Podcasts about Chief justice

A Supreme Court decision that sent shockwaves across America. Dred Scott v Sandford, 1857. Who was the Chief Justice responsible for the decision? On what grounds did he rule that Dred Scott, and by extension all African Americans, was not a citizen of the US? Don is joined by renowned historian Kate Masur, author of "Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement".Edited by Aidan Lonergan. Producer is Freddy Chick.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.  You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.American History Hit is a History Hit podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Voice of Saskatchewan. Evan Bray discusses the latest stories about Saskatchewan with Saskatchewan listeners. Heard from 8:30am - 12:30pm on 650 CKOM & 980 CJME.

This Day in Legal History: John Jay First SCOTUSOn November 6, 1789, John Jay was sworn in as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the development of the federal judiciary. Appointed by President George Washington, Jay was a prominent figure in the American founding, having co-authored The Federalist Papers and served as President of the Continental Congress. His confirmation by the Senate came just weeks after the Judiciary Act of 1789 formally established the structure of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court. At the time of his appointment, the Court held limited power and prestige, lacking even a permanent home or a defined role within the balance of government.Jay's tenure as Chief Justice lasted from 1789 to 1795 and was characterized more by circuit riding—traveling to preside over lower federal courts—than by Supreme Court rulings. Nonetheless, he helped lay the procedural and institutional groundwork for the Court's future authority. One of his few significant decisions came in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which asserted that states could be sued in federal court, a holding that was quickly overturned by the Eleventh Amendment. Jay also took on diplomatic duties, most notably negotiating the controversial Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794, which aimed to resolve lingering tensions from the Revolutionary War.Though his judicial legacy on the bench was modest, Jay's influence as the Court's inaugural leader was crucial in legitimizing the judiciary as a coequal branch of government. He later declined a reappointment to the position in 1800, citing the Court's lack of power and institutional independence. The role of Chief Justice would eventually evolve into a central force in constitutional interpretation, but it was Jay who first gave the office its shape. This milestone in legal history underscores the slow and deliberate construction of American judicial authority, which did not arrive fully formed but was built case by case, institution by institution.The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, a case that raises major constitutional and statutory questions about the scope of presidential power—particularly in the context of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). At the heart of the dispute is whether the word “regulate” in IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval. The case touches on foundational issues in constitutional law, including statutory interpretation, the nondelegation doctrine, emergency powers, and the “major questions” doctrine. The Court must assess not just what the statute says, but also how to interpret the silence—IEEPA never mentions “tariffs” or “taxes”—in light of Congress's constitutional power to impose taxes and regulate foreign commerce.From a textualist standpoint, the omission of “tariffs” suggests Congress did not intend to delegate that taxing authority to the executive. From a purposivist view, the debate turns on whether Congress meant to arm the president with broad economic tools to respond to emergencies or to narrowly limit those powers to national security concerns. Additional arguments center on legislative history and the principle of avoiding surplusage, as opponents claim interpreting “regulate” to include “tariff” would render other statutes that explicitly mention tariffs redundant.The nondelegation doctrine also plays a key role. If IEEPA is read to permit the president to impose tariffs, critics argue it may represent an unconstitutional transfer of legislative power—particularly taxing power—absent a clear “intelligible principle” to guide executive discretion. The Court is also being asked to consider whether the president's determination of an “emergency” under IEEPA is reviewable and whether actions taken in response to such emergencies must still adhere to constitutional limits. The outcome of this case could significantly redefine the boundary between congressional authority and executive power in trade and economic policy.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5, 2025, in a case challenging President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Justices from across the ideological spectrum questioned whether Trump had exceeded his authority by bypassing Congress to enact tariffs, which are traditionally under legislative control. The legal debate centered on whether IEEPA's grant of authority to “regulate importation” includes the power to impose long-term tariffs, and whether doing so constitutes a “major question” requiring explicit congressional authorization.Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, expressed concern that Trump's use of IEEPA effectively allowed the executive to impose taxes—a core congressional function. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked whether there was any precedent for interpreting “regulate importation” as tariff-imposing authority, while Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that IEEPA was designed to limit, not expand, presidential power. Some conservative justices, like Brett Kavanaugh, were more receptive, referencing historical precedents like Nixon's use of similar powers.The administration argued the tariffs were necessary to respond to trade deficits and national security threats and warned that removing them could lead to economic harm. But critics, including business representatives and Democratic-led states, warned of a dangerous shift in power toward the executive. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested such an interpretation of IEEPA could permanently shift trade powers away from Congress, violating constitutional checks and balances.Lawyer for Trump faces tough Supreme Court questions over legality of tariffs | ReutersThe U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Tung to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 52-45 party-line vote, making him President Donald Trump's sixth appellate court appointee in his second term. Tung, a former federal prosecutor and Justice Department lawyer, most recently worked at Jones Day, where he focused on commercial litigation and frequently represented cryptocurrency interests. His confirmation came over the objections of California's Democratic senators, who criticized his past statements and writings on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and gender roles.Tung has been a vocal legal advocate for controversial positions, including support for the independent state legislature theory and the argument that stablecoin sales fall outside SEC regulation. While he pledged to follow Supreme Court precedent, critics raised concerns about his originalist approach to constitutional rights. He faced intense scrutiny during his confirmation hearings for remarks made at a Federalist Society event and earlier in life, including statements about gender roles that drew fire from Senator Alex Padilla.Despite these concerns, Tung's legal career earned strong endorsements from colleagues and conservative legal allies. He clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch and has experience handling judicial nominations from within DOJ. Tung fills the seat vacated by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a fellow conservative, ensuring ideological continuity on the Ninth Circuit.Former DOJ, Jones Day Lawyer Confirmed as Ninth Circuit JudgeThe California Republican Party filed a federal lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, seeking to block the implementation of new congressional maps approved by voters just a day earlier via Proposition 50. The measure, backed by Newsom and passed by wide margins, suspends the state's independent redistricting commission and installs a Democratic-leaning map that could endanger five Republican-held congressional seats. Newsom has framed the move as a direct response to Texas' mid-cycle redistricting, which is expected to boost Republican power in the 2026 midterms.The GOP lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, argues that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as the primary factor in redrawing districts to favor Hispanic voters. The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Mike Columbo of the Dhillon Law Group, claim the state legislature lacked sufficient justification to use race in this way and failed to meet the legal standards required under the Voting Rights Act.Republicans also contend that Proposition 50 diminishes the political voice of non-Hispanic groups and constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. The suit, Tangipa v. Newsom, is backed by the National Republican Congressional Committee and includes Republican lawmakers and candidates as plaintiffs. It mirrors legal challenges in Texas, where courts are evaluating claims of racial bias in redistricting. The outcome of these cases could significantly affect congressional control heading into the latter half of President Trump's second term.California Republicans Sue to Block New Congressional Maps (1) 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 Supreme Court heard arguments on Donald Trump's unilateral tariffs; Chief Justice John Roberts is a squish who may rule against. More from Chris Conley on the WSAU Wisconsin Morning News.