ada Dolph, a Partner in Seyfarth's ERISA Litigation group, to unpack the complexities of pension risk transfers (PRTs). Ada explains what PRTs are, how they're used to manage pension liabilities, and why they're drawing increased scrutiny. The conversation covers recent litigation trends, the impact of the Supreme Court's Thole decision, and the evolving focus on Article III standing. Grab your coffee and tune in for practical insights on what fiduciaries need to know as PRT-related class actions continue to emerge. Read the full transcript of this episode here: https://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/podcast_transcripts/CoffeeTalkWithBenefits_Episode21.pdf

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.This Supreme Court case presented the question 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. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPModerator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP--To register, click the link above.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles because invalidating the regulations would likely redress their monetary injuries from decreased fuel sales. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The California regulations force automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles, thereby reducing demand for gasoline and other liquid fuels. Article III standing requires showing injury in fact, causation, and redressability—meaning the plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm caused by the defendant that judicial relief would likely fix. When government regulation of one business predictably causes downstream economic injuries to linked businesses, commonsense economic principles support finding that invalidating the regulation would likely redress those injuries by removing the regulatory impediment to the injured party's sales.Record evidence confirms that invalidating the regulations would likely redress the fuel producers' injuries, including: California's own estimates showing the regulations would cause substantial reductions in gasoline demand exceeding $10 billion by 2030; California's statements that the regulations are “critical” for emissions reductions and that without them fewer electric vehicles would be sold; EPA's affirmation that California “needs” these standards; and five automakers' intervention predicting that absent the regulations, competitors would sell fewer electric vehicles to gain market advantage. The Court rejected arguments that fuel producers needed expert affidavits or declarations from automakers to establish redressability, explaining that requiring such evidence would improperly make standing depend on alignment between plaintiffs and regulated third parties.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court should have vacated and remanded for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider based on corrected facts about when the regulations expire.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion arguing the Court applies standing doctrine inconsistently by accepting commonsense inferences for business plaintiffs while demanding more evidence from civil rights plaintiffs.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Guest: Dr. Yoram Hazony on his new book “The Virtue of Nationalism.” // LongForm: Guest: Mike Davis of the Article III project on the past SCOTUS term. // GUEST: Florida state senator and former U.S. Army Green Beret, Jay Collins, on his volunteer work with Grey Bull Rescue—a group that has been leading daring rescue missions of American citizens from Israel back to the U.S.

Judge James Ho, sitting on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and recipient of the Supreme Court's latest zany opinion involving the Alien Enemies Act, has published a seven-page scathing indictment of SCOTUS, chastising the court for denigrating the inferior federal courts, the Article II Executive Branch, and the rule of law itself—all in apparent pursuit by SCOTUS and many Progressive inferior judges of the politicization of the Article III judicial branch of government which was designed by our Founders to be thoroughly non-political. To say that it's rare to have an inferior federal judge chastise the Article III Supreme Court of the United States is an understatement of galactic proportions.  It's also worth noting that if Judge Ho were submitting an application to the Trump administration to be a candidate for a seat on SCOTUS, he could not have done a better job than to have authored this opinion.Join me as I break down Judge Ho's take on the Supreme Court's latest Alien Enemies Act shenanigans. Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble​➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.​➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

This past Friday the US Supreme Court issued an order freezing Trump's efforts to deport violent Tren de Aragua terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation issued by the President on March 14, 2025, almost two months prior. What are the implications for the Article II Executive Branch and its efforts to secure America from the predatory invasion of TdA? To what degree can the unelected, black-robed, tyrannical Article III federal district courts freeze the ability of the elected Article II Executive Branch president to deport violent aliens from our shores?Join me LIVE as I dive into this most recent SCOTUS decision on the Alien Enemies act, and the likely consequences to follow!Get Your FREE Copy of Our Best-Selling Book: "The Law of Self Defense: Principles"Visit Here: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook"You are wise to buy this material. I hope you watch it, internalize it, and keep it to the forefront whenever you even think of reaching for a gun"-Massad Ayoob (President of the Second Amendment Foundation) The #1 guide for understanding when using force to protect yourself is legal. Now yours for FREE! Just pay the S&H for us to get it to you.➡️ Carry with confidence, knowing you are protected from predators AND predatory prosecutors➡️ Correct the common myths you may think are true but get people in trouble➡️ Know you're getting the best with this abridged version of our best-selling 5-star Amazon-rated book that has been praised by many (including self-defense legends!) for its easy, entertaining, and informative style.➡️ Many interesting, if sometimes heart-wrenching, true-life examplesGet Your Free Book: https://lawofselfdefense.com/getthebook

