Podcast appearances and mentions of brennan center

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching the Supreme Court hand President Donald Trump a rare courtroom defeat, but here we are, listeners, on the heels of Christmas 2025. Just days ago, on December 23, the Justices in Washington, D.C., issued a sharp three-page unsigned order in Trump v. Illinois, rejecting the Trump administration's emergency plea to deploy the Illinois National Guard and Texas National Guard troops to Chicago. Picture this: Back on October 4, President Trump federalized 300 Illinois National Guard members to safeguard federal property amid reports of riots—protesters hurling tear gas canisters at officers, yanking off gas masks, even targeting them with bullhorns that could cause permanent hearing loss. The administration argued it was essential under federal law, citing unrefuted declarations of violence that local police in Chicago couldn't handle alone.But a federal judge in Chicago slapped down a temporary restraining order, and the Supreme Court let it stand. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented fiercely—Alito's opinion called out the lower court for ignoring the facts, questioning why grand jury no-indictments for some rioters weren't enough to discredit the violence claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred separately, but the majority sided against the administration, marking a loss in the shadow docket frenzy that's defined Trump's second term. According to the Brennan Center's tracker, since January 20, 2025, the Court has ruled on 25 such emergency applications challenging Trump actions—20 at least partially in his favor, but this one, no dice. SCOTUSblog reported it straight: the deployment stays blocked while litigation drags on.This isn't isolated. Oral arguments wrapped up just last month on November 5 in Learning Resources v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. VOS Selections before the Supreme Court. At stake? Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets President Trump slap trade tariffs during national emergencies he declares—and if so, does it unconstitutionally hand Congress's power to the executive? Dykema's legal alert calls it the term's biggest case, pitting presidential authority against separation-of-powers limits. Whispers from the bench suggest the Justices are skeptical, probing the delegation doctrine hard.Meanwhile, Trump's legal battles echo from his first term. In New York, Judge Juan Merchan's decision in People v. Donald J. Trump keeps sentencing on ice—pushed from July 2024 past the election to November 26 at Trump's own request, now stayed pending Supreme Court immunity fallout from Trump v. United States. Federal appeals upheld a jury's E. Jean Carroll verdict against him, with no reversal in sight. And the floodgates? Education policies sparked 71 lawsuits in 2025 alone, per Education Week, with Trump losing nearly 70 percent at lower courts. Immigration clashes rage on—from Noem v. Doe revoking parole for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to Alien Enemies Act deportations where the Court sometimes greenlights, sometimes blocks.It's a whirlwind, listeners—tariffs, troops, tariffs again—reminding us the courts are checking power like never before. As 2025 closes, Trump's docket tests every constitutional seam.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Hey listeners, picture this: it's been a whirlwind week in the courts for President Donald Trump, with the Supreme Court dropping bombshells that could reshape his administration's bold moves. Just three days ago, on December 23, 2025, the nation's highest court issued a key ruling in Trump v. Illinois, tackling whether President Trump could federalize the Illinois National Guard and even pull in Texas troops to safeguard federal property in Chicago amid escalating violence. According to the Supreme Court's opinion, Trump activated 300 Illinois Guard members on October 4, followed by Texas forces the next day, citing riots where protesters hurled tear gas canisters at officers, tried grabbing firearms, and blasted bullhorns to cause hearing damage. Justice Alito's dissent slammed the lower District Court in Rhode Island for dismissing the government's unrefuted evidence of chaos, arguing it justified the President's call under federal law. While a majority granted the stay with some reasoning, Kavanaugh concurred, but Alito and Thomas pushed back hard, calling out the eleventh-hour shifts in opponents' arguments. This shadow docket decision, tracked by the Brennan Center, marks one of 25 emergency rulings since Trump took office on January 20, 2025—20 leaning his way, often with minimal explanation.But that's not all from the past few days. Fast-forward to the New York hush money saga: a fresh decision in People v. Donald J. Trump from the Manhattan court, penned by Judge Juan Merchan, shut down Trump's post-election bid to dismiss his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Remember, a jury convicted him unanimously back in May 2024 for scheming to hide payments to Stormy Daniels, aiming to boost his presidential run through unlawful means. Trump requested delays himself—pushing sentencing past the election to November 26, 2024, then begging for a stay and dismissal after winning. The court wasn't buying it, noting Trump consented to those adjournments without opposition from prosecutors. Merchan emphasized the premeditated deception that eroded public trust, rejecting claims the case evaporates with his presidency, citing the Supreme Court's Trump v. United States immunity ruling but insisting justice demands accountability.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has been a Trump turbo-boost all year. Brennan Center reports victories like Trump v. Boyle in July, greenlighting firings at the Consumer Product Safety Commission; McMahon v. New York upholding Education Department workforce cuts; and immigration wins such as Noem v. Doe, allowing mass parole revocations for half a million from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Even on LGBTQ+ fronts, November's ruling backed the State Department's passport gender policies. Not every call went his way—A.A.R.P. v. Trump lost on Venezuelan removals under the Alien Enemies Act—but the pattern's clear: 20 partial wins, with liberals like Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting repeatedly.Lawfare's litigation tracker highlights nonstop challenges, from SNAP benefit suspensions sparking suits by nonprofits and cities, to DOGE transparency fights where CREW got blocked from records. As of now, two more applications simmer. These battles in places like the First Circuit, DC Circuit, and beyond show Trump's team firing on all cylinders, testing presidential power's edges.Thanks for tuning in, listeners—come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I walk into the studio with one question on my mind: how do I explain the latest turns in the courtroom battles surrounding Donald Trump in a way that cuts through the noise for you, the listener, without losing the legal stakes that have the whole country on edge?Over the past few days, the headline moment has come from Washington, where the United States Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a sharp setback in a case called Trump v. Illinois. According to the Supreme Court's own opinion and analysis from SCOTUSblog, the Court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to federalize and deploy the Illinois National Guard, along with Texas Guard units, into Chicago to respond to protests and violence around federal property. The administration argued the Insurrection Act and related statutes gave President Donald Trump broad authority to call up the Guard. A lower court had blocked him, questioning both the factual basis and the scope of that power, and the Supreme Court, in an emergency ruling, refused to restore his plan.In practical terms, that meant National Guard troops would not be marching into Chicago under federal orders, at least not on the legal theory the administration offered. The opinion revealed a divided Court. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, accusing the lower court of underestimating the seriousness of the violence that federal officials described. But the majority, as summarized by commentators at the Brennan Center and SCOTUSblog, signaled limits on how far a president can go in using military force at home without close judicial scrutiny.That ruling landed against a broader backdrop of ongoing litigation involving Donald Trump and his administration's actions. Lawfare's “Trials of the Trump Administration” tracker notes that federal courts around the country continue to referee battles over immigration enforcement, civil service protections, the scope of independent agencies, LGBTQ rights, and government spending. In several shadow-docket cases this year, like Trump v. Boyle on firing members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Supreme Court sided with Trump on presidential control over agencies, but in others, especially involving immigration detention and bond hearings, lower courts have pushed back, and the justices have sometimes let those limits stand.Taken together, the last few days have underscored a pattern: Donald Trump is still testing the outer edge of presidential power in court, and the judiciary is no longer giving him a nearly open field. Instead, each new ruling sketches a tighter map of what a president can and cannot do, from sending troops into a state like Illinois to restructuring the federal bureaucracy or reshaping immigration courts.You, as listeners, are watching a slow, legal tug-of-war over the future of the presidency itself, conducted one opinion, one injunction, one emergency application at a time.Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This year we saw extraordinary threats to American democracy: an executive power grab, attacks on the freedom to vote, and more. Yet we also saw a growing response, from court rulings to citizen alarm. What happened? And what can we expect next?Speakers:Sean Morales-Doyle,  Director, Voting Rights and Elections ProgramWendy Weiser, Vice President, Democracy ProgramDaniel I. Weiner, Director, Elections and Government ProgramKatherine Yon Ebright, Counsel, Liberty and National Security ProgramModerator: Michael Waldman, President and CEORecorded on December 16, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Dec. 23, 2025Can the Feds Require States to Turn Over Voter Data?  A New Paper Suggests Federal Law Doesn't Explicitly Allow It, So Courts Will Decide.The Trump Department of Justice has tried for months to compel states to turn over voter registration data.  A new university research center analysis suggests existing federal law doesn't explicitly permit it. Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - (October) Class Action Suit by Voters Claims Personal Data Shared to the Trump Administration's SAVE Database Violates the Privacy Act of 1974American Democracy Minute - U.S. DOJ Sues MA, CO, HI and NV to Turn Over Voter Registration Files, but Even Red States are Pushing BackUniversity of Wisconsin Law School - State Democracy Research Initiative - Explainer: Can the Federal Government Force States to Hand Over Citizens' Voter Information?Brennan Center for Justice - Tracker of Justice Department Requests for Voter InformationGroups Taking Action:League of Women Voters,C.R.E.W., Electronic Privacy Information Center,  Fair Elections CenterRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #DataPrivacy #SAVEDatabase #VoterRegistrationData 