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kate, Leah, and Melissa dive into the legal pushback over ICE and the National Guard in Chicago and Portland, anti-marriage equality goblin Kim Davis's unwelcome return to the courts, the administration's lawless strikes on boats in the waters around South America, and the specter of Trump 3.0. Then, they preview November's SCOTUS cases, including Learning Resources v. Trump, which challenges Trump's authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Favorite things:Leah: Task (HBO Max); West End Girl, Lily Allen; The Kavanaugh Stop - 50 days later, Chris Geidner (Law Dork); The Supreme Court's Self-Defeating Supremacy, Steve Vladeck (The Supreme Court Review); God's Chief Justice, Doug Bock Clark (ProPublica); Lawyers March for Democracy on November 15 at 1-3pm.Kate: The Emergency, George Packer; Expert Backgrounder on War Powers Resolution 60-Day Clock for Boat Strikes Expiring Monday, Rebecca Ingber and Jessica Thibodeau (Just Security)Melissa: Impermissible Punishments: How Prison Became a Problem for Democracy, Judith ResnikHurricane relief for Jamaica:The WalkGood Jamaica Relief FundThe American Friends of JamaicaGlobal Empowerment MissionMercy CorpsFood for the Poor Jamaica Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 3/6/26 – San Francisco3/7/26 – Los AngelesLearn more: http://crooked.com/events Get tickets to CROOKED CON November 6-7 in Washington, D.C at http://crookedcon.com Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad VibesFollow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this week's episode, we take a look at the Praetorian Guard of the Roman Empire, and consider how ancient history can inspire fantasy novels. This coupon code will get you 25% off the ebooks in the Silent Order series at my Payhip store: SILENT2025 The coupon code is valid through November 10, 2025. So if you need a new ebook this fall, we've got you covered! TRANSCRIPT 00:00:00 Introduction and Writing Updates Hello, everyone. Welcome to Episode 275 of The Pulp Writer Show. My name is Jonathan Moeller. Today is October 31st, 2025, and today we're talking about the Praetorian Guard of Ancient Rome and how that can inspire fantasy novels. Also, Happy Halloween (or Happy Protestant Reformation Day, if you prefer). Before we get into all that, we will have Coupon of the Week and a progress update on my current writing, publishing, and audiobook projects. First up, Coupon of the Week. This week's coupon code will get you 25% off the ebooks in my Silent Order series at my Payhip store: SILENT2025. And as always, both the coupon code and the links to my store will be in the show notes. This coupon code will be valid through November 10th, 2025. So if you need a new ebook for this fall as we come into winter, we have got you covered. And now for an update on my current writing and publishing projects. As I mentioned last week, Cloak of Worlds is now out and you get it at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Kobo, Google Play, Apple Books, Smashwords, and at my Payhip store. The initial response has been very strong and very positive, so thank you for that and I'm glad that people are enjoying and reading the book. Now that Cloak of Worlds is done, my next main project is Blade of Shadows, which will be the second book in my Blades of Ruin epic fantasy series. I'm currently 44,000 words into it, which puts me on chapter 9 of 20, though I'll probably have more chapters in the final draft than I will in the first draft. I found people really do tend to prefer shorter punchier, shorter chapters. Anyway, I'm about 44,000 words into it. I think I'll be about 109,000 words, when all is said and done. So hopefully that will be out in November. I'm also 4,500 words into the next Rivah book, which is Wizard-Assassin. It'd originally been entitled Elven-Assassin, but I decided Wizard-Assassin sounded punchier, so we went with that instead. I'm about 4,500 words into that and if all goes well, it will come out in December, which will make it the final book I'll publish in 2025, though hopefully I'll be publishing more books in 2026 before too much longer. In audiobook news, Brad Wills is currently recording Blade of Flames and we've been listening to some proof chapters of it and are very excited about what we're hearing. Hollis McCarthy is starting work on recording Cloak of Embers. That'll be the 10th book in Cloak Mage, and hopefully we will have both of those audiobooks out before the end of the year, if all goes well. So that is where I'm at with my current writing and publishing projects. 00:02:33 Main Topic: Praetorian Guard of the Ancient Roman Empire Now let's move on to our main topic this week, which is the Praetorian Guard of the Ancient Roman Empire, and they were very bad at their jobs, but we'll get into that more very shortly. One of the fascinating (if occasionally depressing) aspects of history is how often institutions end up having the exact opposite outcome of what they were intended to do. The late science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle had something called Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, which once the bureaucracy got large enough, it will inevitably start turning its main focus to perpetuating the bureaucracy rather than carrying out its actual mission. And we can see examples of that time and time again, and no doubt you yourself can think of many examples: schools that make their students dumber, military organizations that fail to defend, hospitals that make people sicker, bureaucracies that exacerbate the problems that they are created to solve, and so forth. This can also apply to social movements as well. My favorite example of this is Prohibition in America. The Temperance movement of the late 19th and early 20th century achieved its goal of banning alcohol sales in the United States during the Prohibition period, but the backlash and the consequences made it unpopular. And today, while alcohol is much more heavily restricted than it was at the end of the 19th century, the idea of banning alcohol in the United States is utterly implausible. The Praetorian Guard of Ancient Rome, the personal bodyguards of the Emperor, might be another example of such an institution that utterly failed at its primary goal. For over a thousand years, people have been asking why the Roman Empire fell, and I think that might actually be the wrong question. The better question is why did the Roman Empire last as long as it did, because it sure almost didn't. At the height of its power, the Empire controlled land on three different continents in an area larger than many modern states, and it had to maintain that control without anything resembling modern technology and organization. Think of the difficulties involved in governing a large multi-ethnic state in the 21st Century with modern technology and communications and imagine how much harder it was in the first century AD. Travel was difficult and dangerous even with the Roman road system. The account of St. Paul's shipwreck in the book of Acts must've been an all too common experience in the Roman Empire, given the number of Roman wrecks on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea. Messages could take weeks to reach their recipients, and there was no division between civilian and military authority. That meant if the Emperors wanted to do anything, they had to use the army to do it because the army was the only pool of skilled men loyal to the state. Since the Empire never really solved the problem of succession and the transfer of power, it didn't take long before ambitious men figured out that the man with the largest army could declare himself Emperor and the Roman Empire actually broke apart into three competing mini empires and almost fell apart entirely in the middle of the 200s AD. So as we can see, there were a lot of reasons the Roman Empire fell apart and the Praetorian Guard, the bodyguard of the emperors, was one of them. The Praetorian Guard certainly wasn't the sole reason the Roman Empire collapsed, but the guard most definitely didn't help. In the last century of the Roman Republic, one of the growing problems was that the armies were less loyal to Rome and more loyal to their general, who made sure they got paid and received grants of land upon discharge. To show their prestige and to guard against the danger of assassination from rivals, generals began collecting personal bodyguards. Since the Roman generals commanded from a tent in a legionary camp called a "praetorium," the general's private guards became called "praetorians." Obviously, the general wanted his best troops as his bodyguards so becoming a praetorian was a privileged position with higher pay and perks. This practice continued as the Roman Republic split apart into civil wars between the ambitious generals of the First and Second Triumvirates. The civil wars of the Roman