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.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

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.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

On this episode: President Trump has made his first judicial nomination since returning to office, selecting a candidate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Most presidents make few judicial nominations in their first 100 days, and Trump's current pace aligns with historical trends dating back to Reagan. While his first term (and former President Joe Biden's) saw a record number of Article III appointments, Trump's current term began with fewer vacancies across the federal judiciary. Factors like Senate control and long-term court openings shape how many judges are ultimately appointed, and our data shows that the bulk of judicial nominations typically occur in the second and third years of a presidency.Our latest look at federal judicial vacancies: https://ballotpedia.org/The_Federal_Judicial_Vacancy_Count_5/1/2025Subscribe to our newsletter about federal courts and judges: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_Robe_%26_Gavel This year, we're hoping to learn more about our audience and what topics you want us to tackle. Complete a brief 5 minute survey to review the show and share some feedback: https://forms.gle/zPxYSog5civyvEKX6 Sign up for our Newsletters: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia_Email_Updates Stream "On the Ballot" on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you have questions, comments, or love for BP, feel free to reach out at ontheballot@ballotpedia.org or on X (formerly Twitter) @Ballotpedia.*On The Ballot is a conversational podcast featuring interviews with guests across the political spectrum. The views and opinions expressed by them are solely their own and are not representative of the views of the host or Ballotpedia as a whole.

How are Trump’s approval ratings after his first 100 days? In short, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. // GUEST: Mike Davis, President of the Article III project. // Quick Hit: Oren Cass, economist at American Compass gives his take on the tariffs and the trade war with China.

Civil Procedure: May a federal court certify a class action when some members of the class lack an Article III injury? - Argued: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:1:51 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide 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.

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from several states and fuel companies who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed most of their claims, finding that these parties did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor. This case now asks whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case, the argument, and its possible outcomes.Featuring:Mark Pinkert, Partner, Holtzman VogelModerator: Mohammad Jazil, Partner, Holtzman Vogel--To register, click the link above.

Civil Procedure: May a plaintiff establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties? - Argued: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 8:59:9 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.

Judge appears to have driven YET ANOTHER unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district trial judge completely over the edge, provoking Judge Paula Xinis into the greatest degree of insane and petulant over-reaching we've yet seen in the law fare being waged against our elected Article II Executive Branch president by the TDS-afflicted inferior Article III judges who mistakenly believe they possess unlimited authority.Join me as I break down Queen Xinis most insane order yet!

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

The 4th Circuit court of appeals yesterday issued an order on MS-13 terrorist Abrego-Garcia that is absolutely horrific. It reads like a badly written soft-cover romance novel. It is larded public policy aspirations that do not fall within the authority of the inferior trial courts, and imagines a speculative slippery slope that is nowhere to be found in the facts of the case before it. All of that on a foundation of a horrifically flawed understanding of even the basic facts of the case before it. It finishes by claiming the ultimate authority to govern the American people, with the Article II Executive Branch of government bound to bend the knee to whatever these unelected, black-robed, tyrannical inferior district trial court judges wish to levy upon us.Our Founders did not create a nation in which were all to be ruled by Article III judges, least susceptible of all government branches to the political will of the American people. Especially when they rule not only without authority but out of ignorance. Let's break it all down!