I step into the studio knowing that, for many listeners, the Donald Trump court saga feels endless. So let's get right to where things stand in the past few days.Across the country, Donald Trump is still juggling fallout from his earlier criminal and civil cases while his administration fights a new wave of lawsuits over how his Justice Department, Homeland Security, and other agencies are using federal power. Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker describes a sprawling map of challenges, from immigration crackdowns to fights over federal workers and independent agencies, all feeding into a sense that the courtroom has become a second West Wing for this presidency.One of the biggest developments in the last few days comes from the Supreme Court and the immigration judges' free‑speech case. According to SCOTUSblog, the justices just rejected the Trump administration's request for emergency relief in a dispute over whether immigration judges can challenge speech restrictions in federal court. Commentator and law professor Stephen Vladeck called it the administration's first real loss at the Supreme Court since April, a rare sign that even this Court has limits on how far it will go on Trump's emergency asks. The order does leave the door open for the administration to come back if the trial court pushes into discovery, but for now, Trump's lawyers will have to keep fighting on the merits.At nearly the same time, another federal courtroom dealt the administration a blow on immigration detention. The ACLU of Massachusetts reports that a federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it denied bond hearings to people arrested by ICE in New England and then misclassified them to keep them in mandatory, no‑bond detention. The court granted partial summary judgment and held that, under the immigration statutes, these detainees must have access to a bond hearing. For thousands of people in New England lockups, that decision is not abstract law; it is the difference between indefinite confinement and a chance to argue for release.Overlay these fresh rulings on top of Trump's personal legal history and the picture sharpens. Outlets such as WABE have tracked how civil judgments for defamation and sexual abuse, as well as criminal convictions for falsifying business records in New York and the federal election‑interference and documents cases, have moved through appeals. A federal appeals court has already upheld one major civil jury verdict against Trump and declined to revisit it, locking in both damages and factual findings about his conduct. That appellate resistance puts real weight behind the idea that some of Trump's legal problems are no longer just allegations; they are affirmed findings of liability.And yet, while Trump personally appeals past losses, his administration simultaneously racks up wins and losses in real time. The Brennan Center and Lawfare both note that, since his return to the White House, the Supreme Court has often sided with the Trump administration on emergency applications involving immigration enforcement, federal workforce cuts, and control over independent agencies. Those shadow‑docket victories have let the administration move fast, even while lower courts probe legality. But the immigration judges' case and the Boston bond‑hearing ruling show that trial courts and, occasionally, the justices themselves are willing to draw constitutional and statutory lines.So when you hear about “Trump's trials” this week, it is not just one courtroom, one jury, or even one former president. It is Donald Trump the criminal defendant and civil litigant, and Donald Trump the sitting president whose policies are on trial in federal courts from Massachusetts to Washington.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I'm standing outside a federal courthouse, talking to you as the many legal threads around Donald Trump tighten and twist in real time.Over just the past few days, one of the big storylines has shifted from criminal exposure to raw presidential power. In Washington, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit handed President Donald Trump a major win by upholding his removal of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris without cause. According to analysis from Ogletree Deakins, the court went further than just blessing those firings: it held that the statutory “for cause” protections for top officials at powerful independent agencies are unconstitutional when those officials wield substantial executive power. In plain English, the D.C. Circuit said President Donald Trump can sweep out key regulators at will, reshaping agencies that for decades had a measure of insulation from the Oval Office.At almost the same time, the Supreme Court has been functioning as an emergency referee over a growing list of Trump fights. SCOTUSblog reports that on its interim or “shadow” docket the justices have been fielding high‑stakes disputes over President Donald Trump's use of the National Guard in Illinois, his clashes with immigration judges, and efforts by groups like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington to get internal administration documents through the Freedom of Information Act. The Brennan Center for Justice has been tracking these emergency cases and notes that, since early 2025, the Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration on issues like immigration crackdowns, reductions in the civil service, and the removal of members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.All of this sits on top of the longer‑running legal sagas that you as listeners have been following for years: the civil verdicts in New York, the federal and state criminal indictments, and the defamation and assault findings in the E. Jean Carroll cases. Public radio outlets like WABE have been keeping a running tally of where those stand since Donald Trump's return to the White House, tracking appeals of jury verdicts, ongoing sentencing fights for his former aides, and the way new Justice Department decisions under his own administration intersect with prosecutions that began before he reclaimed power.So when we talk about “the Trump trials” right now, we are not just talking about Donald Trump as a criminal defendant. We are talking about Donald Trump as president, testing and expanding the boundaries of executive authority in courtroom after courtroom, from the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, while older cases about his past business dealings and political conduct grind through appeals.For you listening, the takeaway this week is simple: judges are increasingly being asked whether Donald Trump is merely subject to the law, or also able to rewrite the balance of power inside the law itself. Those answers are coming fast, and they are reshaping the presidency in ways that will outlast any single trial.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot AI.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I stepped into this past week of Donald Trump's court battles the way you might walk into a courthouse lobby at noon: no time for pleasantries, because everything is already in motion.At the center of it all is the New York criminal case, People v. Donald J. Trump, in the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, the first criminal prosecution ever brought against a former American president. The New York State Unified Court System's public docket shows how that case has remained very much alive, even after the historic conviction earlier in 2025 on charges tied to falsifying business records during the 2016 election. The docket lists the verdict sheet from May 30, the jury instructions from May 29, and then a steady drumbeat of post‑trial motions, orders, and letters through the summer and fall. Judge Juan Merchan's decisions in August and November on Trump's efforts to recuse the judge and to loosen restrictions on Trump's public statements make clear that the court has continued to push the case forward despite intense political pressure. The presence‑of‑counsel orders, discovery‑sanctions rulings, and contempt decisions all paint the same picture: the New York court treating Donald Trump less like a former president and more like any criminal defendant pressing the limits of what a trial judge will tolerate.But the courtroom drama has now moved to an even higher stage: the Supreme Court of the United States. According to the Supreme Court's own docket and the Oyez case summary, the justices heard oral argument on December 8 in a case captioned Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al. That case, known as Trump v. Slaughter, places Trump as the sitting president again, squaring off against Federal Trade Commission officials including Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. While the full opinion has not yet been released, the oral argument focused on how far presidential power reaches over independent agencies, and what limits, if any, courts can impose when a president seeks to reshape or overrule regulatory watchdogs.The Brennan Center for Justice's Supreme Court shadow‑docket tracker adds another layer. It reports that since early 2025 the Supreme Court has repeatedly been asked to intervene on an emergency basis in cases captioned Trump v. Boyle, Trump v. Wilcox, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey, among others. These disputes center on whether President Trump can fire members of independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Labor Relations Board without showing any cause, and whether he can rapidly change immigration programs and civil‑service protections. In case after case, the tracker notes that the Court has at least partially sided with the Trump administration, sometimes with only brief orders and sharp dissents from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Lawfare's ongoing Trump Administration Litigation Tracker echoes this trend, cataloging a sprawling landscape of lawsuits in federal district courts and courts of appeals challenging Trump's deployment of the National Guard, his immigration orders, and his efforts to rein in inspectors general and other internal watchdogs.Taken together, the New York criminal docket, the Supreme Court arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, and the shadow‑docket rulings described by the Brennan Center and Lawfare show you a single continuous story: Donald Trump not just as a criminal defendant in Manhattan, but as a sitting president testing, case by case, how much control he can exert over the machinery of American government, and how willing judges are to push back.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dotSome great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