Republic ended with Octavian, later known as Caesar Augustus, as the last man standing with sole control of what we now think of as the Roman Empire. Augustus is remembered as the first Roman emperor, but the office of Emperor didn't really exist at the time, not the way we think of it now. Rather, Augustus was essentially a military dictator, but after he won, he went to great lengths to conceal his power under cloak of legality by having the Senate invest him with various official powers and offices. In modern terms, it'd be like if the United States was ruled by a military dictator who simultaneously held the offices of President, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, the governorships of the five most populous states, all while claiming to be only the first citizen among equals. Essentially, Augustus invented the powers of the Roman emperor on the fly while being a military dictator and his successors followed suit. Julius Caesar famously pardoned his enemies and went around without a bodyguard to show his courage, which ended up getting him assassinated. Augustus, by contrast, was determined not to repeat that mistake. So after annihilating his enemies, he founded a personal bodyguard in what we know today as the Praetorian Guard. That's a modern term. The praetorians never called themselves the Praetorian Guard, and they always refer to themselves as the praetorian of whichever emperor they happen to be serving like the Praetorians of Augustus or the Praetorians of Claudius and so forth. Augustus seems to have seen some of the potential danger in the institution of the Praetorian Guard, and during his reign, they were scattered around Italy with ones guarding him rotated out every so often. The Praetorians in Italy, when not guarding the Emperor, tended to do odd jobs for the government that needed doing like policing, construction, surveying, settling boundary disputes, and so forth. However, Augustus's successor Tiberius concentrated the Guard in Rome, which made it even more dangerous. It also tied into another problem with the Roman Empire, one that it never quite managed to solve, which was the succession problem. Augustus was a military dictator who assembled a sort of ad hoc legality around his position with various offices and powers. But how would he pass that onto a successor or what if someone else decided they were the proper successor? Augustus had taken his office by force, so why shouldn't anyone else? The Praetorian Guard exacerbated this problem further. Was their loyalty to the office of the Emperor (which was tricky because that office didn't technically exist)? Was it to the man himself or to his heirs? Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Praetorian Guard eventually settled on the most practical answer to this question. Their loyalty belonged to whoever paid them the most money. There's a very high chance that Tiberius was murdered by the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, which means that the imperial bodyguard made it only two emperors [repeated for dramatic emphasis] before it started killing them. Tiberius's successor Caligula was famously insane and the Guard eventually got sick of him and participated in his murder. After Caligula's death, the guard declared Claudius as the new Emperor, who repaid them by giving them lavish donatives. That meant the Guard had gone from protecting the emperors to killing ones that didn't like, and then installing new ones. After the Senate turned against Nero and he committed suicide in 69 AD, the Roman Empire had its year of four emperors: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally Vespasian, who won the civil war and became the new emperor. Each of the potential claimants had their own praetorians who fought against other praetorians. The original Praetorian Guard of Nero did not cover itself in glory, as their comfortable life in Rome did not make them effective as field soldiers and they lost against the toughened legionaries from the frontier armies who came to fight in the civil war. That said, during the reigns of the Five Good Emperors (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius) from 96 to 180 AD, we don't hear much about the Praetorian Guard. The most likely explanation is that these emperors were strong and capable rulers, so the guard had no reason to turn against them, and therefore any potential conspiracies that would've involved the Guard just didn't get off the ground. However, part of the reason the 100s AD were the apex of the Roman Empire is that Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius did not have sons, so they adopted a capable leader as their son and heir, thereby creating continuity of rule. Marcus Aurelius unfortunately had a natural son named Commodus, and after he died, Commodus became Emperor. Commodus was a spectacularly incompetent narcissist, nowadays famously known as the villain from the movie Gladiator. If anything, Gladiator toned down Commodus' brutality, though to be fair to Commodus, he didn't murder his father like the fictional version did in the movie. Commodus was eventually assassinated, and the Praetorian Guard hit its lowest point soon after. Pertinax became Emperor after Commodus, and there was hope he would be a Nerva-type figure, a respected elderly Senator who would adopt a capable heir the way Nerva did with Trajan. However, Commodus had used the Guard as his privileged force of personal thugs, and Pertinax tried to impose discipline upon them. The Guard most definitely did not care for that, so they murdered Pertinax and then auctioned off the title of Emperor to whoever would pay them the most. Soon after Septimius Severus seized control of the Empire and he summarily fired all the Praetorian and put his own veteran legionaries in their place. So the Praetorian Guard, which had been intended to guard the emperors, ended up murdering the Emperor on a regular basis and sometimes choosing a successor and even auctioning off the title of Emperor to the highest bidder. Septimius Severus was a brutal ruler and held the Empire together long enough to die of natural causes. His sons Caracalla and Geta were his successors, and Caracalla murdered Geta before he was assassinated himself by yet another plot from disgruntled praetorians. After that, both the Empire and the Guard declined precipitously. This was the period later historians would call the Crisis of the Third Century, when the Roman Empire fractured into the three competing mini empires I mentioned earlier. A depressing pattern rapidly took hold. The Praetorian Guard or the army would kill an Emperor and proclaim a new one. The Emperor would last until he tried to do something the army didn't like, such as imposing discipline and then the pattern would repeat. The Praetorian Guard was never really reformed, but like so many failed institutions, it gradually became obsolete. Part of the reason was that the Empire was subject to frequent barbarian invasions throughout the 200s. The Emperor was required constantly on the frontiers to supervise the defense with the field armies. The emperors developed a different kind of bodyguard called the "scholae palatinae", a mounted group of soldiers that would accompany him in the field as he moved about the Empire. The constant defensive warfare also resulted in a subtle shift within the Empire. Rome was no longer the center of power within the Empire. The center of power was actually wherever the Emperor happened to be at the moment. The city of Rome itself had become in many ways an expensive vestigial relic of another age. Some of the emperors only visited Rome once. Some of the shorter-lived ones never made it there at all, and the Emperors certainly did not rule from Rome. Because of these changes, the idea of the Praetorian Guard, a permanent bodyguard force based in Rome, had become obsolete. The actual end of the Praetorian Guard came after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, the battle where the Emperor Constantine famously had the vision that led him to convert to Christianity. The Praetorian Guard sided with Constantine's opponent Maxentius, and since Constantine had no use for the Praetorian Guard and indeed would move his capital to the new city of Constantinople, he simply had the Guard disbanded and continued to rely on mounted cavalry units for his personal bodyguard. So the Praetorian Guard, after three centuries of frequent treachery and corruption, had come to an end. Amusingly, while the Guard was gone, the title of "praetorian prefect" remained in use in the Empire for the rest of its history, which came to show just how powerful the commander of the Guard could become. In the end, the Praetorian Guard was yet another example of institution that became a hindrance to the very goals it was founded to advance. This seems to be a curse of any organization, and the only cure is constant vigilance and strong leadership, two qualities, alas, that are all too rare at any age of history. Yet you can definitely see why I say history is the best source of material for fantasy writers. You could get like 20 different novels out of the events I discussed above. So that is it for this week. Thanks for listening to The Pulp Writer Show. I hope you found the show useful. A reminder that you can listen to all the back episodes at https://thepulpwritershow.com. If you enjoyed the podcast, please leave your review on your podcasting platform of choice. Stay safe, stay healthy, and see you all next week.