This Day in Legal History: Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.On April 18, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., a significant decision reinforcing the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The case arose after Congress enacted legislation requiring federal courts to reopen certain final judgments in securities fraud cases that had been dismissed under an earlier statute of limitations ruling. The plaintiffs, whose claims had already been dismissed with finality, sought to revive their lawsuits under this new provision.In a 7–2 decision, the Court struck down the law, holding that Congress cannot force Article III courts to reopen final judgments. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stressed the importance of finality in judicial decisions and warned against legislative interference with core judicial functions. He argued that once a case is decided, it becomes law of the case and should not be revisited at Congress's whim.The ruling underscored the judiciary's independence from political pressure and reaffirmed that each branch of government must respect the constitutional boundaries of the others. Scalia noted that permitting Congress to override final court decisions would blur the lines between legislative and judicial authority, threatening the rule of law.This decision was not just a technical interpretation of procedural law; it was a firm statement about institutional integrity. Plaut became a cornerstone case for understanding the limits of congressional power over the courts. It continues to be cited in debates over judicial independence and the sanctity of final judgments.A federal appeals court rejected an emergency attempt by the Trump administration to block a judge's order requiring the government to aid in the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 court ruling barring his removal. The court condemned the Justice Department's actions, with Judge Harvie Wilkinson calling them a violation of fundamental liberties and due process. He criticized the administration for acting as though it could abandon individuals in foreign prisons without legal recourse.The Supreme Court previously upheld a similar directive from District Judge Paula Xinis, requiring the administration to work toward bringing Abrego Garcia back from Salvadoran custody. The government claims Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang and lacks the right to remain in the U.S., arguing that Xinis overstepped by involving herself in foreign affairs. However, Wilkinson stressed that due process rights apply regardless of alleged affiliations and warned that ignoring court orders could lead to broader abuses of power, including the potential deportation of U.S. citizens.Abrego Garcia, who has no criminal record in either country, was deported alongside 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador's high-security prison. His 2019 immigration court ruling protected him from deportation due to threats of gang-based extortion.Trump Loses Emergency Appeal to Halt Maryland Deportation CaseThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 regarding President Donald Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship, a constitutional principle rooted in the 14th Amendment. Although the case won't directly determine the legality of Trump's executive order, it will address whether lower court rulings that blocked the policy nationwide should be scaled back to apply only to specific plaintiffs or jurisdictions.Trump's order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to babies born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident. It directs federal agencies to withhold documents like Social Security cards and passports from newborns who don't meet that criterion. Critics argue this violates well-established legal interpretations of the 14th Amendment, which affirms citizenship for nearly everyone born on U.S. soil.The Justice Department argues that nationwide injunctions—orders that block policies across the country—exceed judicial authority and should be narrowed. The administration also questions whether the states and groups suing have legal standing. Despite these claims, lower courts have uniformly refused to allow the executive order to take effect.Opponents, including 22 Democratic-led states and immigration advocacy groups, argue that Trump's effort seeks to strip citizenship from thousands of children and overturn long-standing legal precedent. Trump maintains that birthright citizenship was originally intended only for formerly enslaved people, not for the children of non-citizens.US Birthright Citizenship: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Case - BloombergUS Supreme Court to hear Trump bid to enforce birthright citizenship order | ReutersFifth Circuit Judge James Ho sharply criticized the power of trial-level judges in a recent opinion, focusing on what he sees as overreach in politically sensitive cases. Ho issued a writ of mandamus instructing a district judge in Louisiana to vacate her order reopening a death penalty case years after it had been dismissed. He was joined by fellow Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham, while Judge Catharina Haynes dissented, arguing the appellate process should proceed normally.In his concurring opinion, Ho warned against what he called the misuse of judicial power to obstruct democratic outcomes. He connected the Louisiana case to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that reversed a nationwide order from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., which had blocked the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. The Supreme Court said the Venezuelan plaintiffs should have filed their suit in Texas, where they were detained, effectively transferring jurisdiction and narrowing Boasberg's reach.Ho used that ruling to reinforce his argument that appellate courts must intervene swiftly when district judges exceed their authority. He accused some judges of rushing to block policies they oppose politically, calling it a threat to the electorate's choices and governmental efficiency. He argued that deferring to the standard appeals timeline enables what he called “district judge supremacy.”Judge Haynes pushed back in dissent, criticizing the majority's allegation that the district court manipulated legal processes, especially since neither party in the case had challenged the judge's integrity. She maintained the threshold for a mandamus was not met and objected to the majority's tone and assumptions.James Ho Knocks Trial Judge Who Blocked Venezuelan DeportationsThis week's closing theme is The Moldau by Bedřich Smetana, a defining work in Czech Romantic nationalism and one of the most evocative tone poems in classical music. Smetana, born in 1824 in what is now the Czech Republic, was a pioneering composer who sought to express the identity, history, and natural beauty of his homeland through music. A contemporary of Liszt and Wagner, he was deeply influenced by the idea of programmatic music—compositions that tell a story or paint a picture without the use of words.The Moldau (or Vltava, in Czech) is the second and most famous piece from Smetana's larger symphonic cycle Má vlast(My Homeland), composed between 1874 and 1879. The piece traces the course of the Vltava River from its source in the Bohemian forest, through the countryside, past villages and castles, and ultimately to its merger with the Elbe River. Through rich orchestration and shifting textures, Smetana portrays everything from bubbling springs and flowing currents to a peasant wedding and moonlit night dances by water nymphs.Composed while Smetana was going completely deaf, The Moldau is as much a feat of imagination as it is of musical skill. The main theme, introduced by the flutes and then carried through the orchestra, is one of the most recognizable and emotionally stirring in classical music. It serves not just as a musical depiction of a river but as a symbol of Czech identity, resilience, and natural beauty.Closing with The Moldau offers a moment to reflect on continuity, movement, and national spirit—fitting themes for a week shaped by legal currents and constitutional debate.Without further ado, The Moldau, by Bedřich Smetana – enjoy! 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