For a generation, presidential races were blowouts. Every winner between 1980 and 1996 won by at least 37 Electoral College votes. These landslides relegated conspiracy theories about contested elections to the political fringes.Then came 2000. The last polls showed a dead heat. On election night, the networks called it for Al Gore, then retracted their calls, then called it for George W. Bush, and retracted again.Ultimately, five Supreme Court justices, all appointed by Republican presidents, put an end to the recount underway in Florida and effectively declared Bush the winner. The fractured opinions were a maze of disagreements, with the majority warning that the opinion should not be cited as precedent. Their reasoning flummoxed legal scholars — even those who agreed with the outcome. Listen as experts involved in the case discuss how it changed the relationship between Americans and elections and between elections and the courts.Speakers:David Boies, Founding Partner, Boies Schiller FlexnerBenjamin Ginsberg, Volker Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution; National Counsel, Bush-Cheney Presidential CampaignBarbara Pariente, Justice (retired), Florida Supreme CourtWendy Weiser, Vice President, Democracy, Brennan Center for JusticeModerator: Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterRecorded on December 9, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

The story of Project 2025 begins not on Election Day, but long before, in the quiet offices of the Heritage Foundation, where conservative policy experts assembled a nearly 900‑page blueprint called “Mandate for Leadership.” According to Heritage, the goal is simple and sweeping: prepare “the next conservative president” to overhaul the federal government on day one, using prewritten executive orders, a handpicked personnel roster, and a detailed 180‑day playbook.At its core, Project 2025 envisions a presidency with far greater direct control over federal agencies. Heritage's documentation argues for a robust “unitary executive,” calling for the Department of Justice and the FBI to be brought firmly under presidential authority and for the FBI director to be “personally accountable to the president.” Wikipedia's summary of the plan notes that independent regulators like the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission would lose much of their autonomy, reshaping how antitrust, consumer protection, and media rules are enforced.Listeners can see this ambition most clearly in proposals for the civil service. The National Federation of Federal Employees explains that Project 2025 leans on an idea known as Schedule F, a Trump‑era classification that would let the White House reclassify tens of thousands of career officials as political appointees. Heritage materials describe this as replacing a hostile “administrative state” with loyal staff, while unions and watchdogs warn it would strip protections and open the door to patronage and purges.The scope goes well beyond personnel. The blueprint urges abolishing the Department of Education and shifting most authority to states, with the National Center for Education Statistics folded into the Census Bureau. It says the federal role should be largely “statistics‑keeping,” accusing Washington of pushing “woke propaganda” in schools. In homeland security, it calls for dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and replacing it with a streamlined immigration‑focused agency built around border enforcement components, according to reporting summarized on Wikipedia.Economic and social policy would move sharply in a conservative direction. The plan calls for rolling back environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels, cutting corporate taxes, exploring a flat income tax, and reducing Medicaid and Medicare spending. The ACLU, which has published an overview titled “Project 2025, Explained,” warns that these shifts, combined with proposals to curtail civil rights enforcement and expand the federal death penalty, could weaken protections for immigrants, LGBTQ people, and communities of color.Supporters frame all this as restoring accountability and reversing what they see as liberal overreach. Critics at groups like the Brennan Center for Justice argue that concentrating power in the White House and politicizing law enforcement risks eroding checks and balances that have underpinned American governance for decades.The next key milestones will come as candidates decide how fully to embrace this playbook, and as voters weigh whether they want a presidency empowered to carry it out. Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I was a panelist at the Cyber Security Summit hosted by the Brennan Center and Common Cause NY and the Center for Long term Cybersecurity at the NYC Bar Association on December 11, 2025. My panel focused on specific ways County Board of Elections are looking to protect our elections as well as the challenges we face. Enjoy.See the whole summit here: https://www.youtube.com/live/CUKfxKxCuGs

The American Democracy Minute Radio News Report & Podcast for Dec. 9, 2025How Much Power Does the President Have Over Independent Agencies?  Trump vs. Slaughter in the SCOTUS Tests the ‘Unitary Executive” Theory  A case before the U.S. Supreme Court December 8th tests the “unitary executive” theory – how much power the presidency has over agencies Congress designed to be “independent”.  The Federal Election Commission is one of those agencies.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:Federal Trade Commission - Commissioners American Democracy Minute - Executive Order Asserting Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies Could Put Federal Election Oversight Under Partisan ControlEconomic Policy Institute - Firing FTC CommissionersSCOTUS Blog - Trump v. Slaughter: an explainer  Brennan Center for Justice - Historian's Amicus Brief in Trump v. SlaughterNPR - Legal scholar discusses SCOTUS case on the firing of a Democratic FTC commissioner Groups Taking Action:Campaign Legal Center, Protect Democracy, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in WashingtonRegister or Check Your Voter Registration:U.S. Election Assistance Commission – How to Register And Vote in Your StatePlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#News #Democracy  #DemocracyNews #UnitaryExecutive #DonaldTrump #TrumpvSlaughter  #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt #PresidentialPower

Over the past several months, the Trump administration has undertaken a congressionally unauthorized military campaign against supposed “narco-terrorists” in international waters. One of the administration's attacks in particular has roiled Washington — according to recent reporting, military officials ordered a follow-up strike that killed survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat. Since the revelation, Trump officials have scrambled to explain the legal justification and who was ultimately responsible.  Listen as Brennan Center expert Katherine Yon Ebright and Michael Waldman break down why these strikes are unlawful and discuss how Congress should respond.   If you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating.  Recorded on December 5, 2025.  Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.  The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office. 

U.S. politics today can be defined by extreme dysfunction and polarization. But the founders accounted for a fractured society, and designed our government specifically to handle moments like these. Listen as conservative scholar Yuval Levin discusses his book, American Covenant: How the Constitution Unified Our Nation―and Could Again, which argues that the U.S. constitutional system is designed to compel us to find common ground and act together — and that the key is for Congress to play its leading role. Speakers: Yuval Levin, Director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise InstituteHost: Michael Waldman, President, Brennan CenterIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on November 21, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

Intelligence experts discuss the new frontiers of intelligence gathering, examining how emerging technologies are transforming espionage and reshaping the future of U.S. national security.   Background Reading: This article outlines how growing politicization within the intelligence community threatens the integrity of intelligence assessments and endangers U.S. national security.   Host: Barton Gellman, Senior Advisor to the President, Brennan Center for Justice, NYU Law School   Guests: Robert Cardillo, Former Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency   Anthony Vinci, Author, The Fourth Intelligence Revolution: The Future of Espionage and the Battle to Save America; Former Chief Technology Officer, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency   Rebecca U. Weiner, Deputy Commissioner, Intelligence and Counterterrorism, New York City Police Department; CFR Member   Want more comprehensive analysis of global news and events straight to your inbox? Subscribe to CFR's Daily News Brief newsletter.   To keep tabs on all CFR events, visit cfr.org/event. To watch this event, please visit our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu62quTXCF0   

Our military is trained to defeat enemies, not to police American citizens. President Trump's troop deployments in Los Angeles, DC, Chicago, Portland, Memphis, and potentially other cities pose real threats to civil liberties and the rule of law.  During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.” Experts discuss the legality of Trump's actions, the ongoing lawsuits to stop them, and ways to prevent future abuses of military force.  Speakers:Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director, Brennan Center Liberty and National Security ProgramWilliam L. Enyart, Major General (ret.), U.S. Army; former U.S. representative (D-IL); former committee member, House Armed Services CommitteeHost: Michael Waldman, President, Brennan CenterRecorded on November 10, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

UnHerd's Freddie Sayers dives into the legal and political firestorm surrounding President Trump's threatened lawsuit against the BBC. He is joined by three expert guests to unpack the case from every angle: Professor Burt Neuborne, founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, analyses the US legal arguments and whether Trump can actually win; Joshua Rozenberg, legal journalist and the BBC's former legal correspondent, discusses the internal crisis at the BBC and its "perceived liberal bias"; and Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, explores the wider "chilling effect" of such lawsuits on press freedom. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode: The Supreme Court is considering a major separation-of-powers case that could redefine the limits of presidential authority during national emergencies, and help define what exactly constitutes a national emergency. Learning Resources v. Trump challenges President Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner — tariffs justified largely by declaring a series of national emergencies.At issue is whether the law gives the president the power to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval, and how far courts can go in reviewing those emergency declarations. Elizabeth ‘Liza' Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, explains the oral arguments made on November 5th, how their eventual decision could affect Trump's signature policy and future presidents, and what the ruling might mean for the balance of power between Congress and the Executive Branch.Learn more about the case: https://ballotpedia.org/Learning_Resources,_Inc._v._Trump Read Liza's analysis: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/whats-stake-supreme-court-tariffs-case 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.

From November 6, 2024: For today's special episode, Lawfare General Counsel and Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson held a series of conversations with contributors to a special series of articles on “The Dangers of Deploying the Military on U.S. Soil” that Lawfare recently published on its website, in coordination with our friends at Protect Democracy.Participants include: Alex Tausanovitch, Policy Advocate at Protect Democracy; Laura Dickinson, a Professor at George Washington University Law School; Joseph Nunn, Counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center; Chris Mirasola, an Assistant Professor at the University of Houston Law Center; Mark Nevitt, a Professor at Emory University School of Law; Elaine McCusker, a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; and Lindsay P. Cohn, a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. Together, they discussed how and why domestic deployments are being used, the complex set of legal authorities allowing presidents and governors to do so, and what the consequences might be, both for U.S. national security and for U.S. civil-military relations more generally.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It's Friday, November 7, 2025, and if you've been following the frontlines of American political drama, you already know the courtroom battles around Donald Trump have been nothing short of astonishing this week. Let me take you inside the swirl of legal action, where the stakes are national, the personalities unyielding, and the implications huge. Just two days ago, on November 5, the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. was the stage for a rare and urgent oral argument in the consolidated cases known as Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. The Court squeezed this into its November 2025 session, emphasizing the extraordinary speed and significance. In the packed chambers, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, famed litigator Neal K. Katyal, and Oregon's Solicitor General Benjamin Gutman all took turns at the lectern. Their arguments delved into Trump administration policies, including the contentious use of executive authority and the administration's aggressive approach to what Trump's lawyers called “national interest” actions. According to the Supreme Court docket, these cases rose on lightning-fast petitions and were consolidated due to their overlapping constitutional questions and the urgency voiced by both petitioners and respondents.But that wasn't the only court battle with Trump at the center. Over at the Federal District Courts, the legal action buzzed just as intensely. The Brennan Center for Justice has reported that Donald Trump is simultaneously facing three active federal prosecutions, and, for those who recall, in May 2024, he was actually convicted of felonies in New York.The new front this week? Several lawsuits target orders that President Trump signed earlier this year. One major case making waves is American Bar Association v. Trump, where legal groups allege that Trump's orders specifically targeted law firms for actions the administration considered to be against the “national interest.” These orders, signed in March and April, resulted in penalties like stripping security clearances and terminating government contracts with those firms. It's sparked nothing less than a constitutional confrontation over executive power and civil liberties. Just Security's litigation tracker says the case is awaiting a major ruling that could reshape how presidents wield authority against perceived opponents.Meanwhile, voting rights have come to the fore in cases such as Democratic National Committee v. Trump and League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump. The heart of the battle is Trump's order mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and threatening to cut federal funding to states that don't comply. Civil rights groups and a coalition of states, including California and Washington, claim these moves violate both the separation of powers and federal voting law. Federal courts have, at least for now, temporarily blocked these orders, but hearings and filings have kept the courtroom jostling at a high boil all week.That is only a glimpse, because every filing, every oral argument, and every judicial decision right now seems to push U.S. politics deeper into uncharted water. The legal landscape around Donald Trump is shifting by the day. Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

From everyday instances of corruption to an administration intent on undermining the Constitution, it can feel as though American democracy is in decline. Yet amid the attacks on the rule of law and strains on our system of checks and balances, there are ways that we can engage, participate, and work together to defend and uphold our democratic institutions. Listen as legal expert and former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance discusses her new book, Giving Up is Unforgivable: A Manual for Keeping a Democracy.Speakers: Joyce Vance, Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law at University of Alabama School of Law; Senior Fellow, Brennan Center Host: Michael Waldman, President, Brennan CenterIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on November 3, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

North Carolina leads a new wave of gerrymandering battles ahead of the 2026 midterms. Laura Flanders revisits how redistricting there reveals the national struggle over democracy and fair representation.This show is made possible by you!  To become a sustaining member go to LauraFlanders.org/donate  Thank you for your continued support!Description [original release date May 7, 2023] As the 2026 midterm elections approach, North Carolina has once again become ground zero in the fight over American democracy. In this re-release of “Deciding the Fate of Democracy in North Carolina,” Laura Flanders and her guests revisit how extreme gerrymandering has reshaped political power and voter representation in one of the nation's key swing states.North Carolina is now the first swing state to draw new congressional districts amid a nationwide push by both parties to lock in advantages before the next election. What's at stake for democracy—not just in North Carolina, but across the country?Tune in as Laura Flanders & Friends explore the local stories behind this national struggle, and what it reveals about the future of fair representation in America.Guests:Hilary Harris Klein: Senior Counsel of Voting Rights, Southern Coalition for Social JusticeIrving L. Joyner: Professor of Law, North Carolina Central University School of LawSerena Sebring: Executive Director, Blueprint NCJosh Stein: Attorney General, North CarolinaAngela M. Thorpe: Executive Director, Pauli Murray Center for History and Social Justice Watch this episode on YouTubeFull Show Notes are located HERE.  They include related episodes, articles, and more to dive deeper.Music In the Middle:   "Wings" by Terry Callier courtesy of Mr. Bongo Records.  Additional music,  'Steppin' & 'Electric Car' by Podington Bear.  "Unsilenced" by Ketsa.  Original Sound Design by Jeannie Hopper. RESOURCES:Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes:•  The Forgotten Coup, January 6th & the Small Town Americans on the Frontlines of Democracy  Watch / Download Podcast•  Community Safety in a Time of  Insurrection  Watch / Download Podcast•  North Carolina:  Courageous Conversations in a Climate of Fear  Watch / Download Podcast•  Lisa Graves:  The Extremist Revolutions & Democracy Hanging by a Thread  Watch / Download Podcast•  Democratizing Democracy:  Redistricting by the People  Watch / Download PodcastRelated Articles and Resources:•  North Carolinas Republicans Just Took Gerrymandering to a Whole New Level, by Laura Flanders, The Nation,  Read Here•  Moore vs. Harper Explained, by Eliza Sweren-Becker & Ethan Herenstein, The Brennan Center, Read Here•  North Carolina Supreme Court delivers three sweeping blows to voting rights, opinion.  by The Editorial Board, The News & Observer,  Read Here•  What Happens to Moore v. Harper after the latest North Carolina Supreme Court decision in the partisan gerrymandering case?  by Derek Muller, ElectionLawBlog.org  Read Here• The ‘Independent State Legislature Theory,' Explained, by Ethan Herenstein & Thomas Wolf, The Brennan Center, read here Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders-Executive Producer, Writer; Sabrina Artel-Supervising Producer; Jeremiah Cothren-Senior Producer; Veronica Delgado-Video Editor, Janet Hernandez-Communications Director; Jeannie Hopper-Audio Director, Podcast & Radio Producer, Audio Editor, Sound Design, Narrator; Sarah Miller-Development Director, Nat Needham-Editor, Graphic Design emeritus; David Neuman-Senior Video Editor, and Rory O'Conner-Senior Consulting Producer. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

Congress has the power of the purse, not the president. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to decide how much the federal government spends and for what purposes. While presidents and Congress have always engaged in a push-and-pull over funding, President Trump has taken unprecedented steps to ignore this constitutional framework and impose his own spending priorities. Experts break down these efforts, the lawsuits challenging them, and the impact of these actions on Americans' daily lives. Speakers:Shalanda Young, Former Director, White House Office of Management and Budget; Distinguished Scholar in Residence, NYU School of Law; Doris Duke Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Georgetown McCourt School of Public PolicyLauren Miller Karalunas, Counsel, Brennan Center Democracy ProgramHost, Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on October 28, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

This week has been nothing short of historic, and unpredictable, if you've been following the court trials involving Donald Trump. With the date ticking into November 2025, each day seems to add a new layer. I want to get you right to the heart of the action.Earlier this week, the Supreme Court docketed one of the most closely watched cases of this term: Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., among others. The case comes directly from the Federal Circuit, with the Supreme Court ordering oral arguments to begin on November 5, just three days from now. This trial isn't just high stakes for Trump; it's a moment where the nation's top legal minds are converging to address questions that could redefine executive power and the limits of presidential authority. The process has been expedited, with amicus briefs from political advocacy groups and multiple parties chiming in. The Court has consolidated related cases and allotted a tight one-hour argument slot, so every moment in that courtroom will count.But the Supreme Court isn't the only bench where Trump's legal fate has been debated. Over in Rhode Island, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. made headlines when he ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to suspend funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Judge McConnell, in a tense emergency hearing, stated that stopping SNAP payments would cause not just legal harm, but immediate suffering for families, especially with the holiday season closing in. He ordered the administration to immediately deliver contingency funds for November's payments, and demanded Trump's team clarify exactly how this would be done. Legal analysts pointed out that Judge McConnell cited the Administrative Procedure Act, calling the administration's suspension arbitrary and capricious. The ripple effect reached local governments, nonprofits, and small businesses, all of whom joined a coalition lawsuit, describing how a funding lapse would devastate their communities.Meanwhile, the Brennan Center for Justice reminds us that Trump is facing three separate prosecutions, on top of the Supreme Court action and the SNAP controversy. Not to mention that just last year, in May 2024, he was convicted of felonies in New York. Each of these threads—Supreme Court showdowns, federal benefit disputes, and ongoing criminal trials—puts the former president at the center of America's legal and political storms.Before I go, I want to thank you for tuning in. Don't miss next week, as we break down the oral arguments at the Supreme Court and track every twist in Trump's legal journey. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Barely a day seems to pass without Donald Trump's name in the headlines, and the courtroom drama over the past week has been nothing short of remarkable. Right now, as we find ourselves on October 31, 2025, the former president is juggling a trio of active criminal cases, not to mention the aftermath of his high-profile conviction in New York back in May 2024. The Brennan Center for Justice reports that these are not just legal battles; they've become central to the country's political discourse and national mood.Let's get right to it—the New York criminal case, where Trump was convicted of multiple felonies related to falsification of business records, continues to cast a long shadow. To this day, his legal team is deep into appeals, but that conviction sent shockwaves through both legal circles and politics, signaling that no one, not even a former president, sits above the law.But that's only the tip of the iceberg. Down in Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is still aggressively pursuing Trump and his associates for their alleged roles in attempting to overturn the state's 2020 election results. Courtrooms have become stages for heated arguments over evidence, witness lists, and the ever-present question of whether a trial might bleed dangerously close to the next presidential election cycle.Meanwhile, the federal courts are staying busy. Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution concerning Trump's role in the January 6 Capitol events is ongoing. Testimony from former aides and Capitol security experts dominated recent proceedings. Legal analysts point out that the intersection of free speech, presidential power, and criminal responsibility is right at the heart of these hearings.Lawfare Media has been closely tracking nearly 300 active cases that challenge Trump administration actions, from immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities—such as the recent denied injunction in City of Chelsea v. President Trump, decided earlier this month—to ongoing litigation over executive orders, national security issues, and challenges brought all the way to the Supreme Court. Some cases, like those invoking the Alien Enemies Act, are still pending, with states and civil rights groups arguing over the scope of presidential authority during perceived national emergencies.Amid all this legal maneuvering, names like Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington D.C., defense attorney Todd Blanche, and prosecutors from both state and federal offices are appearing on airwaves and in headlines almost daily. Court dates, delays, and rulings all slip easily from legal language into everyday conversation, as Americans wait to see whether any outcome will deliver closure or only add to the division.For many, the thicket of cases—spanning the Supreme Court dockets, federal courts, and local criminal trials—highlights a fundamental moment for the country's legal system. Are the courts delivering justice, or is politics warping the process? That's the debate echoing across living rooms, campaign rallies, and, of course, social media.Thanks for tuning in to this week's whirlwind through the Trump trials. Be sure to come back next week for more developments and insights. This has been a Quiet Please production—if you want more, check out QuietPlease.ai.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance joins journalist Patt Morrison for an insightful and timely discussion on the state of the American justice system—its resilience, vulnerabilities, and the tests it continues to face in today's polarized political climate. Together, they explore the balance between accountability and power, the role of the courts, and what justice means in a democracy under strain.Joyce White Vance served as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and is a distinguished legal analyst for NBC and MSNBC. She writes the acclaimed Civil Discourse newsletter on Substack and cohosts the podcasts #SistersInLaw and The Insider. Vance is a Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law at the University of Alabama and a Senior Fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.Patt Morrison is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist, columnist, and broadcaster for the Los Angeles Times. She has received multiple Emmys, Golden Mike Awards, and authored bestselling books, including Rio LA and Don't Stop the Presses! Truth, Justice, and the American Newspaper.This event is part of the America at a Crossroads virtual series, founded by Jews United for Democracy, featuring leading voices discussing the most pressing issues shaping our democracy.

President Trump has done away with the Justice Department's historic independence, firing career prosecutors and using the department to pursue his political enemies. Former DOJ leaders under Republican and Democratic administrations break down what is happening inside the department and what can be done about its weaponization.Speakers:Peter Keisler, Former Acting Attorney General Vanita Gupta, Former Associate Attorney General Host: Michael Waldman, President, Brennan CenterRecorded on October 24, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

On this edition, host Ruth Newman held a microphone up to random participants at the NO KINGS protest, held October 18, 2025 in Louisville, KY, at the Belvedere downtown. Folks responded to questions like "Why are you here?" or "Do you consider yourself to be a radical leftwing terrorist?" or "Do you hate America?" Ruth followed this with some documented reports from the Brennan Center for Justice on Trump Administration moves to undermine upcoming elections. Also included are Ten Effective Things Citizens Can Do To Make Change in Addition To Attending a Protest.

We are living in a new era of corruption, one that combines personal self-dealing and vast funds pouring into the political process. Whether it's the crypto industry dominating Congress, the world's wealthiest man bankrolling the winning presidential campaign, regulatory decisions used to pressure businesses, or the government quashing the bribery investigation of a top official, public power and private gain are fusing into one. Experts lay out a plan to end the culture of kleptocracy. Speakers:Jane Mayer, Staff Writer, The New YorkerDaniel I. Weiner, Director, Elections and Government Program, Brennan CenterHost, Michael Waldman, President and CEOIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on October 15, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

The foundation of our democracy is the Constitution, a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. But today, those cornerstones are being blatantly disrespected by a presidential administration attempting to consolidate power at all costs..In this episode, host Simone Leeper is joined by Campaign Legal Center litigators Anna Baldwin and Brent Ferguson. They examine the most pressing examples of the erosion of the rule of law, from the politicization of the Department of Justice to the stifling of free speech. Along the way, they highlight how Congress and the courts have failed as effective checks — leaving civil society and citizens to defend constitutional principles — and explore the reforms that could restore accountability, protect the rule of law and strengthen democracy against threats. Timestamps:(00:05) — Why is free speech under attack in the U.S.?(03:50) — How is political opposition being falsely linked to political violence?(05:38) — Why is deploying federal troops in U.S. cities a threat to democracy?(09:50) — How are Congress and the courts failing to check presidential abuses of power?(15:09) — How has the DOJ been transformed into a political tool?(20:17) — Why is the Voting Rights Act no longer being enforced?(21:17) — What's at stake with the DOJ's demand for voter data?(27:27) — How is CLC challenging unlawful executive orders?(32:30) — What reforms are needed to restore checks and balances?Host and Guests:Simone Leeper litigates a wide range of redistricting-related cases at Campaign Legal Center, challenging gerrymanders and advocating for election systems that guarantee all voters an equal opportunity to influence our democracy. Prior to arriving at CLC, Simone was a law clerk in the office of Senator Ed Markey and at the Library of Congress, Office of General Counsel. She received her J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2019 and a bachelor's degree in political science from Columbia University in 2016.Anna Baldwin is a member of Campaign Legal Center's voting rights team working to protect the freedom to vote, litigating cases in state and federal courts, from filing through appeal to the Supreme Court. Prior to joining CLC, Anna spent 14 years in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. In North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory, Anna led briefing and appellate argument for the United States to overturn a North Carolina law that purposefully restricted voting and registration opportunities for Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Anna was also a member of the trial team that successfully challenged Texas's racially discriminatory voter ID law. Anna has argued eighteen cases before the federal courts of appeal, including four en banc cases. Previously, Anna was an associate in the Washington D.C. office of Jenner & Block LLP, and clerked for Judge James Robertson on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and for Judge M. Blane Michael on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.Brent Ferguson leads Campaign Legal Center's strategic litigation team, focusing on anti-authoritarianism and litigating in all areas of election law. Brent has worked on protecting and improving our democracy for most of his career. At CLC, he has led litigation teams challenging state and federal laws and policies that seek to unlawfully purge voters, limit voter registration activity and otherwise prevent Americans from exercising their constitutionally protected rights. He has authored academic articles on election law and other constitutional issues in the Washington Law Review, the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, the Emory Law Journal Online and elsewhere. Before coming to CLC, Brent was senior counsel at the National Redistricting Foundation, where he helped develop strategy for federal and state redistricting litigation. For four years, he served as counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, focusing on campaign finance reform and working on a broad range of other democracy issues. He was also an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney's office, where he litigated appeals of public corruption convictions. He clerked for Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Jeffrey Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.Links:Taking Action Against Presidential Abuses of Power | Campaign Legal CenterAbout CLC:Democracy Decoded is a production of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy. Campaign Legal Center fights for every American's freedom to vote and participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Learn more about us.Democracy Decoded is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

When can a president invoke the Insurrection Act? The Brennan Center for Justice's Elizabeth Goitein explains. Then, we talk with Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona about the government shutdown and why health care is the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans in shutdown negotiations. And, this year's Nobel Prize-winning chemists designed porous materials that can pull water from the desert air, capture carbon dioxide from factories, and scoop pollution out of water. President of the American Chemical Society Dorothy Phillips joins us.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

For the past four months, President Donald Trump has been sending the National Guard into cities that protest his policies. First, it was Los Angeles. Then, it was Washington D.C. And now, it's Portland, Oregon and Chicago. An Oregon federal judge blocked Trump's deployment of the state's National Guard on Saturday — and then also stopped the Trump administration from sending California's National Guard troops to Portland on Sunday night. But not all of these cities are getting help from the courts. On Monday, a federal judge declined to stop the Trump administration from deploying members of the Texas National Guard to Chicago – over the express objections of Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, who called the move an “unconstitutional invasion.”So to talk more about the legality and context for sending U.S. military into our own cities, we spoke to Elizabeth Goitein. She's the senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.And in headlines, the shutdown continues with no end in sight, President Trump says he's going to “take a look” at a pardon for convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Social Security Administration Commissioner will also take on the brand new role of CEO of the IRS.Show Notes:Check out Elizabeth's piece – https://tinyurl.com/ypf2w6v8Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This year's Supreme Court term will be a historic one for the future of presidential power and our system of checks and balances. The Court has steadily chipped away at protections designed to make American democracy fairer, more inclusive, and more representative. In the 2025–26 term, the justices will hear a set of cases that could accelerate that troublesome trend and produce landmark decisions. One case implicates how the Voting Rights Act ensures fair representation in state legislatures. Yet another takes up the controversy over the president's asserted power to unilaterally impose tariffs. Learn about the major cases on the Court's docket and what the outcomes could mean for the future of American democracy. Hosted in partnership with the Kohlberg Center on the U.S. Supreme Court. Speakers:Host, Michael Waldman, President and CEO, Brennan CenterKareem Crayton, Vice President for Washington, DC, Brennan CenterGilda R. Daniels, Professor, University of Baltimore School of LawElizabeth Goitein, Senior Director, Brennan Center Liberty and National Security ProgramLeah Tulin, Senior Counsel and Litigation Manager, Brennan Center Democracy ProgramIf you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on September 30, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

In this episode of Management Matters with James-Christian Blockwood, experts dive into the evolving challenges in election security and administration. Featuring insights from Kathleen Hale, Professor emerita of Political Science at Auburn University and Executive Director of the Election Center, and Derek Tisler, counsel and manager in the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, the episode explores the shifting role of federal support, the importance of state and local level resources, the critical nature of community trust, and the innovations that are reshaping how elections are conducted. The discussion highlights the necessity of reliable funding, continuous technology updates, and robust information-sharing practices to ensure the integrity and resilience of the American election system.01:13 Exploring Election Security Challenges02:23 Federal Government's Role in Election Security03:39 Election Officials' Response to Security Gaps07:26 Building Trust and Resiliency in Elections14:09 Modernizing Election Systems19:07 Lessons from International Election Systems23:09 Future of Elections and Preparation25:49 Qualities of Great Election OfficialsManagement Matters is a presentation of the National Academy of Public Administration produced by Lizzie Alwan and Matt Hampton and edited by Matt Hampton. Support the Podcast Today at: donate@napawash.org or 202-347-3190Episode music: Hope by Mixaund | https://mixaund.bandcamp.comMusic promoted by https://www.free-stock-music.comFollow us on YouTube for clips and more: @NAPAWASH_YT

From September 20, 2024: Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law, and Liza Goitein, Senior Director of Liberty & National Security at the Brennan Center, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to review the emergency powers afforded to the president under the National Emergency Act, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the Insurrection Act. The trio also inspect ongoing bipartisan efforts to reform emergency powers.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can democracy survive without trust in the law? In this episode of How to Fix Democracy, host Andrew Keen speaks with Burt Neuborne, founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice and professor of law at NYU, about the complex relationship between law and trust in America. From Hobbes and Rousseau to Madison, Lincoln, and the U.S. Constitution itself, Neuborne explores how law can both deter or worst instincts and inspire our better angels.

The Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections, and the president has virtually no role in the process. Yet President Trump ignored this fact and issued an executive order in March that aims to overhaul the nation's election systems. His administration is dismantling a federal agency responsible for protecting election security. And it has targeted and threatened election officials and others who keep elections free and fair, while supporting those who undermine elections, including the January 6 rioters.A new report from the Brennan Center connects the dots between these unprecedented, and in some cases illegal, moves. Listen to host Michael Waldman, President and CEO of the Brennan Center discuss the report's findings with Sean Morales-Doyle, Director, Voting Rights and Elections Program and Jasleen Singh, Counsel, Voting Rights and Elections Program.If you enjoy this program, please give us a boost by liking it, subscribing, and sharing it with your friends. If you're listening on Apple Podcasts, please give it a five-star rating. Recorded on September 18, 2025.Keep up with the Brennan Center's work by subscribing to our weekly newsletter, The Briefing, at https://go.brennancenter.org/briefing.The Brennan Center is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to repair, revitalize, and defend our systems of democracy and justice so they work for all Americans. The Brennan Center cannot support or oppose any candidate for office.

In a live conversation on YouTube, Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editors Roger Parloff and Scott Anderson, Lawfare Public Service Fellow Loren Voss, and the Brennan Center's Katherine Yon Ebright to discuss the ongoing activation of National Guard in the District of Columbia, the Trump Administration's lethal strike in the Caribbean, and Harvard University's win over its funding fight in federal court. You can find information on legal challenges to Trump administration actions here. And check out Lawfare's new homepage on the litigation, new Bluesky account, and new WITOAD merch.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle examines the disappointing job numbers the Trump administration just received. The Brennan Center’s Dan Weiner details the congressional stock ban now being reconsidered.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What happens when law firms, universities, and elections come under fire—and how we can all help hold the line for democracy.

In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick discusses the recent deployment of the National Guard in Washington D.C. and its implications for checks and balances in the U.S. legal system. She is joined by Elizabeth “Liza” Goitein from the non-partisan Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, a leading expert on all things Posse Comitatus, the Insurrection Act, and the Pandora's box of domestic military deployment in policing, and the legal frameworks governing it all. Together they explore the dangers of the administration's current actions in the nation's capital, and whether the president can act on his threats to expand them to cities that didn't vote for him around the country.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick discusses the recent deployment of the National Guard in Washington D.C. and its implications for checks and balances in the U.S. legal system. She is joined by Elizabeth “Liza” Goitein from the non-partisan Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, a leading expert on all things Posse Comitatus, the Insurrection Act, and the Pandora's box of domestic military deployment in policing, and the legal frameworks governing it all. Together they explore the dangers of the administration's current actions in the nation's capital, and whether the president can act on his threats to expand them to cities that didn't vote for him around the country.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick discusses the recent deployment of the National Guard in Washington D.C. and its implications for checks and balances in the U.S. legal system. She is joined by Elizabeth “Liza” Goitein from the non-partisan Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, a leading expert on all things Posse Comitatus, the Insurrection Act, and the Pandora's box of domestic military deployment in policing, and the legal frameworks governing it all. Together they explore the dangers of the administration's current actions in the nation's capital, and whether the president can act on his threats to expand them to cities that didn't vote for him around the country.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Trump administration has expressed a desire for “truthful” and “unbiased” AI, yet the reality seems to be a crusade on “woke” AI. Yet the results of such a crusade would go far beyond eliminating DEI from artificial intelligence. The Brennan Center's Amos Toh joins David Rothkopf to explore the effects the administration's AI regulations and how AI is playing a larger role in militaries around the world.  This material is distributed by TRG Advisory Services, LLC on behalf of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Kremlin is demanding that Ukraine give up the entire Donetsk Oblast as part of any ceasefire agreement. Russia analyst Kateryna Stepanenko explains why Donetsk is so important to Ukraine and why Russia wants control of it. Then, Brennan Center for Justice CEO Michael Waldman talks about President Trump's push to end mail-in voting, baselessly claiming it is "corrupt." And, Trump kicked off a nationwide race to redraw political maps after he urged Texas Republicans to draw five more GOP-leaning seats ahead of the 2026 midterms. Author David Daley writes that the "true architect" of the gerrymandering fight is Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative Supreme Court.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Substack’s Ken Klippenstein examines the time the FBI paid him a visit. The Brennan Center’s Michael Waldman details their new report on how Trump is trying to rig the midterms with a number of extreme proposals.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Law enforcement officers working in plain clothes or undercover is nothing new. What is new is that some officers are now hiding their faces behind masks and refusing to show identification. Following a surge in arrests by armed, masked federal immigration agents in unmarked cars, some California Democrats are backing a new bill in Congress that would bar officials from covering their faces while conducting raids unless the masks were required for their safety or their health. What's led to the rise of masked policing? And is this what law enforcement should look like in a democracy? Former FBI agent Mike German, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, joins USA TODAY's The Excerpt to dig into those questions and more.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Listen to the rest of this premium episode by subscribing at patreon.com/knowyourenemy.Over July 4th weekend, the Department of Justice and FBI put out a memo essentially declaring "case closed" on the matter of Jeffrey Epstein, the well-connected sex criminal and pedophile who died (apparently) by suicide in federal custody in 2019. No more files. No more questions. He killed himself and that's that. This was quite the reversal from an administration stacked with figures — like FBI director Kash Patel and his deputy Dan Bongino — who built their celebrity in MAGA circles by ginning up the Epstein conspiracy and demanding his case files be released. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi had said the the Epstein client list was "sitting on her desk for review." Now the White House says no such list exists. And Trump wants everyone to stop talking about it.As all this unfolded, a number of listeners wanted the KYE take on the Epstein story—so here it is. We recount some of the most salient details of the case for the uninitiated, then offer our takes on what we think really is going on, and, perhaps more importantly, assess how this might affect Trump's second term: how serious the breach between Trump and the MAGA movement is, the possible consequences of administration officials spinning stories about Hillary's emails (still!) instead of doing their actual jobs, the ongoing attacks on the basic functions of the federal government, Trump's spectacular, open corruption, and, as we all pay attention to the crisis of the day, what sending tens of billions in new funding to ICE will mean for our country.Sources:Emily Davies, Perry Stein, Jeremy Roebuck and Kadia Goba, "Trump fumes as Epstein scandal dominates headlines, overshadows agenda," Washington Post, Jul 27, 2025.Khadeeja Safdar & Joe Palazzolo, "Jeffrey Epstein's Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump," Wall St. Journal, July 17, 2025Sadie Gurman, Annie Linskey, et al, "Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files," Wall St. Journal, July 23, 2025Jacob Weindling, "FBI Deputy Director Takes Mental Health Day Over Trump's Epstein Betrayal," Splinter, July 11, 2025Lauren-Brooke Eisen, "Budget Bill Massively Increases Funding for Immigration Detention," Brennan Center, July 3, 2025Julie Turkewitz, "Convicted Murderer Released by Trump From Venezuelan Prison Is Free in U.S." New York Times, July 24, 2025.Glenn Thrush & Julian E. Barnes, "Gabbard's Attacks on Obama Put the Attorney General in a Tough Spot," New York Times, July 24, 2025Miriam Waldvogel, "Rogan Hits Patel Over Epstein Claims: 'Doesn't Make Any Sense,'" The Hill, July 25, 2025

Republicans' freshly passed spending bill sets aside $45 billion just to expand immigration detention centers. And a number of private companies are poised to profit from the surge in funding. On the show today, Deirdre Conlon, co-author of the new book “Immigration Detention Inc" explains how immigration detention became dominated by private companies, how local economies have become entangled with the business of detention, and how Trump's spending law changes everything.Plus, we'll celebrate a listener's cross-country move. And, a reminder to try being a local tourist.Here's everything we talked about today:"Trump got $170 billion for immigration. Now he has to enact it." from Politico "We Asked Trump's Former Prisons Chief How $45 Billion Will Reshape Immigrant Detention" from Mother Jones"Budget Bill Massively Increases Funding for Immigration Detention" from the Brennan Center for Justice"Trump administration seeks to turn mass deportations into an efficient business ‘like Amazon'" from PBS News"Unchecked Growth: Private Prison Corporations and Immigration Detention, Three Years Into the Biden Administration" from the ACLUGot a question for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump's deployment of troops in Los Angeles was illegal before an appeals court quickly overturned it. A legal battle is now underway. On this week's On the Media, how President Trump has exaggerated crises to expand his presidential powers. Plus, a new documentary investigates who killed a Palestinian-American journalist.[01:00] Host Brooke Gladstone shares how to navigate the deluge of LA protest coverage – debunking fake footage, identifying distracting talking points, and more.[12:53] Brooke speaks with Elizabeth Goitein, Senior Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, about President Trump's shocking memorandum authorizing the preemptive deployment of federal troops against protesters. Plus, how Trump has invoked emergency powers more than any other president, and what it means for American democracy.[32:47] Host Micah Loewinger sits down with Dion Nissenbaum, a former foreign correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, about the new documentary “Who Killed Shireen?” he produced for Zeteo, the media organization founded by former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan.  Further reading:“AI Chatbots Are Making LA Protest Disinformation Worse,” by David Gilbert“‘The Insurrection Act' by Any Other Name: Unpacking Trump's Memorandum Authorizing Domestic Deployment of the Military,” by Elizabeth Goitein“A Guide to Emergency Powers and Their Use,” by Elizabeth GoiteinWho Killed Shireen? by Dion Nissenbaum, Fatima AbdulKarim, Conor Powell at Zeteo'Who Killed Shireen?' Film Screening in Washington, DC on July 9 On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.