“The Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week's guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week's show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we're seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump's lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.  Next, Dahlia talks to the CEO of the small family business at the center of the tariffs case that will be argued at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources explains why he's standing up to Trump's monarchic power grab, and why he sees himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with James Madison. 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 Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week's guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week's show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we're seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump's lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.  Next, Dahlia talks to the CEO of the small family business at the center of the tariffs case that will be argued at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources explains why he's standing up to Trump's monarchic power grab, and why he sees himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with James Madison. 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 Chief Justice… is presiding over the end of the rule of law in America”. That quote did not come from host Dahlia Lithwick, but this week's guest, former Federal Circuit Court Judge and George H. W. Bush appointee, J Michael Luttig. On this week's show, Judge Luttig explains the unprecedented split we're seeing between the federal courts and the highest court in the land in response to Trump's lawlessness on everything from tariffs, to due process, to deploying the National Guard, and what it all means for the future of American democracy.  Next, Dahlia talks to the CEO of the small family business at the center of the tariffs case that will be argued at SCOTUS on Wednesday. Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources explains why he's standing up to Trump's monarchic power grab, and why he sees himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with James Madison. 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

 Nia and Aughie talk about the fifth U.S. Supreme Court's Chief Justice, Roger Brooke Taney.  Taney's Court lasted from 1836 - 1864, notably presiding over the Dred Scott case as well as cases that further defined the Commerce Clause and set into stone the idea that the Court should consider the Political Question Doctrine when taking a case. 

Newt discusses the life and contributions of John Jay, a pivotal figure in American history. Born in 1745 in New York City, Jay's early life was shaped by his family's quest for religious freedom and his education at King's College. Initially advocating for reconciliation with Britain, Jay's political journey saw him evolve into a staunch supporter of American independence. As a member of the Continental Congress, he contributed to the Olive Branch Petition and played a significant role in drafting the New York State Constitution. Jay's diplomatic efforts included serving as an ambassador to Spain and negotiating the controversial Jay's Treaty with Britain. His legal acumen was evident during his tenure as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, notably in the Chisholm v. Georgia case. Jay's political career also included serving as the Governor of New York, where he enacted the gradual abolition of slavery. Despite facing challenges and controversies, Jay's legacy as a founding father is marked by his dedication to establishing a robust and balanced government, as reflected in his contributions to the Federalist Papers and his advocacy for the separation of powers. His life exemplifies the complexities and commitments of the early American statesmen in shaping the nation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Chief Justice has discharged a jury in a rape trial due to possible jury tampering. Our court reporter Katy Docker brought us the latest on this extraordinary development in the case of 33 year old Elliott Brooke. In football news - last night Manchester 62 staged a planned 2-minute sit-down protest reportedly over several months of unpaid wages for players and staff. We heard from team captain Joseph Chipolina. Journalist and broadcaster Alice Mascarenhas has launched a new book, Palabras Al Viento, celebrating the writings and radio broadcasts of her father, Manolo Mascarenhas.We caught up with Gibraltarian Pili Rodriguez, who has been unanimously reappointed as Chair of Citizens Advice International.The Gibraltar National Museum has signed a landmark scientific cooperation agreement with a University in Marrakech, on bat conservation. Dr Stewart Finlayson explained the significance of this partnership.And, a fashion show to celebrate 20 years of the Bosom Buddies charitable trust is happening on Thursday. We spoke to the show's presenters Henry Sacramento and William Gomez. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – When the Founding Fathers established this union, they did not expect the citizens to be passive participants but active in its operation. Rather than expecting others to protect their rights, they wanted people to defend their own rights. Our first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, told us how we could do that...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – When the Founding Fathers established this union, they did not expect the citizens to be passive participants but active in its operation. Rather than expecting others to protect their rights, they wanted people to defend their own rights. Our first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, told us how we could do that...

Three things have come together to raise a combination of issues related to caste and minorities that India has failed to resolve even 75 years after its Constitution was born. The caste issue, of course, has persisted through centuries. The shoe thrown at the Chief Justice and, sadder still, the ‘suicide' of Haryana Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Y. Puran Kumar & the third, the somewhat counter-intuitive success among the well-heeled of Homebound, by Neeraj Ghaywan, the most prominent and powerful Dalit filmmaker in Bollywood. Education, reservations and government jobs are meant to bring equality and dignity — Watch this week's #NationalInterest with ThePrint's Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta.

In a new series, Aughie and Nia are exploring the United States Supreme Court Eras, usually defined by the name of the Chief Justice of the era. In this first episode the first eleven years of the Court (Chiefs Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth) are covered as a group, since there really wasn't a lot accomplished in this period.

It was indeed an honor to have the Honorable Cory Swanson, Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, visit in-studio. The outreach represented one of Justice Swanson’s tenets in judicial reform; a more public-facing court system. Click on the podcast […] The post Chief Justice Cory Swanson – Placing Outreach on the Supreme Court Docket first appeared on Voices of Montana.

LCJ Keegan on the modern courtroom — AI, experts and leadershipOn Episode 132, The Fifth Court hosts Peter Leonard and Mark Tottenham have rare access to Dame Siobhán Keegan, the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, to discuss evaluating expert evidence in an age of AI and complex fact-finding, leadership on the bench, and the realities of administering justice in Belfast's Royal Courts. The episode is recorded with her in the Royal Courts of Justice, LCJ Keegan flags her Macfadyen Lecture on evaluating the expert witness in the modern legal landscape—a timely frame for how courts should approach AI-assisted and technical testimony (provenance, transparency, methodology, limits).Her cultural choice 'Is a River Alive?' by Robert Macfarlane, published by Hamish HamiltonPlus, our case-law segment, drawn from the Decisis.ie casebook, covers a failed attempt to register a New York multi-billion judgment against Argentina in Ireland without locating Irish-sited assets, and the Court of Appeal's approach to frivolous and vexatious challenges to demolition orders.Sponsored by Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners of Dublin Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Daniel Domelovo has accused former Attorney General, Ayikoi Otoo of forgery during the removal process of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.