Judge Paula Xinis, presiding over the legally nonsensical case of MS-13 terrorist Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia in his current residence at the tropical El Salvadoran prison resort CECOT, has just ordered that Garcia is entitled to compel testimony from the Article II Executive Branch about it's internal foreign affairs discussions.This is, of course, a grotesque violation of the separation of powers by this unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior trial court Article III judge, whose judicial arrogance apparently knows no bounds. Delusionally believing that she has the full backing of SCOTUS do order the Article II Executive Branch to do whatever she wishes, Judge Xinis (class of Obama 2016) has decided to race hard, Thelma & Louise style, at the constitutional crisis cliff.Sadly it must be noted that not helping matters has been the scattered legal argument and communication of the White House on all this, where defense of the Article II Executive Branch prerogatives from overreaching judges demands clarity.Join me as I break it all down into plain English!#abregogarcia #cecot #nayibbukele #donaldtrump

President Trump's legal team has been effectively exposing the insane ranting of Article III federal Judge Paula Xinis as she incompetently and lawlessly attempts to force the Article II Executive Branch to engage in foreign policy actions of her preference, for the purpose of compelling President Trump to return to the US Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia, a designated terrorist who has had a final order of deportation in his pocket for SIX YEARS, and is currently residing at the El Salvadoran prison resort of CECOT.Join me as we step through the most recent White House filings that really show how lawless Judge Xinis's feckless orders are. #abregogarcia #cecot #paulaxinis

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.This is the beginning of Article III, section 1 of the US constitution, establishing the federal judiciary. Nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and usually serving for life, federal judges serve a key role in the highest levels of the American justice system. The federal judiciary is designed to exert a check on the power of the legislative and the executive branches. Now that the Trump Administration is making sweeping changes to the way things are done in Washington, some federal judges are using this power to obstruct the President. But are they right to do so? Joining Heritage Explains today is Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky. —Follow Hans on X: https://twitter.com/HvonSpakovsky?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5EauthorMore by Hans at Heritage.org: https://www.heritage.org/staff/hans-von-spakovsky—Have thoughts? Let us know at heritageexplains@heritage.org

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. This is the beginning of Article III, section 1 of the US constitution, establishing the federal judiciary. Nominated by the president and confirmed by the […]

The judiciary, originally intended as a neutral arbiter of the law, has become an activist institution that repeatedly undermines the executive and legislative branches, overriding the will of the people. Judges have weaponized their authority to block lawful executive orders, interfere in immigration enforcement, and manipulate election laws, effectively placing themselves above the elected government. This unchecked judicial overreach has turned courts into a de facto ruling class, vetoing  policies they personally agree with while allowing other agendas to advance unchallenged. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate federal court jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, allowing lawmakers to strip courts of the ability to hear cases where they have clearly overstepped their authority. By invoking this power, Congress can restore the proper balance between the branches of government, ensuring that the judiciary does not continue to function as a super-legislature with no accountability to the people.Jurisdiction stripping is not an attack on the judiciary but rather a constitutional safeguard against judicial tyranny. Courts are not meant to dictate national policy or obstruct elected leaders from governing within their constitutional authority. By removing federal courts' jurisdiction over immigration, election integrity, religious liberty, and executive orders, Congress can ensure that policy decisions remain in the hands of the people's elected representatives, not unelected judges with ideological agendas. If the courts can override the President's ability to enforce the law and Congress's ability to pass legislation, then elections become meaningless, and the judiciary becomes the ultimate power in the land. Jurisdiction stripping restores democratic control by ensuring that the judiciary is bound by the Constitution and prevented from overstepping its role. Without this action, the courts will continue to function as a political weapon, blocking lawful governance while shielding  policies of  people who share their ideological bend from legal challenges. The Constitution was designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, and jurisdiction stripping is the necessary tool to return the judiciary to its intended, limited role as an interpreter of the law—not its maker.In this episode, we take a look at the power that congress holds to reign this in.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The judiciary, originally intended as a neutral arbiter of the law, has become an activist institution that repeatedly undermines the executive and legislative branches, overriding the will of the people. Judges have weaponized their authority to block lawful executive orders, interfere in immigration enforcement, and manipulate election laws, effectively placing themselves above the elected government. This unchecked judicial overreach has turned courts into a de facto ruling class, vetoing  policies they personally agree with while allowing other agendas to advance unchallenged. The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate federal court jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, allowing lawmakers to strip courts of the ability to hear cases where they have clearly overstepped their authority. By invoking this power, Congress can restore the proper balance between the branches of government, ensuring that the judiciary does not continue to function as a super-legislature with no accountability to the people.Jurisdiction stripping is not an attack on the judiciary but rather a constitutional safeguard against judicial tyranny. Courts are not meant to dictate national policy or obstruct elected leaders from governing within their constitutional authority. By removing federal courts' jurisdiction over immigration, election integrity, religious liberty, and executive orders, Congress can ensure that policy decisions remain in the hands of the people's elected representatives, not unelected judges with ideological agendas. If the courts can override the President's ability to enforce the law and Congress's ability to pass legislation, then elections become meaningless, and the judiciary becomes the ultimate power in the land. Jurisdiction stripping restores democratic control by ensuring that the judiciary is bound by the Constitution and prevented from overstepping its role. Without this action, the courts will continue to function as a political weapon, blocking lawful governance while shielding  policies of  people who share their ideological bend from legal challenges. The Constitution was designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, and jurisdiction stripping is the necessary tool to return the judiciary to its intended, limited role as an interpreter of the law—not its maker.In this episode, we take a look at the power that congress holds to reign this in.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Judge Julia Smith Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit shares how the relationships she formed throughout her career paved the way for her to become the first woman trial judge of a court of record in Tennessee, followed by distinguished service on both the U.S. District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is the recipient of the Devitt Award, the highest honor awarded to an Article III judge, for significant contributions to the administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of law, and improvement of society as a whole. Listen in as Judge Gibbons shares insights gained throughout her trailblazing career.