Health officials are sounding the alarm after a case of mumps was confirmed in Kailua-Kona. An ongoing downtown Honolulu property dispute escalates after power is abruptly shut off for dozens of tenants. The Hawaii Supreme Court's Chief Justice withdraws her initial opinion on a high-profile corruption trial.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This Day in Legal History: Earl Warren AppointedOn October 2, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States, setting in motion one of the most transformative periods in Supreme Court history. Warren, who had previously served as Governor of California and was the Republican nominee for Vice President in 1948, was a surprise choice—appointed during a recess of the Senate following the death of Chief Justice Fred Vinson. Though Eisenhower reportedly later regretted the decision, Warren would go on to lead a Court that dramatically expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial power.Under Warren's leadership, the Court issued a series of landmark decisions, beginning with Brown v. Board of Educationin 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Warren Court also established the principle of “one person, one vote” in legislative apportionment, expanded the rights of criminal defendants in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, and reinforced the wall between church and state. Warren was known for his ability to forge consensus among justices, often securing unanimous decisions in major cases to strengthen the Court's moral authority.His tenure marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation, emphasizing equality, due process, and the role of the judiciary in correcting social injustices. While praised by many for championing individual rights and the rule of law, the Warren Court also faced significant criticism from those who viewed its decisions as judicial activism. Warren retired in 1969, but the legal legacy of his Court continues to shape American law and society.New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding for New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA oversees subway, bus, and commuter rail systems across New York City and surrounding areas. James filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a temporary restraining order to preserve the funds while the legal case proceeds.According to James, DHS abruptly reduced the funding allocation from nearly $34 million to zero, a move she described as unlawful and politically motivated. Her office emphasized that the emergency request does not seek immediate disbursement, but rather aims to prevent the funds from being lost while the court reviews the matter. She warned that the funding freeze could endanger the safety of millions of transit riders in New York.This legal action comes amid broader concerns raised by the U.S. Transportation Department, which recently threatened to withhold 25% of MTA's federal transit funding unless improvements are made to track worker safety protocols. DHS did not provide an immediate response to requests for comment.New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze | ReutersApple and OpenAI asked a U.S. judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's AI company, xAI, over claims that their partnership harms competition. xAI's suit, filed in August, seeks billions in damages and argues that Apple's integration of ChatGPT into its devices gives OpenAI an unfair advantage while sidelining rival products like Musk's Grok chatbot. Apple and OpenAI countered that their deal is not exclusive and that Apple plans to work with other generative AI providers.Apple's lawyers emphasized the openness of the agreement, asserting that the arrangement does not prevent competition or violate antitrust laws. In a separate filing, OpenAI described Musk's legal actions as part of a broader “campaign of lawfare” against the company, referencing previous lawsuits Musk has filed, including one challenging OpenAI's shift from nonprofit to for-profit status.OpenAI further argued that xAI had not demonstrated concrete harm or the kind of anticompetitive behavior that antitrust law is designed to prevent. Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 before departing, has accused the company and CEO Sam Altman of straying from its original nonprofit mission.Apple, OpenAI ask US judge to dismiss Musk's suit over competition claims | ReutersLawyers representing Prince Harry and other public figures accused the Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers (ANL), of also targeting Prince William and Princess Kate in an ongoing privacy lawsuit. The new allegations, presented in filings at London's High Court, suggest that confidential details about William's 21st birthday were obtained through “blagging”—a deceptive tactic to access private information. Kate was allegedly targeted by a private investigator working for a Mail journalist.Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John and his husband David Furnish, are suing ANL for alleged privacy violations dating back 30 years. The lawsuit accuses ANL of unlawful activities such as voicemail hacking, obtaining medical records by deception, and even burglary. ANL has denied the claims and called them baseless and exaggerated. A trial is scheduled for early 2026.The publisher pushed back in court, arguing that the claimants failed to connect the alleged misconduct to specific journalists or investigators. They also sought to exclude findings from earlier cases against other newspaper publishers like News Group Newspapers and the Daily Mirror. ANL accused two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, of manipulating the timing of story publications to evade a statute of limitations—though the court had previously ruled in the claimants' favor on that issue.Prince Harry attended the hearing remotely, while several other claimants were present in court. This lawsuit marks the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has plagued British tabloids for nearly two decades.Daily Mail publisher asks UK court to limit Prince Harry lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The New Yorker contributing writer Jeannie Suk Gersen joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the Supreme Court's new term and the cases that could test the boundaries of executive authority and separation of powers. They talk about challenges to Presidential power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, disputes over voting rights and racial gerrymandering, and a First Amendment fight over state bans on conversion therapy. They also consider the Court's increasing reliance on its emergency docket and what John Roberts's twenty years as Chief Justice reveals about the conservative legal movement's influence on the Court.This week's reading: “Harvard's Mixed Victory,” by Jeannie Suk Gersen “Is Donald Trump's Sweeping Gaza Peace Plan Really Viable?,” by Robin Wright “Why Democrats Shut Down the Government,” by Jon Allsop “Have Cubans Fled One Authoritarian State for Another?,” by Jon Lee Anderson “The Age of Enshittification,” by Kyle Chayka Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Congress has failed to pass a short-term funding bill by the deadline, and the government has shut down. We take a look at how the shutdown may affect you.The Supreme Court issued an order on Wednesday indicating that it would hear oral argument over Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook's challenge to President Donald Trump's attempt to fire her. “The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument in January 2026,” an order from the court reads.

Michael Wolff , Retired Missouri Supreme Court Judge and Chief Justice, and Former Dean and Professor Emeritus, Saint Louis University Law School joins Megan Lynch pointing out the challenges facing the redrawn district maps.

In November 1926, Cecelia Gullivan, treasurer of the Cone Automatic Machine company of Windsor, Vermont, was brutally killed in her home. Local police quickly arrested Cone Automatic machinist John Winters on suspicion of the crime, and the trial that followed was sensational and swift. Convicted of murder, Winters' appeal brought in an unexpected ally: America's most famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who took the case after Winters' family called in a favor promised decades before. My guest is former Chief Justice of the Vermont Supreme Court, Jeffrey L. Amestoy. He is the author of "Winters' Time: A Secret Pledge, a Severed Head, and the Murder that Brought America's Most Famous Lawyer to Vermont". Link to the book through the Vermont Historical Society's website: https://vermonthistory.org/vermont-history-winters-time-clarence-darrow-jeff-amestoy The author's Amazon page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Jeffrey-L.-Amestoy/author/B01FC3Q07Q Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: John Jay CommissionedOn September 26, 1789, John Jay was commissioned as the first Chief Justice of the United States, marking a foundational moment in the establishment of the American judiciary. Nominated by President George Washington and swiftly confirmed by the Senate, Jay took the helm of the newly formed Supreme Court just one day after the Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law. His appointment signaled the beginning of the federal judiciary as a coequal branch of government under the U.S. Constitution.Jay was already a prominent figure in American political life, having served as President of the Continental Congress, co-author of The Federalist Papers, and Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation. As Chief Justice, he led a court that initially had little authority or docket, with its first session delayed until February 1790 due to logistical difficulties and lack of cases.Despite the Court's limited power at the time, Jay helped lay the groundwork for its future role. In Chisholm v. Georgia(1793), Jay authored an opinion asserting federal judicial authority over state governments, a controversial stance that ultimately led to the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment. His tenure also saw diplomatic service; while still Chief Justice, he negotiated the Jay Treaty with Great Britain in 1794 to resolve lingering post-Revolutionary War disputes.Jay resigned in 1795 after being elected Governor of New York and declined a later offer from President John Adams to return to the bench. His brief but influential time as Chief Justice helped define the legitimacy and independence of the U.S. Supreme Court.The U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey, escalating what critics describe as President Donald Trump's campaign of retribution against political adversaries. Comey faces two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from his 2020 Senate testimony in which he denied authorizing anonymous leaks related to an FBI investigation. The indictment claims he actually did authorize such disclosures. However, the charges are notably sparse, lacking detailed supporting facts or corroborating evidence typically included in indictments of this gravity.The case has drawn intense scrutiny within the Justice Department. Prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia reportedly advised against filing charges due to insufficient evidence, and the district's top prosecutor resigned last week after expressing concern about political interference. Tensions escalated when U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—formerly Trump's defense attorney—personally presented the case to the grand jury, an unusual move suggesting top-level involvement. Notably, the grand jury declined to indict Comey on a third proposed charge, highlighting doubts about the prosecution's strength.Legal experts and former officials, including Obama-era ethics advisor Norm Eisen, have condemned the indictment as politically motivated. Comey maintains his innocence and says he welcomes a trial. Members of his family, including his son-in-law and daughter, have faced professional consequences, which Comey's supporters view as further evidence of political targeting. The charges represent a sharp departure from norms intended to shield law enforcement from partisan use.Former FBI chief Comey charged as Trump ramps up campaign against critics | ReutersA federal judge in California has preliminarily approved a $1.5 billion class action settlement between authors and the AI company Anthropic, marking a major development in the legal battles over generative AI's use of copyrighted materials. U.S. District Judge William Alsup described the agreement as fair during a Thursday hearing, though final approval is still pending. Authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson brought the lawsuit, accusing Anthropic of training its AI assistant Claude using millions of pirated books without permission.This settlement is the first in a growing wave of lawsuits targeting companies like OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft for allegedly infringing on creators' rights through large-scale data scraping to train AI models. Although Alsup had previously ruled that some of Anthropic's training practices fell under fair use, he determined the company crossed the line by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a centralized database not strictly tied to AI training.The judge had initially hesitated to approve the deal and demanded further clarification from both sides, but now appears inclined to allow it to proceed to the notification stage for affected authors. If finalized, the agreement could signal a broader shift toward holding AI developers financially accountable for unauthorized content use. Publishing industry leaders have praised the development as a step toward curbing what they see as systemic, unchecked copyright violations in AI development. Anthropic, meanwhile, emphasized its commitment to safe and responsible AI.US judge preliminarily approves $1.5 billion Anthropic copyright settlement | ReutersKathryn Nester, a seasoned Utah criminal defense attorney and former top federal public defender, has been appointed to represent Tyler Robinson, the man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a Utah Valley University event on September 10. The state is seeking the death penalty against Robinson, who faces a charge of aggravated murder.Nester has a history of representing clients in high-profile and controversial cases. She previously defended Lyle Jeffs, a fugitive leader of a polygamous sect convicted of food stamp fraud, and John Earnest, the gunman in the 2019 Poway synagogue shooting, before stepping down due to a conflict of interest. She also defended a Utah doctor accused of destroying COVID-19 vaccines—a case later dropped—and is currently representing Kouri Richins, a children's author now charged with poisoning her husband.Her firm, Nester Lewis, has strong ties to Utah's federal public defense system. Her partner, Wendy Lewis, once represented Brian David Mitchell, the man convicted in the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. Robinson's case is expected to cost Utah County at least $750,000 for the defense alone, with over $1.3 million budgeted for the total prosecution and defense efforts.Robinson's next court appearance is scheduled for Monday. Nester has declined public comment on the case.Attorney representing Charlie Kirk's accused killer is former top public defender | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by George Gershwin.Born on September 26, 1898, George Gershwin occupies a unique place in American music history—standing at the intersection of classical composition, jazz improvisation, and Broadway flair. Raised in Brooklyn to Russian-Jewish immigrant parents, Gershwin began his musical life on the piano and quickly showed an uncanny ability to absorb and reshape the sounds of his time. Though he composed everything from operas to show tunes, it was Rhapsody in Blue, written in 1924 when he was just 25, that cemented his legacy.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman for a concert intended to bridge classical and popular music, Rhapsody in Blue was composed in a rush—famously sketched out on train rides and completed with the help of orchestrator Ferde Grofé. The piece opens with its iconic clarinet glissando, a spontaneous flourish during rehearsal that Gershwin decided to keep, and unfolds into a sweeping blend of jazz rhythms, bluesy melodies, and symphonic ambition. It captured something distinctly American—urban, restless, full of promise.Rhapsody in Blue premiered at Aeolian Hall in New York on February 12, 1924, with Gershwin himself at the piano. The audience included titans like Sergei Rachmaninoff and Jascha Heifetz, and the piece earned immediate acclaim. Though critics at the time debated whether it was truly “serious” music, it has since become a cornerstone of 20th-century composition and a symbol of American cultural identity.For Gershwin, Rhapsody in Blue was not a departure from classical form but a statement that American music—jazz, blues, Tin Pan Alley—deserved a place in the concert hall. More than a century later, it remains as fresh and vibrant as the city that inspired it.Without further ado, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, the first movement–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

National pancake day. Entertainment from 2017. 1st televised presidential debate, 1st Chief Justice to the US Supreme Court, NC-17 created. Todays birthdays - Johnny Appleseed, Edmond Guinn, Pope Paul VI, Jack LaLanne, Marty Robbins, Donna Douglas, Lynn Anderson, Olivia Newton-John, Linda Hamilton, Jim Caviezel, Zoe Perry. Paul Newman died.Intro - God did good - Dianna Corcoran     https://www.diannacorcoran.com/Pancake song - Singalong kids songsLook what you made me do - Taylor SwiftBody like a back road - Sam HuntBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent      http://50cent.com/El Paso - Marty RobbinsBeverly Hillbillies TV theme(I never promised you a) Rose garden - Lynn AndersonIf not for you - Olivia Newton-JohnYoung Sheldon TV themeExit - Pink Whitney - Payton Howie    https://paytonhowie.com/countryundergroundradio.comHistory & Factoids webpage

Chief Justice nominee Paul Baffoe-Bonnie has backed the Ghana Law Society's bid for recognition, amid a Supreme Court challenge to the Ghana Bar Association's monopoly.

"I don't remember that I was ever President," William Howard Taft once said, a decade removed from his tumultuous tenure as 27th President. Learn about his post-Presidency; the real joy of his life, his tenure as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; his death, burial, and commemorations! Check out the website at VisitingthePresidents.com for visual aids, links, past episodes, recommended reading, and other information!Episode Page: https://visitingthepresidents.com/2025/09/23/season-3-episode-27-william-howard-tafts-tomb/Season 1's William Howard Taft Episode: "William Howard Taft and Cincinnati" on his birthplace!Season 2's William McKinley Episode: "William Howard Taft and Washington, DC" on his homes!Support the show Also, check out “Visiting the Presidents” on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter!

Order in the court! Introducing a new series of TYLA's Young Gunners podcast, spotlighting all nine justices of the Supreme Court of Texas! In these special episodes, TYLA President Hisham Masri, TYLA Immediate Past President Laura Pratt, and TYLA President-Elect Alyson Martinez speak with the SCOTX bench about their respective path to the high court, judicial philosophy, and advice for young attorneys navigating the legal profession. We kick off this series with an interview with Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who was elevated to chief justice on January 6, 2025. In this episode, Chief Justice Blacklock shares how the principles of fatherhood and his deep-rooted faith have influenced not only his path to the judiciary but also the way he approaches leadership, decision-making, and the responsibilities of public office. Tune in for a thoughtful exploration of character, calling, and the intersection of personal conviction with professional duty. You can access this episode and our other episodes here: https://tyla.org/resource/young-gunners-podcast/ And tune in soon for our second episode where we speak with Senior Justice Debra Lehrmann, the longest-serving member on the court!  #tyla #younggunners #scotx #legalpodcast

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation's first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department's “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin's involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin's actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization' Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration's statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Order in the court! Introducing a new series of TYLA's Young Gunners podcast, spotlighting all nine justices of the Supreme Court of Texas! In these special episodes, TYLA President Hisham Masri, TYLA Immediate Past President Laura Pratt, and TYLA President-Elect Alyson Martinez speak with the SCOTX bench about their respective path to the high court, judicial philosophy, and advice for young attorneys navigating the legal profession. We kick off this series with an interview with Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who was elevated to chief justice on January 6, 2025. In this episode, Chief Justice Blacklock shares how the principles of fatherhood and his deep-rooted faith have influenced not only his path to the judiciary but also the way he approaches leadership, decision-making, and the responsibilities of public office. Tune in for a thoughtful exploration of character, calling, and the intersection of personal conviction with professional duty. You can access this episode and our other episodes here: https://tyla.org/resource/young-gunners-podcast/ And tune in soon for our second episode where we speak with Senior Justice Debra Lehrmann, the longest-serving member on the court!  #tyla #younggunners #scotx #legalpodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeffrey Amestoy, chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court from 1997 to 2004, is best known for authoring the 1999 decision in Baker vs. Vermont that legalized same-sex civil unions. That case laid the groundwork for the legalization of same sex marriage in Vermont a decade later and ultimately led to the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing same sex marriage in 2015.At the age of 79, Amestoy is still a prolific writer, but in a different genre. His latest book is a true crime legal thriller that he spent years researching. Winters' Time: A Secret Pledge, a Severed Head, and the Murder That Brought America's Most Famous Lawyer to Vermont, is the story of when celebrity attorney Clarence Darrow came to Vermont to defend a convicted murderer before the Vermont Supreme Court. The book was just published by the Vermont Historical Society.Winters' Time recounts the brutal murder of Cecelia Gullivan, who was killed in her home in Windsor, Vermont in November 1926. Gullivan, a single woman, was the treasurer of the Cone Automatic Machine company in Windsor. Police quickly arrested John Winters, a machinist at her company, and he was promptly tried, convicted and sentenced to death. That's when Clarence Darrow entered the case after the Winters family called in a favor promised by Darrow's son.Amestoy, who was Vermont's attorney general from 1985 to 1997, set the scene for what would become one of Vermont's most sensational trials. “By the 1920s you had the first real mass media with radio and newspapers racing to outdo each other in circulation wars that focused primarily on murders and then a tremendous interest in celebrities," Amestoy said. "Darrow sort of combined two of those: he was an extraordinarily successful defense lawyer, adamantly opposed to capital punishment … And then he was famous for his ability to speak to larger social issues.”The death penalty was among the issues at play. “There was a tremendous amount of focus on capital punishment in Vermont but not, in fact, from those opposed to it, more about making sure that Vermont had a method of execution that would work,” said Amestoy. Winters would be only the second person executed by electric chair, which had recently been installed at the Windsor prison.Vermont executed 26 people between 1778 and 1954. The state abolished capital punishment in 1972 following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.The most sensational aspect of the trial of John Winters was the prosecution's use of the victim's severed head as an exhibit. “That had never happened in Vermont legal history and as far as I was able to determine, hadn't ever happened in American legal history either,” said Amestoy.Amestoy said that the Winters case “gave us a lens on Vermont in the 1920s in terms of gender.” Cecilia Gullivan was an “extraordinary single woman, sort of a modern woman of the time.” He noted that Gullivan was “probably the highest ranking female executive in Vermont, a tremendously capable woman who had the authority for managing the plant.” Her murder was “extraordinary because of the status of the victim, and it immediately became front page news, not only in Vermont, but in Boston and really all over the country.”There were rumors raised at Winters' trial that Gullivan was in a relationship with Frank Cone, the owner of the company, who some thought was a suspect in her death. Amestoy noted that women did not sit on juries at that time. Vermont in the 1920s was "not attuned to issues of gender," said Amestoy.Clarence Darrow succeeded in winning a retrial for John Winters, who then pleaded guilty to second degree murder on Darrow's advice, though Winters publicly maintained his innocence. After serving 20 years in prison, Winters was pardoned in 1949 by Gov. Ernest Gibson. Clarence Darrow had saved the convict's life.Amestoy is no stranger to sensational cases himself. His civil unions decision, which he famously wrote “is simply a recognition of our common humanity,” changed the national conversation about same sex unions.“I thought that opinion helped move that issue in a way that allowed Vermonters to address a social issue of extraordinary importance in a way that I think stood as an example to the country. So to have been able to play a part in that was obviously something I was thankful for.”

Former Director of the Ghana School of Law Kwaku Ansah Asare has applauded President John Dramani Mahama for confirming acting Chief Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie as the substantive Chief Justice, saying he is the right person on the bench to fill the role.

With as many as 120 million legal problems going unresolved in America each year, traditional lawyer-centered approaches to access to justice have consistently failed to meet the scale of need. But what if the solution is not just about providing more legal services — what if it lies in fundamentally rethinking who can provide legal help? In today's episode, host Bob Ambrogi is joined by two of the nation's leading researchers on access to justice: Rebecca Sandefur, professor and director of the Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics at Arizona State University and a faculty fellow at the American Bar Foundation, and Matthew Burnett, director of research and programs for the Access to Justice Research Initiative at the American Bar Foundation and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center.  They argue that the access to justice crisis is actually a crisis of democracy. As cofounders of Frontline Justice, they have been pioneering research on "justice workers" — community members trained to help their neighbors navigate legal issues. Their recent article in the South Carolina Law Review, “Justice Work as Democracy Work: Reimagining Access to Justice as Democratization,” makes a provocative case: When people cannot access their own law, democracy itself fails. They present compelling evidence from Alaska, where nearly 200 community justice workers now serve over 40 rural communities, achieving a 1-to-25 return on investment while dramatically expanding legal aid's reach. In today's conversation, Sandefur and Burnett discuss the mounting evidence for justice worker effectiveness, including research from the U.K. demonstrating that trained non-lawyers often outperform attorneys on specialized tasks. They also discuss recent breakthroughs — including unprecedented support from both the Conference of Chief Justices and the American Bar Association — and examine what obstacles remain.  Sandefur and Burnett challenge the legal profession's monopoly on law, arguing that regulatory capture has estranged Americans from their own justice system. They envision justice workers as agents of democratization, expanding not just who can access legal help, but who can participate meaningfully in working democracy.  Related episodes: On the latest LawNext: Sociologist Rebecca Sandefur on Enhancing Access to Justice. On LawNext: How A New Kind of Justice Worker Could Narrow the Justice Gap, with Nikole Nelson, CEO of Frontline Justice.  On LawNext: CEO Nikole Nelson Returns with An Update on Frontline Justice's Mission to Empower Justice Workers and Bridge the Justice Gap.   Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). Paxton, Rapidly conduct research, accelerate drafting, and analyze documents with Paxton. What do you need to get done today?    If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.  

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar is remembered and admired for many things: for his heroic, lifelong, campaign to eradicate the evil of untouchability; for his scholarly contributions as an economist and social theorist; for the social movements he led and the political parties he founded; for the educational institutions he nurtured; for his critical role in overseeing and directing the framing of the Constitution; for the brilliant books, essays and pamphlets that he authored on a variety of subjects. This lecture will focus on Ambedkar as a visionary and deeply insightful theorist of constitutional democracy. By juxtaposing what he said in his speeches in the Constituent Assembly to the social and political realities of contemporary India, I shall demonstrate how his ideas remain of compelling relevance to us today. While the core of the talk will be on Ambedkar the political theorist, it will end by briefly comparing his legacy with that of other remarkable Indians of his generation, such as Nehru, Gandhi, Tagore, and Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay. The National Law School of India University, Bengaluru (NLSIU) and the Ahmadi Foundation have entered into a MoU to set up the Justice Ahmadi Initiative on Rule of Law, Democracy, and Social Justice in honour of, and to preserve and promote the legacy of former Chief Justice of India, Justice Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi. The Initiative will work to advance the ideas that Justice Ahmadi championed throughout his distinguished career, including but not restricted to human rights, education, inclusion and protection of vulnerable communities, judicial independence, alternate dispute resolution mechanisms, and strengthening of democratic institutions. An annual distinguished lecture series is one of the events planned under the Initiative. Presented by: National law School of India University, bangalore In this episode of BIC Talks, Ramchandra Guha will deliver a talk. This is an excerpt from a conversation that took place in the BIC premises in Jul 2025. Subscribe to the BIC Talks Podcast on your favourite podcast app! BIC Talks is available everywhere, including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, Castbox, Overcast, Audible, and Amazon Music.

Et in Sempiternum Pereant by Charles Williams Lord Arglay, retired Chief Justice and seeker of forgotten knowledge, sets out for a quiet scholarly errand in the English countryside—only to find the landscape subtly warped, time grown strangely dense, and a chimney smoking where no fire burns. Drawn by a narrow path to a door that seems to wait for him alone, he enters a place where memory thickens, boundaries blur, and the air presses with the weight of something ancient and unyielding. Each step leads him deeper into a mystery that threatens not just understanding, but escape itself. First published in The London Mercury, December 1935.
 Charles Williams (1886–1945) was a British novelist, poet, and critic associated with the Inklings.
He wrote metaphysical thrillers—War in Heaven, Descent into Hell, All Hallows' Eve—exploring theology, myth, and the supernatural. Join Our Podia Community for 100s of Ad Free Ghost Stories https://www.classicghost.com/ghost-stories-episodes/buy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo filed an application challenging her removal by President John Mahama from both the office of Chief Justice and as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo filed an application challenging her removal by President John Mahama from both the office of Chief Justice and as a Justice of the Supreme Court

AP correspondent Charles de Ledesma reports Nepal's president has appointed a former chief justice as interim premier.

MAGA ties itself into knots trying to dislodge Trump from Epsteingate. Ben riffs Monroe talks Epstein, Biden, Kamala and Roger Taney. Who? He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who wrote the opinion that slavery is legal. Is the current Supreme Court worse? Monroe advances that argument. How Money by the O'Jays is misunderstood. And why its theme applies to the Bears. In the middle of our recording, word breaks from Utah that Charlie Kirk has been shot. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports Chief Justice John Roberts is letting President Trump remove a Federal Trade Commission member for now.

Rtd Chief Justice David Kenani Maraga | The Legacy & Presidential Ambitions. Legal Insider by Capital FM

For Part 4b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 7 Roman Numeral II.A and B to the top of page 13 through to Roman Numeral II.C in the Slip Opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court at the top of his page 13, Roman Numeral II.C next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

The Chief Justice's annual report says too few judges, high workloads and stress, not enough court rooms and fewer lawyers offering legal aid are putting the judiciary under considerable stress. 

Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court John L. Weimer, joins Scoot and Ian Hoch to share their experiences and memories of Hurricane Katrina 20 years ago.

Scoot and Ian Hoch broadcast LIVE from The Presbytere in Jackson Square to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. This hour, Scoot and Ian Hoch have Chief Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court John L. Weimer and Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban League, to share their experiences and memories of Hurricane Katrina 20 years ago.

Tim Armstead, former Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court of Appeals who also served in the House of Delegates, died Tuesday. The post Remembering Justice Armstead And Examining Appalachia's Water Crisis, This West Virginia Morning appeared first on West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

PART TWO! Join me as I break down Appellate Court Judge Neomi Rao's concurrence in which she drives a metaphorical stake through the legal analysis heart of DC Chief Justice and Trump Derangement Syndrome Judge Jeb “Vlad” Boasberg!Of the many unelected, black-robed, tyrannical, inferior district court judges afflicted with terminal Trump Derangement System and wielding lawful jurisdiction and orders over our Article II Executive Branch President Donald J. Trump, elected by the whole of the American people to carry out our political will, few have been as malicious, as odious, and as unconstitutionally corrupt as has the Chief Justice of the DC District Circuit, Judge Jeb “Vlad” Boasberg. Today, Judge Boasberg got body checked HARD by his bosses on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, to which the Trump White House had appealed Boasberg's lawless orders and obvious political and personal animus for Trump and for the Constitutional limits on his own authority. I'll break down that appellate court pimp-slap delivered to Boasberg—at least the majority opinion (there's 60 pages of dissent—losing opinion—that I'm not sure is worth reading).Before all that, however, I'll also share some date with you on how Trump has actually been faring in his lawfare cases once they reach the Supreme Court itself. 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

The Republic of Texas Congress formed the first state Supreme Court in 1836. However, the Court really didn't meet in any significant way until 1840 under the leadership of Chief Justice John Hemphill. Being Chief Justice was a little different then. It meant fighting Indians, mastering Spanish law, and even leading an expedition to invade Mexico! Chief Justice John Hemphill did it all. Learn more about one of Texas' greatest jurists in this episode of Wise About Texas.