Today, we arrive, with Fr. Mike, at the In Brief section for Article III. Together, we revisit eight of the main ideas or “nuggets” from the readings of the past six days. Fr. Mike concludes this section by reminding us of the importance of the unity between and veneration of the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 of the New. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 134-141. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Mike Davis of the Article III Project joins me on today's shows to unpack a variety of issues. The electoral college certified the election, making Donald Trump officially the 47th President of the United States. Mike is eagerly anticipating the incoming DOJ led by Pam Bondi. Bondi served as Florida's attorney general and has a rockstar team by her side in Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, John Sauer and Harmeet Dhillon to get the justice department back to delivering justice. More questions unfold about January 6th as it is confirmed that there were 26 FBI hired contractors at the capitol that day. Davis hopes Trump pardons those involved in non-violent incidents. Davis and Article III have an effective game plan to crush the lawfare posed against president Trump with U.S. Code Section 241. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right. Guy Taylor closes us out to give us insight into the real threat these mystery drones pose. New article in my substack, sign up and become a VIP today! PLUS if you're looking for tickets to Trump's inauguration, I got all the info you need: https://www.seanspicer.com/p/exclusive-polling-on-most-effective Featuring: Mike Davis Founder & President | The Article III Project https://www.article3project.org/ Guy Taylor National Security Editor | The Washington Times Host & Editor | Threat Status Podcast & Newsletter https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/threat-status/ -- Sponsors: Ramp Want $250?? Ramp has easy-to-use cards, spend limits, approval flows, vendor payments, and more. Ramp makes all your spending smarter with seamless integration! Join Ramp now and get $250 upon sign-up. Just go to https://ramp.com/SPICER 120/Life Do you suffer from high blood pressure? Has your doctor warned you that you are a candidate for hypertension? Has the ONLY solution offered to you been a pill? Well the folks at 120/Life have created a natural alternative to lower your blood pressure. 120/Life guarantees to lower your blood pressure in 2 weeks or they'll give you your money back. You have nothing to lose, but those high blood pressure numbers! Just goto https://www.120life.com/ and use code: SPICER to save 15% PLUS free shipping. Wired 2 Fish Do you want to drink coffee from the finest coffee beans in the world? Wired 2 Fish sources directly from Mexico and Guatemala to bring you the freshest arabica coffee beans in the world. Wired 2 Fish cares so much about the earth that they give back 25% of their net profits to faith-based organizations and clean water initiatives. If you're a coffee lover and want to support a great company doing great work head to https://www.wired2fishcoffee.com/ use code: WECARE for 15% off your first order. -- Trump may never do another rally so this may be your last chance to experience it for yourself! Front Row Joes: https://frontrowjoes.movie/ -- Subscribe and ring the bell for new videos: https://youtube.com/seanmspicer?sub_confirmation=1 Listen to the full audio show on all platforms: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sean-spicer-show/id1701280578 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/32od2cKHBAjhMBd9XntcUd iHeart: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-the-sean-spicer-show-120471641/ Become a part of The Sean Spicer Show community: https://www.seanspicer.com/ Follow The Sean Spicer Show on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanspicershow Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicershow Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanspicershow Stay in touch with Sean on social media: Facebook: https://facebook.com/seanmspicer Twitter: https://twitter.com/seanspicer Instagram: https://instagram.com/seanmspicer/ #politics #news #theseanspicershow #seanspicer #conservativemedia #podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Axon and Jarkesy have renewed scrutiny of the constitutionality and fairness of FTC’s administrative litigation. For example, the President cannot remove Administrative Law Judges nor FTC Commissioners, and FTC Commissioners both vote to issue the complaint and decide its merits in proceedings. Parties before the DOJ-Antitrust Division, on the other hand, go directly before an Article III judge, and avoid administrative litigation altogether. This panel, featuring the former FTC Acting Chairman, Commission advisors, and administrative law experts, discussed these and other constitutional challenges to FTC’s administrative litigation. If the courts ultimately uphold constitutionality, is Congressional reform warranted? Should FTC’s administrative tribunal be abolished altogether? Or are internal process reforms sufficient to afford fairer process? Keith Klovers' article, "Three Options for Reforming Part 3 Administrative Litigation at the Federal Trade Commission," as referenced in the discussion.

Josh Hammer analyzes Matt Gaetz's abrupt withdrawal from consideration as Donald Trump's attorney general. Was this the plan all along? And regardless, who would be a better pick for attorney general? Also, an update on the Judicial Conference of the United States's planned Article III power grab, Chuck Schumer and John Thune reach a deal on federal judges, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices