Podcasts about Circuit court

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has halted the imminent closure of the infamous "Alligator Alcatraz” detention camp in Florida; now, the future of the facility, and the people incarcerated within it, remains in limbo. “But no matter the future of Alligator Alcatraz, the Trump administration is turning it into a model for expanding detention capacity across the country,” Shannon Heffernan and Beth Schwartzapfel report at The Marshall Project. “Similar large-scale facilities, opened in collaboration with state governments, are already in the works. These projects mark the first time that states have gotten this involved in large-scale immigration detention.” In this episode of Rattling the Bars, host Mansa Musa speaks with Heffernan about how the Trump administration, in collaboration with state governments, is expanding the US system of mass incarceration to unprecedented levels. For full show notes and transcript, click here.Credits: Producer / Videographer / Post-Production: Cameron GranadinoHelp us continue producing Rattling the Bars by following us and becoming a monthly sustainer.Sign up for our newsletterFollow us on BlueskyLike us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterDonate to support this podcast

Have you ever wondered where the fight to save wild horses is headed? In this episode, I take you on a journey that began 21 years ago, when I first discovered that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was planning to remove most of the wild horses from Adobe Town, a herd I had grown to love. Through 22 roundups across five states, I've photographed and shared the painful reality of the BLM's actions.   The recent 10th Circuit Court victory gave us hope, ruling that the BLM's plan to eliminate three Wyoming herds was illegal. But the fight is far from over. This week, our group filed a lawsuit that resulted in a victory: the BLM has delayed its scheduled roundup, temporarily protecting nearly 3,000 wild horses. Tune in to hear the actions that need to be taken to protect these wild horses and ensure their long-term survival on our public lands.   Get full show notes and more information here: https://www.wildhoofbeats.com/58  

District and Circuit Court judges are in more or less open revolt over the Supreme Court's abuse of the shadow docket. Perhaps Justice Gorsuch shouldn't have implied that they were all stupid and insubordinate for failing to read his mind! The Trump administration insists it's very cool and very legal to deport immigrant children in the middle of the night so long as it's Health and Human Services doing the deporting. Will Judge Tim Kelly agree? And Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are back to teach us civil procedure. Sanctions, anyone?   Links:   Ronny Jackson v. Weber (CA Sec State) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71235529/jackson-v-weber/   Kash Patel Makes FBI Great Again By Getting It Sued https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/kash-patel-makes-fbi-great-again   Alex Jones SCOTUS Cert Petition Docket https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-268.html   Judge Ho “Denny's” Order https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.224134/gov.uscourts.ca5.224134.25.1.pdf   First Circuit Order, Rhode Island v. Trump https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.59257/gov.uscourts.rid.59257.79.0.pdf   Judges, desperate for guidance, plead with Supreme Court justices: ‘Write an opinion' https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/11/supreme-court-emergency-rulings-judges-00558058   L.G.M.L. v. Noem https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71240524/lgml-v-noem   Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?order_by=desc   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This Day in Legal History: Certiorari Granted in WindsorOn September 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Windsor, setting the stage for one of the most consequential civil rights decisions of the decade. The case challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been legally married to her same-sex partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada. When Spyer died, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, resulting in a tax bill exceeding $350,000.Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. The Obama administration, though initially defending DOMA, reversed course and declined to continue doing so, prompting the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives to intervene. The DOJ's September 11 petition reflected the administration's desire to have the Supreme Court resolve the constitutional question as quickly as possible.In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the federal government could not single out same-sex marriages for unequal treatment under the law. The ruling granted same-sex couples access to hundreds of federal benefits and marked a turning point in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.The Windsor decision laid the constitutional groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges two years later, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The filing on September 11, 2012, was a procedural but critical moment that pushed the case toward the highest court in the land. It also signaled a shift in the federal government's posture toward LGBTQ+ equality—moving from defense of discriminatory laws to active legal opposition.The trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate then former President Donald Trump, begins this week in Fort Pierce, Florida. Routh, 59, is facing five federal charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, and has chosen to represent himself. Prosecutors allege that Routh hid with a rifle near the sixth hole of Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach last September, intending to kill Trump. He fled after a Secret Service agent spotted him before any shots were fired and was arrested the same day.The trial opens amid rising concerns about political violence in the U.S., underscored by the recent killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in Utah. Trump himself has been targeted multiple times, including a shooting in Pennsylvania in July 2024 that left him wounded. Routh, a former roofing contractor with a history of erratic behavior, had expressed political views supporting Taiwan and Ukraine and previously outlined a bizarre plan involving Afghan refugees.The case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, the same judge who previously dismissed a separate criminal case against Trump involving classified documents. Cannon has already expressed frustration with Routh during jury selection, rejecting several of his proposed questions as irrelevant. The jury consists of seven women and five men. The trial is expected to spotlight the ongoing increase in politically motivated violence in the U.S.,Trial begins for man accused of trying to assassinate Trump, spotlighting US political violence | ReutersFive former federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully dismissed their complaints after being fired early in President Trump's second term. Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs claim OSC failed to investigate over 2,000 complaints from probationary employees terminated en masse in February 2025, despite earlier findings that the firings may have violated federal law. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, seeks a ruling that OSC's blanket dismissal of the complaints was arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.Probationary federal employees—often in their first year or newly assigned roles—have fewer job protections, making them vulnerable to politically motivated purges. In this case, the Trump administration dismissed roughly 25,000 such employees, sparking multiple legal challenges. Some courts briefly reinstated the workers, but appeals courts ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing or needed to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.OSC, under former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, had suggested the mass terminations were unlawful. However, after Trump fired Dellinger, his replacement, Jamieson Greer, dismissed all the pending complaints, citing alignment with new administrative priorities. The plaintiffs argue this abrupt shift was politically driven and undermined OSC's duty to safeguard merit-based civil service protections.The lawsuit aims to compel OSC to reopen investigations into the firings and reassert that probationary employees still retain legal protections from unlawful dismissals.US Special Counsel sued for dismissing fired federal workers' complaints | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, aiming to fire her before the central bank's next interest rate meeting on September 16. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that President Trump's claim—alleging Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office—likely does not meet the legal threshold to justify her dismissal. The administration's brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit did not include arguments, but signaled urgency given the upcoming monetary policy meeting.Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, filed suit in August claiming that the fraud allegations were a pretext for removing her due to her policy positions. She argues that the law governing the Federal Reserve allows a governor to be removed only “for cause,” a term not clearly defined in the statute and never previously tested in court. Cobb agreed that the case raises new and important legal questions, emphasizing the public interest in shielding the Fed from political pressure.The DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into the alleged mortgage fraud, with grand jury subpoenas issued in Georgia and Michigan. The case could have broader implications for the independence of federal agencies, especially those like the Fed that have traditionally operated free from executive interference. This follows other high-profile cases in which courts have temporarily blocked Trump from firing leaders of independent agencies, including the U.S. Copyright Office.Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates and criticized Chair Jerome Powell, though Cook has consistently voted with the Fed majority on rate decisions. Her continued presence at the Fed could influence upcoming policy moves.Trump administration appeals ruling blocking removal of Fed Governor Cook | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld most provisions of a New Jersey law restricting firearms in designated “sensitive places,” such as parks, hospitals, beaches, libraries, and casinos. The 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court concluded the restrictions aligned with historical firearm regulations in places traditionally considered sensitive due to their civic or public safety function.The ruling is a setback for gun rights advocates, following similar decisions by appeals courts in California, Hawaii, and New York. These rulings come in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating gun laws—requiring that modern regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm control. While Bruen expanded gun rights, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of restrictions in sensitive locations.Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, writing for the majority, emphasized that U.S. history supports limiting firearms in specific public areas to preserve peace and safety. Judge Cindy Chung concurred, while Judge David Porter dissented, arguing the government shouldn't be able to arbitrarily declare places “sensitive” to limit gun rights.The New Jersey Attorney General praised the decision, while gun rights groups criticized it as an overly deferential interpretation of the Second Amendment.US appeals court largely upholds New Jersey gun restrictions | 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

This episode begins with Mary and Andrew digesting the 2-1 decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals halting the Trump administration's ability to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals accused of being members of Tren de Aragua. Andrew calls the administration's recent arguments “outlandish” before moving to the questionable legality of the U.S. military's deadly boat strike last week – an unprecedented action which left eleven dead. Next, they move to Monday's Supreme Court decision undoing limits set by a lower court on how ICE conducts immigration raids. Plus, a federal judge issues a win for Harvard University on the topic of frozen and terminated funds. Further reading:  The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling on Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport VenezuelansAnd a reminder: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

You wouldn't believe the whirlwind the courts have become with Donald Trump at the center stage these past few days. Just as September started, a major moment landed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a 7-4 decision, struck down Trump's broad use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs on nearly all imported goods. The judges ruled that Trump simply didn't have Congressional authority for such sweeping actions, but interestingly enough, the government has until October 14 to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. On September 4, Trump's team went ahead and petitioned for that expedited Supreme Court review, and now the cases are set for arguments in the Supreme Court's early November session, starting November 3, putting Trump's trade legacy directly on the line.But tariffs aren't even the hottest legal fire Trump's grappling with. On Monday, September 8, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals out of New York cemented a staggering $83.3 million judgment against Trump for defaming E. Jean Carroll. Carroll, the former magazine columnist, accused Trump of sexual assault dating back to the 1990s, and his public denials—combined with reckless disregard for the truth—landed him in legal jeopardy. The appeals panel wasn't swayed by Trump's efforts to invoke presidential immunity or claim excessive damages. Instead, they declared the jury's awards both fair and reasonable, highlighting how Trump's statements about Carroll, calling her a liar and denying her allegations, were made with, at the very least, reckless disregard. And this follows a separate $5 million jury award Carroll won after Trump was found liable for sexual abuse. Trump's legal team has vowed to push that appeal to the Supreme Court, but for now, the massive judgment stands.Outside the courtroom, the Supreme Court itself is preparing for more Trump-centered drama. Not only are his tariffs and broader powers as the executive on the chopping block—his capacity to ramp up deportations and even send military troops into U.S. cities is now being tested in front of the highest bench. There's real tension over just how much power the President can wield, especially with a Supreme Court super majority that often leans toward a very expansive view of executive authority.Listeners, the wheels of justice are cranking at a furious pace. Court calendars have become minefields, filled with dates, stays, appeals, and new developments erupting almost daily. For Donald Trump, each week seems to bring a fresh legal cliffhanger, with the nation watching every twist and turn. That's it for this wild week in Trump's legal saga. Thank you so much for tuning in. Don't forget to come back next week for more. 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.ai

This Day in Legal History: Sewing Machine PatentOn this day in legal history, September 10, 1846, Elias Howe was granted U.S. Patent No. 3640 for his invention of the lockstitch sewing machine. Though not the first to envision mechanical sewing, Howe's design was the first to successfully automate stitching in a way that was both efficient and commercially viable. His machine used a needle with the eye at the point and a shuttle beneath the cloth to form a lockstitch—features that would become industry standards. Despite the innovation, Howe initially struggled to find financial backers and spent time in England attempting to sell his invention, with little success.When he returned to the United States, Howe discovered that other manufacturers had begun producing similar machines. Chief among them was Isaac Singer, who had developed and begun marketing a sewing machine that closely mirrored Howe's patented design. In 1854, Howe sued Singer for patent infringement, launching one of the first high-profile intellectual property battles in American history. The case turned on whether Singer's improvements to the machine still relied on Howe's patented mechanism.The court ultimately ruled in Howe's favor, affirming that Singer's use of the lockstitch principle did indeed infringe upon Howe's patent. Howe was awarded substantial royalties from Singer and other manufacturers using similar technology, securing both recognition and financial reward for his invention. This case set a foundational precedent for the enforceability of patent rights and underscored the economic stakes of intellectual property in the Industrial Age. By the time his patent expired, Howe had amassed a considerable fortune and had firmly established the legal and commercial viability of inventorship in a rapidly mechanizing society.A federal judge has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, marking an early legal defeat for the administration in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for the Fed's independence. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration's justification—allegations of mortgage fraud committed before Cook took office—did not clearly meet the legal standard for removal. The law governing the Federal Reserve allows governors to be removed only “for cause,” a term not explicitly defined, and this is the first time its limits are being tested in court.Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, has denied all fraud allegations and is suing both Trump and the Fed, arguing the move is politically motivated due to her monetary policy views. Her legal team argues that even if the mortgage claims were accurate, they predate her Senate confirmation and therefore do not constitute grounds for removal. The White House contends that the president has broad authority to dismiss Fed governors and that this issue should not be subject to judicial review.Judge Cobb's ruling allows Cook to remain in her position while the case proceeds and emphasized that the claims did not pertain to her conduct as a sitting Board member. The Department of Justice has opened a criminal probe into the mortgage allegations, issuing subpoenas from Georgia and Michigan. The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court and may redefine limits on presidential power over the central bank. Legal experts and Fed supporters view the ruling as a significant moment in affirming the institution's independence from political interference.US judge temporarily blocks Trump from removing Fed Governor Cook | ReutersTrump Can't Fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for Now, Judge Says (1)The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to fast-track the review of the legality of President Trump's global tariff policies, setting up a pivotal case over the limits of presidential power in trade. The Court will evaluate whether Trump unlawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—a 1977 law traditionally applied to sanction foreign adversaries—to justify tariffs aimed at reducing trade deficits and pressuring countries over issues like drug trafficking. Lower courts have ruled that Trump overstepped, arguing that IEEPA doesn't grant presidents broad tariff authority and that such actions violate the Constitution's assignment of trade powers to Congress.The Justice Department, appealing the rulings, claims that stripping Trump of this power would weaken the country's defenses against economic threats. In contrast, the challengers—including small businesses, a toy company, and 12 Democrat-led states—argue that only Congress can impose tariffs and that Trump's interpretation of the law is too expansive. The case invokes the Supreme Court's “major questions” doctrine, which requires clear congressional authorization for executive actions of large economic and political consequence.Oral arguments are scheduled for early November, with the Court moving unusually quickly to address the matter. Tariffs remain in place during the legal process. The decision could reshape the scope of executive authority over trade policy and have long-term effects on global markets, U.S. trade relationships, and the national economy. With trillions of dollars in duties at stake, the outcome may also impact future uses of emergency economic powers by presidents.US Supreme Court to decide legality of Trump's tariffs | ReutersA federal appeals court has mostly upheld a California law aimed at limiting social media use by minors, siding with the state over a legal challenge brought by tech industry group NetChoice. The law, known as the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act, prohibits platforms from offering so-called "addictive feeds" to users under 18 without parental consent. These feeds, powered by algorithms that tailor content to user behavior, are considered by lawmakers to pose mental health risks to children.NetChoice, whose members include major tech firms like Google, Meta, Netflix, and X (formerly Twitter), argued that the law is overly vague, unconstitutional, and violates companies' First Amendment rights. However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected most of these claims, saying the law's applications were not broadly unconstitutional and that the issue of algorithmic expression is fact-dependent.The court did strike down one provision requiring platforms to default children's accounts to hide likes and comments, finding it was not the least restrictive means of protecting mental health. It also declined to rule on a requirement that platforms verify users' ages, since that part of the law doesn't take effect until 2027.NetChoice expressed disappointment, saying the ruling gives government more control over online speech than parents. The court returned parts of the case to a lower court for further review. The decision represents a significant legal validation of California's attempt to regulate how minors interact with digital platforms.California limits on 'addictive' social media feeds for children largely upheld | ReutersA federal judge has blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to subpoena medical records of transgender minors who received gender-affirming care at Boston Children's Hospital. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ruled that the Department of Justice's subpoena was issued in bad faith, stating its true purpose was to intimidate and interfere with Massachusetts' legal protections for gender-affirming care. The subpoena sought a wide range of sensitive data, including identifiable patient records from the past five and a half years.The DOJ claimed the records were needed to investigate possible healthcare fraud and off-label drug promotion, but the judge found that the scope of the request far exceeded what would be relevant for such an inquiry. Joun pointed to the administration's broader political stance against gender-affirming care, including President Trump's executive order just days after taking office and the DOJ's public commitment to targeting providers of what it called “radical gender experimentation.”Attorney General Pam Bondi announced in July that over 20 subpoenas had been issued nationwide to clinics treating transgender youth, seeking not only institutional practices but also personal patient data related to puberty blockers and hormone therapies. Boston Children's Hospital challenged the subpoena, arguing it was a violation of patient privacy and state protections. Judge Joun agreed, emphasizing that Massachusetts' constitution safeguards access to gender-affirming care and that the subpoena amounted to harassment under the guise of a legal investigation.Judge blocks Trump administration's subpoena of trans kids' medical records from Boston hospital 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

This Day in Legal History: A. Lincoln Admitted to BarOn September 9, 1836, Abraham Lincoln was licensed to practice law by the Illinois Supreme Court, setting in motion a legal and political career that would ultimately reshape American history. At the time, Lincoln was a 27-year-old former store clerk and self-taught frontier intellectual, with no formal legal education. Instead, like many aspiring attorneys of the era, Lincoln "read law" by apprenticing under established lawyers and studying foundational legal texts such as Blackstone's Commentaries and Chitty's Pleadings. His relentless self-education and growing reputation for honesty earned him the nickname “Honest Abe,” long before he entered the national spotlight.Shortly after being admitted to the bar, Lincoln moved to Springfield, Illinois, where he set up a law practice. His first lawsuit came less than a month later, on October 5, 1836, marking the beginning of a legal career that would span over two decades. Lincoln took on a wide variety of cases—ranging from debt collection and land disputes to criminal defense and railroad litigation—and traveled extensively on the Illinois Eighth Judicial Circuit.His courtroom demeanor was marked by clarity, logic, and moral conviction, attributes that would later define his presidency. Practicing law not only gave Lincoln financial stability but also honed the rhetorical and analytical skills that would serve him in legislative debates and national addresses. His legal work with the Illinois Central Railroad and other corporate clients exposed him to the country's economic transformation, deepening his understanding of commerce, labor, and the law's role in shaping society.Lincoln's rise from rural obscurity to respected attorney mirrored the American ideal of self-made success, and his legal background profoundly shaped his political philosophy. It was as a lawyer and legislator that he began to articulate his opposition to slavery's expansion, using constitutional and moral arguments that would later guide his presidency and the Union's legal stance during the Civil War.His legal reasoning and insistence on the rule of law would ultimately be central to the Emancipation Proclamation, his wartime governance, and the framework for reconstructing the nation. The law gave Lincoln the tools to interpret and preserve the Constitution, even amid its greatest crisis.Lincoln's admission to the bar on this day in 1836 was not just a personal milestone—it was a foundational step toward the presidency and toward a redefinition of American liberty and union that would endure for generations.Events ripple in time like waves on a pond, and Lincoln's admission to the bar in 1836 is one such stone cast into history. Had he not secured that license—had he not taught himself law from borrowed books and legal treatises—it is likely he never would have risen to national prominence or attained the presidency. Without Lincoln's leadership in 1860, the United States may well have fractured permanently into separate nations, altering the course of the Civil War and leaving a divided continent in its wake. That division would have profoundly reshaped global affairs in the 20th century. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the fact that there was a United States powerful and unified enough to confront the Nazi war machine in 1941 traces, in part, to a frontier shop clerk's grit, discipline, and determination to study Blackstone's Commentaries by candlelight.A Florida state appeals judge who sided with Donald Trump in a high-profile defamation case against the Pulitzer Prize Board has been confirmed to the federal bench. On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted 50–43 along party lines to approve Judge Ed Artau's nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Artau is now the sixth Trump judicial nominee to be confirmed during the president's second term.Artau joined a panel earlier this year that allowed Trump's lawsuit to proceed after the Pulitzer Board declined to rescind a 2018 award given to The New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election. In a concurring opinion, Artau criticized the reporting as “now-debunked” and echoed calls to revisit New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court precedent that has long protected journalists from most defamation claims by public figures.The timing of Artau's nomination has drawn scrutiny from Senate Democrats, who argue it raises ethical concerns. Artau reportedly began conversations about a possible federal appointment just days after Trump's 2024 victory and interviewed with the White House shortly after issuing his opinion in the Pulitzer case. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the confirmation a “blatant” example of quid pro quo, while others questioned Artau's impartiality.In response, Artau defended his conduct during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, stating that ambition for higher office alone doesn't disqualify a judge from ruling on politically sensitive cases and that he holds no personal bias requiring recusal.Florida judge who ruled for Trump in Pulitzer case confirmed to federal bench | ReutersAfter 21 years, one of legal academia's most influential blogs is shutting down. The TaxProf Blog, launched in 2004 by Pepperdine Law Dean Paul Caron, will cease publication by the end of September following the closure of its longtime host platform, Typepad. Caron said he isn't interested in rebuilding the site on a new platform, though he hopes to preserve the blog's extensive archive of nearly 56,000 posts.Initially focused on tax law, the blog evolved into a central hub for news and commentary on law schools, covering accreditation, rankings, faculty hiring, admissions trends, and more. It maintained its relevance even as other law professor blogs declined in the wake of Twitter's rise. Caron's regular posts made the site a must-read in the legal education world, often mixing in personal reflections and occasional commentary on religion.The closure also casts uncertainty over the broader Law Professor Blog Network, which includes around 60 niche academic blogs also hosted on Typepad. At least one, ImmigrationProf Blog, has already begun looking for a new publishing home.Reactions across the legal academy reflected the impact of the blog's departure. One law school dean likened it to daily sports reporting for legal education—a constant, trusted source of updates and debate.Groundbreaking law blog calls it quits after 21 years | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a contentious immigration case, allowing federal agents to resume aggressive raids in Southern California. The Court granted a request from the Justice Department to lift a lower court order that had restricted immigration stops based on race, language, or occupation—factors critics argue are being used to disproportionately target Latino communities. The ruling, delivered in a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, permits the raids to continue while a broader legal challenge proceeds.The case stems from a July order by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who found that the administration's actions likely violated the Fourth Amendment by enabling racially discriminatory stops without reasonable suspicion. Her injunction applied across much of Southern California, but is now paused by the Supreme Court's decision.Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the Court's other two liberals, issued a sharp dissent, warning that the decision effectively declares all Latinos "fair game to be seized at any time," regardless of citizenship. She described the raids as racially motivated and unconstitutional.California Governor Gavin Newsom and civil rights groups echoed those concerns. Newsom accused the Court of legitimizing racial profiling and called Trump's enforcement actions a form of "racial terror." The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in the case, including U.S. citizens, denounced the raids as part of a broader “racist deportation scheme.”The Trump administration, meanwhile, hailed the decision as a major legal victory. Attorney General Pam Bondi framed it as a rejection of “judicial micromanagement,” and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing separately, argued that while ethnicity alone cannot justify a stop, it may be used in combination with other factors.This ruling adds to a series of recent Supreme Court decisions backing Trump's immigration agenda, including policies that limit asylum protections and revoke humanitarian legal statuses. In Los Angeles, the raids and the use of military personnel in response to protests have escalated tensions between the federal government and local authorities.US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld an $83.3 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, rejecting his claims of presidential immunity. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the damages appropriate given the severity and persistence of Trump's conduct, which it called “remarkably high” in terms of reprehensibility. The ruling noted that Trump's attacks on Carroll grew more extreme as the trial neared, contributing to reputational and emotional harm.The lawsuit stemmed from Trump's repeated public denials of Carroll's allegation that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. In 2019, Trump claimed Carroll was “not my type” and said she fabricated the story to sell books—comments he echoed again in 2022, prompting a second defamation suit. A jury in 2023 had already found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in an earlier case, awarding Carroll $5 million. That verdict was also upheld.Trump's legal team argued that his 2019 comments were made in his official capacity as president and should be shielded by presidential immunity. The court disagreed, citing a lack of legal basis to extend immunity in this context. Trump also objected to limits placed on his testimony during trial, but the appeals court upheld the trial judge's rulings as appropriate.The $83.3 million award includes $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages. Carroll's legal team expressed hope that the appeals process would soon conclude. Trump, meanwhile, framed the ruling as part of what he calls “Liberal Lawfare” amid multiple ongoing legal battles.Trump fails to overturn E. Jean Carroll's $83 million verdict | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week takes aim at the so-called "Taylor Swift Tax" in Rhode Island—an annual surtax on non-primary residences valued over $1 million. While the headline-grabbing nickname guarantees media coverage, the underlying policy is flawed, both economically and politically.Rhode Island isn't alone—Montana, Cape Cod, and Los Angeles have all attempted to capture revenue from wealthy property owners through targeted taxes on high-end real estate. But these narrowly tailored levies often distort markets, suppress transactions, and encourage avoidance rather than compliance. LA's mansion tax, for example, dramatically underperformed because property owners simply didn't sell.The appeal of taxing second homes is clear: they're luxury assets often owned by out-of-staters with little political influence. But that lack of local connection also makes them an unreliable revenue base. It's relatively easy to sell, reclassify, or relocate a vacation property, particularly for the affluent. And when policies hinge on fuzzy concepts like "primary residence," they invite loopholes and enforcement challenges—especially when properties are held by LLCs or trusts.Rhode Island's new tax could drive potential buyers to nearby Connecticut, undermining its own housing market and revenue goals. If states want to tax wealth effectively, they must resist headline-chasing and instead build durable, scalable policies: regular reassessments, vacancy levies, and infrastructure-based cost recovery. These methods avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous residency tests and create more predictable revenue streams.And because discretionary wealth is mobile, real solutions will require cooperation—harmonized assessments, multistate compacts, and shared reporting. But more fundamentally, states looking for progressive revenue should aim higher—toward income and wealth taxes—rather than tinkering at the margins with weekend homes.Rhode Island Should Shake Off ‘Taylor Swift Tax' on Second Homes 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

Are broker transparency rules the solution to today's freight challenges, or should we be focusing more on enforcement and safety? We're excited to bring The Armchair Attorney back to the show, Matt Leffler, to break down the FMCSA's latest delay on broker transparency updates, why the current 371.3 requirements remain unchanged, and what this means for brokers, carriers, and shippers! We delve into how market dynamics, tighter margins, and reduced consumer spending are shaping rates, and why stricter enforcement of maintenance and safety regulations could have a greater impact on the industry than transparency alone. Hear another straightforward take on what's really driving the transportation market!   About Matthew Leffler Matthew is a 3rd generation supply chain executive with over fifteen years of experience in safety, law, & maintenance. Matthew currently serves as Vice President of Strategic Accounts at Contract Leasing Corp. He is also an attorney that provides legal commentary on various supply chain issues & operates a popular podcast. In addition, Matthew has served as a senior leader with some of the nation's most admired maintenance, repair, & fleet management firms. Matthew entered the industry as an attorney defending trucking companies in civil litigation in 2010, but cut his teeth helping build & later selling his family's maintenance firm, Outsource Fleet Services, Inc. Matthew earned his J.D. from Michigan State University College of Law, Magna Cum Laude, and his B.A. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Illinois; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois; & 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matthew is the proud father of Michael, Rowan, Elise, & Elijah & has been happily married to his wife, Holly, since 2008.  

Multiple "inferior courts" (pun intended) are refusing to follow the Supreme Court's declaration of precedent on a variety of issues. In particular, SCOTUS declared that you cannot ban "arms in common use FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES." These courts are declaring that the citizen must show that they are "in common use FOR SELF DEFENSE." This same sort of twisting the law is in common use by Democrat judges who simply refuse to obey the Supreme Court.

Show off your Lone Star spirit with a free "Remember the Alamo" hat with an annual subscription to The Texan: https://thetexan.news/subscribe/The Texan's Weekly Roundup brings you the latest news in Texas politics, breaking down the top stories of the week with our team of reporters who give you the facts so you can form your own opinion.Enjoy what you hear? Be sure to subscribe and leave a review! Got questions for the reporting team? Email editor@thetexan.news — they just might be answered on a future podcast.Second Special Session of 2025 Closes as Texas House and Senate Adjourn Sine DieSpecial Session Roundup: Where Abbott's Agenda Stands With Sine Die in SightTexas Lawmakers Struggle on Hemp-Derived THC Agreement Before Special Session EndsTHC Deal Between Governor, Legislature Falls Through Before Second Special Session EndsTexas House and Senate Again at Loggerheads Over Property Tax ReformU.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Takes Up Kemah, Texas Property Rights 'Takings' CaseGOP Candidates for North Texas Senate District Spar Over DEI, Casino GamblingHere's the Top Bills That Become Texas Law on September 1New Texas Laws from 89th Session Face Legal ChallengesTexas Lottery Transferred to TDLR After Legislative Battle Over Couriers, Alleged 'Criminal Conspiracy'Texas Sues California-Based PowerSchool After ‘Unprecedented' Personal Data Breach

Here are 3 big things you need to know—   One — The White House says President Trump will rename the Department of Defense the Department of War. Fox News reports Trump will sign an executive order today that renames the D-O-D.  Congress created the War Department in 1789, but it was renamed the Department of Defense by President Truman in 1949.   Two ---  Operations at Alligator Alcatraz in Florida can resume.  The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the state and federal government's request for a stay during the appellate process.  It blocks a Miami federal judge's preliminary injunction to stop any new construction and detainees from being brought into the migrant detention facility in the Everglades.  And number three ---   The president of Northwestern University is resigning from the post after finding himself at odds with the Trump administration. Michael issued a statement reflecting on his experience and said he has decided that now is the right time for new leadership to guide Northwestern into its next chapter. Schill is expected to remain in his role until the university finds an interim president.

RFK Jr DESTROYED Senators in a wild, contentious hearing in the Senate. Colorado taxpayers are footing the bill for luxury Section 8 housing. HUD is requiring proof of citizenship for Section 8 benefits. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocks ruling ordering Alligator Alcatraz to close. Venezuela is messing around with US Warships. Trump is signing an EO renaming the DOD to the Department of War.    PLUS LIVE CALLS: 631-527-4545   Join UNGOVERNED on LFA TV every MONDAY - FRIDAY from 10am to 11am EASTERN!    www.FarashMedia.com www.LFATV.us www.OFPFarms.com www.MyPatriotSupply.com/UNGOVERNED www.SLNT.com/SHAWN www.PatriotMobile.com/FARASH 

Thursday, September 4th, 2025Today, Donald tried to interrupt the Epstein survivors press conference with a military flyover but they persisted and announced they're compiling a client lists of their own; the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful; key Republican senators kicked the can in response to Trump's attempt to fire members of the Federal Reserve; Donald has a falling out with Prime Minister Modi of India over his refusal to nominate him for a Nobel and Trump's lies about solving the India - Pakistan war; an appeals court rejects Trump's bid to fire the FTC commissioner; Denver schools defy Trump's transgender bathroom ban; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, FastGrowingTrees  Get 15% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeansGuest: Steve Vladeck Steve Vladeck | Substack@stevevladeck.bsky.social on Bluesky144. The Supreme Court's Late-Night Alien Enemy Act InterventionAllison Gill Live With Steve VladeckGuest: David JanovskyProject On Government Oversight (POGO)@pogo.org on BlueskyYou Can Vote For Dana !  2025 Out100: Cast your vote for Readers' Choice!!StoriesThe Posse Comitatus Act comes for Trump's authoritarianism | Chris Geidner | Law Dork | SubstackAppeals Court Rejects Trump's Attempt to Fire FTC Commissioner | Democracy DocketSenate Republicans avoid clash with Trump over Fed firing - Live Updates | POLITICOThe Nobel Prize and a Testy Phone Call: How the Trump-Modi Relationship Unraveled | The New York TimesDenver Schools Defies Trump Trans Bathroom Ban: "We Will Protect All Of Our Students From This Hostile Admin" | Erin In The MorningGood Trouble Call your House Representatives and tell them to sign the Epstein files discharge petition. Find Your Representative | house.gov**IRS asks for public input on free tax filing options to inform congressional report | Internal Revenue Service - Deadline September 5**California needs your help | Proposition 50 Vote YES !! Yes On Prop 50 | Special Election Phone Banks - mobilize.us**Help ensure safety of public servants. Hold RFK Jr accountable by signing the letter: savehhs.org, @firedbutfighting.bsky.social on Bluesky**SIGN THE STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY for the FEMA Katrina Declaration.From The Good NewsUrsula von der Leyen - Wikipediawhichside.bostonEffin' BirdsMILCK (@milckmusic) • Instagram Reminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts

In a stunning reversal of fortune, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a bipartisan 2-1 vote, just declared that Trump's declaration of war against Venezuela to justify his removal of people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act was illegal, with a Trump judge “trying out” for the Supreme Court (Judge Oldham) in dissent. Michael Popok examines the case sent to the 5th by the Supreme Court in May, and the ruling within a ruling about due process. Tushy: Over 2 million butts love TUSHY. Get 10% off Tushy with the code LEGALAF at https://hellotushy.com/LEGALAF! #tushypod Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John Fawcett breaks down the biggest stories of the day, including the recent ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the deportation of Venezuelan illegals, the implications of crime fighting efforts in Washington D.C., and the release of Epstein documents by House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Court Rules Trump Cannot Use Wartime Law For Deportations; Nations Hostile to U.S. Meet in China | NTD Good MorningAn appeals court ruling has dealt a blow to the Trump administration's deportation efforts. A three-judge panel at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan gang members is illegal. Meanwhile, the Defense Department is assigning military attorneys to serve as immigration judges. Officials say they were requested by the Justice Department to assist in reducing immigration court backlogs, which now total 3.4 million cases.Nations hostile to the United States are meeting in China this week, including leaders from North Korea, Cuba, Iran, and Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin praised the strong relations Russia has been building with China. Chinese regime leader Xi Jinping challenged the United States and the West, and called for closer cooperation among non-western leaders. However, President Donald Trump said he's not worried about a possible axis forming against the United States.U.S. forces have sunk a suspected Venezuelan drug boat in the Caribbean, killing what Trump said were eleven members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The operation comes weeks after Washington doubled its reward for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's arrest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says U.S. patrols will stay in the region to confront cartels.

I'm tuning in just after one of the most dramatic stretches in recent American political history, as the legal storm surrounding former President Donald Trump's court trials hits new highs. Let's jump right in—the courtroom battles featuring Trump have been exploding across national headlines, from Washington D.C. to California and beyond.Over the past few days, the nation's attention has been gripped by a federal judge's ruling out in California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta confirmed that President Trump's deployment of federalized California National Guard troops and Marines for civilian law enforcement in Los Angeles was in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, that foundational law limiting the military's role on our soil. According to Bonta, the District Court not only found Trump's actions unlawful, but also permanently blocked the administration from engaging in similar behavior in future, whether for arrests, riot control, or evidence gathering. The judge's order is stayed only until September 12th, making this a pivotal moment for executive reach and civil liberties.Meanwhile, the legal calendars covering Trump's trials have become almost as tangled as the cases themselves. After the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on Trump's presidential immunity claims in early August, the D.C. Circuit Court handed jurisdiction back to Judge Tanya Chutkan. However, the most recent scheduling order—coming just this week—has paused all pretrial deadlines until late October, essentially putting everything on hold in the Washington election subversion case. With time ticking away under the Speedy Trial Act, legal experts say this delay throws uncertainty over the proceedings, especially as appeals and procedural wrangling continue.It's not just criminal matters. On the civil side, Trump's legal team is still grappling with the fallout from previous verdicts, notably those involving E. Jean Carroll's defamation suits. The appeals are underway at the Second Circuit, but movement has slowed as defense attorneys look for openings in the appeals process. These cases, filed back in 2020 and 2022, have been persistent thorns in Trump's side, flaring up anew with each ruling.Also in the mix is the Democratic National Committee's lawsuit, challenging Trump's use of Executive Order 14215 to sway the Federal Election Commission. The U.S. District Court in D.C. dismissed the challenge earlier this summer, citing a lack of concrete injury. Still, with the FEC's independence on the line, insiders expect the issue to resurface as the end of election season nears.With Trump back in office, there's no shortage of Supreme Court petitions—over four dozen right now—ranging from immigration to telemarketing, tax laws, and challenges to federal policy moves dating back years. The administration is wielding the emergency docket as a powerful tool, regularly pressing to overturn lower court decisions and keep executive power front and center.So, as the clock moves forward, these cases are more than just legal drama—they're signposts of where America's institutions stand and how the rule of law will look in a rapidly shifting political landscape. Thanks for tuning in. Join me again next week for another Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

This Day in Legal History: Frederick Douglass Escapes SlaveryOn this day in legal history, September 3, 1838, Frederick Douglass escaped from slavery, setting in motion a life that would fundamentally reshape American legal and political thought. Disguised as a free Black sailor, Douglass boarded a train in Baltimore and made his way north to freedom, ultimately arriving in New York City. His flight from bondage was not just a personal liberation—it was a direct challenge to the legal regime of American slavery, upheld at the time by both state laws and federal statutes such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Douglass's successful escape, aided by forged documents and the relative leniency of northern vigilance at the time, highlights the tension between laws protecting property in human beings and the moral and constitutional arguments against such laws.Once free, Douglass became one of the most powerful legal thinkers of the 19th century, though he was never formally trained as a lawyer. Through his speeches, writings, and public advocacy, he shaped legal discourse on citizenship, equal protection, and constitutional interpretation. He directly influenced Reconstruction-era legal developments, including debates over the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. His 1852 speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” offered a searing legal and moral critique of the Constitution's complicity with slavery, while still asserting its potential as a freedom-promoting document when interpreted through a natural rights lens.Douglass's escape, and the career it made possible, also underscored the limits of law in the face of moral justice: in 1838, his very existence in the North was criminal under federal law. That reality would not change until the formal abolition of slavery in 1865. His advocacy helped lay the groundwork for a new legal order that could no longer reconcile itself with the ownership of people. September 3 is not just the anniversary of one man's flight—it marks a turning point in the long legal struggle to align American law with its professed ideals.President Donald Trump is prepared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his administration's use of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs, including those targeting fentanyl and “reciprocal” trade imbalances. This follows two significant legal defeats, including a 7-4 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president sweeping tariff authority. The court held that the statute, enacted in 1977, lacks any reference to tariffs among its regulatory tools, creating a serious challenge to the legal basis for Trump's actions.Despite the legal headwinds, Trump's team remains optimistic, noting the conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and the Court's traditional deference in matters of foreign affairs. However, legal scholars suggest the case hinges on the major questions doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly when authorizing executive action with major economic or political impact. This doctrine was previously used to strike down President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan in 2023.Observers expect the Court to address whether IEEPA's silence on tariffs means such powers were never intended. If the Court rules against Trump, his administration is already eyeing fallback legal authorities, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Act, to keep tariffs in place. Meanwhile, nearly $66 billion in collected duties could be subject to refunds if importers challenge payments. A Supreme Court decision is likely by early 2026, with significant consequences for presidential trade powers.Trump to ask Supreme Court to save tariffs but faces tough legal questionsA U.S. federal judge ruled that Google can keep its Chrome browser and Android operating system, dealing a blow to antitrust enforcers who had hoped for more aggressive remedies. However, the judge ordered Google to begin sharing key search and advertising data with competitors in an effort to restore competition in online search. This decision follows a five-year legal battle in which Judge Amit Mehta previously found Google to be maintaining an illegal monopoly in search and related advertising. Despite that finding, Mehta declined to force structural changes like breaking up Google, citing recent advances in AI as creating new, organic competition.The ruling is a partial victory for Google and Apple, as it allows the two tech giants to continue their $20 billion annual deal that makes Google the default search engine on Apple devices. It also permits Google to maintain similar agreements with device makers like Samsung and Motorola, although exclusive contracts are now banned. Google stock jumped over 7% in after-hours trading following the decision.The court emphasized that AI companies like OpenAI are already better positioned to compete with Google than traditional search competitors have been in decades. The data-sharing order could benefit developers of AI-powered search tools and browsers, but the competitive impact may not be felt immediately. Google, while considering an appeal, expressed concerns that the order could undermine user privacy.The ruling is likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, where Mehta's restrained approach may stand a better chance of surviving appeal. The case is part of a broader government crackdown on Big Tech, which includes ongoing legal battles involving Google, Meta, Amazon, and Apple.Google keeps Chrome and Apple deal but must share data in big antitrust rulingThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump unlawfully used the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport a group of Venezuelans he alleged were members of the Tren de Aragua gang. In a 2–1 decision, the court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the deportations, marking the first appellate ruling to directly address Trump's invocation of the centuries-old law through a March 14 presidential proclamation.Writing for the majority, Judge Leslie Southwick rejected the administration's claim that the gang's presence constituted a "predatory incursion" under the law, which only authorizes deportations during times of declared war or invasions. The court emphasized that neither condition was met. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez joined Southwick, while Trump appointee Judge Andrew Oldham dissented.The ruling is a setback for the Trump administration, which had sought to use the Alien Enemies Act—a wartime measure—to conduct swift removals of alleged gang members without traditional due process. The Supreme Court had already intervened in May, halting removals on procedural grounds and criticizing the administration for providing only 24 hours' notice to detainees without clear instructions on how to contest deportation.The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Venezuelans, hailed the decision as a vital check on presidential power, warning against executive overreach during peacetime. Legal experts expect the issue to eventually return to the Supreme Court. The administration may first seek a rehearing from the full Fifth Circuit.US appeals court rejects Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act to deport VenezuelansThe 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had declared the federal machine gun ban unconstitutional, upholding the long-standing prohibition on such weapons. The case centered on Tamori Morgan, a Kansas man charged with possessing a machine gun and a conversion device known as a "Glock switch." A federal judge in Wichita, appointed by President Donald Trump, had previously dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which required modern gun laws to align with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.The appeals court, however, found that Bruen did not dismantle the existing legal framework established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which protects weapons “in common use” for lawful self-defense. Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Scott Matheson held that machine guns do not meet that standard and are primarily used for unlawful purposes, even if their usage is more widespread than official data suggests.Congress first regulated machine guns in 1934 and fully banned the possession of newly manufactured ones in 1986. The appellate ruling reinforces the idea that such weapons fall outside the Second Amendment's protections, despite recent expansions of individual gun rights. The court emphasized that even under Bruen, regulations do not require a perfect historical match—only a relevant analogue, which the machine gun ban has.US appeals court upholds machine gun ban, reversing trial judgeMy column for Bloomberg this week takes a hard look at the newly expanded federal Child Tax Credit (CTC) and asks whether it's really doing what it claims: reducing child poverty. On the surface, the policy looks like progress. The maximum credit is up to $2,200 and now indexed to inflation—something advocates have long called for. But dig into the mechanics, and a more troubling picture emerges.Despite the expansion, around 19 million children—28% of all kids in the U.S.—will remain ineligible for the full credit simply because their families don't earn enough. That's not a glitch; it's built into the law. The income phase-in structure means the poorest families, those most in need, get the least. In fact, a family of four has to make $41,500 to qualify for the full benefit—well above the federal poverty line of $32,150.This flawed design disproportionately affects Black, Latino, and Native American children, as well as kids in single-parent and rural households. And it's a bipartisan failure: Columbia University's data shows the exclusions cut across red and blue congressional districts almost evenly. That's part of what makes this so frustrating—lawmakers on both sides get to claim credit for “expanding” the CTC, even as millions of children continue to be left behind.Meanwhile, states are quietly filling the gap. Since the expiration of the more generous pandemic-era CTC in 2021, about a dozen states have implemented their own refundable credits. The results speak volumes. In Minnesota, for example, a $1,750 per-child credit is projected to lift 13,000 children out of poverty—nearly half the impact of the expanded federal credit in that state. Colorado and Vermont have seen similar success.The message here is that small, targeted, refundable state credits can work—and are working. Columbia's numbers prove that these policies are more than symbolic; they're helping real families. But that momentum could vanish if states assume Washington has solved the problem. The federal version may dominate headlines, but it's the state-level credits doing the actual heavy lifting.Tax policy doesn't usually offer much moral clarity, but this time it does. States have the tools to fight child poverty. The only real question is whether they'll use them—or wait around for Congress to deliver another “big, beautiful” fix that never arrives.Trump's New Child Tax Credit Deems Millions ‘Too Poor' to Qualify This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of STRAT with retired Marine Intelligence Officer Hal Kempfer, we examine the recent federal court decision in California that found the Trump Administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by deploying U.S. military forces for law enforcement duties. We break down what the Act actually says, why it exists, and how its restrictions have been shaped by modern exceptions including nuclear, counterdrug, and weapons of mass destruction emergencies. We also look at the Insurrection Act of 1807, the historical precedents for military involvement in domestic affairs, and the thirty times it has been invoked throughout American history. The ruling by Judge Charles Breyer against the Trump Administration is analyzed in detail, including its implications for federal versus state authority, national security, and constitutional separation of powers. Finally, we explore whether the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court could reverse this ruling—and what that means for future presidential authority.Takeaways:The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts federal military involvement in civilian law enforcement.Modern exceptions include emergencies involving nuclear material, counterdrug missions, and WMD threats.In 2021, the Act was formally extended to cover all military branches, including the Navy and Marine Corps.The Insurrection Act of 1807 provides a major exception, invoked 30 times in U.S. history.Past uses of the Insurrection Act include Little Rock school desegregation, Selma marches, and the 1992 Los Angeles riots.Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump's use of Marines and the California National Guard in Los Angeles violated the law.The ruling blocks federal use of troops for policing without congressional authorization.The 9th Circuit Court and Supreme Court may ultimately decide the scope of presidential authority.#STRATPodcast #HalKempfer #MutualBroadcastingSystem #StrategicRiskAnalysis #PosseComitatus #InsurrectionAct #MilitaryLaw #CivilLiberties #NationalSecurity #FederalCourt #PresidentialPower #SeparationOfPowers #RuleOfLaw #MilitaryHistory #ConstitutionalLaw #FederalVsState #Marines #SupremeCourt #NinthCircuit #PublicPolicy

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that cleared the way for the release of Jeffrey Epstein's Florida grand jury documents was a landmark moment in the long fight for transparency. The court essentially rejected the government's attempts to keep the lid on crucial records that could shed light on how Epstein's 2006 case was handled and, more importantly, how the infamous 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement was engineered. By greenlighting their potential release, the judges signaled that the public interest in understanding the inner workings of Epstein's sweetheart deal outweighed the government's habitual reliance on secrecy. It was a rare rebuke to the Department of Justice, which has consistently dragged its feet or outright resisted efforts to expose its complicity in protecting Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloud

Newsome signs bill into law to redistrict MAGATS right out o' CA. Hairless Heydrich ("Mayonnaise BatBoy) declares Whalehead Deadbear Brainworm-Lamprey the "crown jewel" o' public health. Circuit Court shoots down Cankles Caligula's trade power grab. Mullah Moses Mike has no answer about the crime spree that is Louisianastan. Ice Kidnappers batter immigrant children while kidnapping their papa. Y'all, August has been a rough month, but we have a chance to close it on a happy note. There's $600 in matching money on the table through August's end (Sunday night, 8/31). Every dollar that you generously give gets matched, up to $600. It would end the month with a sure enough Community Made Murrackle. 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that cleared the way for the release of Jeffrey Epstein's Florida grand jury documents was a landmark moment in the long fight for transparency. The court essentially rejected the government's attempts to keep the lid on crucial records that could shed light on how Epstein's 2006 case was handled and, more importantly, how the infamous 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement was engineered. By greenlighting their potential release, the judges signaled that the public interest in understanding the inner workings of Epstein's sweetheart deal outweighed the government's habitual reliance on secrecy. It was a rare rebuke to the Department of Justice, which has consistently dragged its feet or outright resisted efforts to expose its complicity in protecting Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that cleared the way for the release of Jeffrey Epstein's Florida grand jury documents was a landmark moment in the long fight for transparency. The court essentially rejected the government's attempts to keep the lid on crucial records that could shed light on how Epstein's 2006 case was handled and, more importantly, how the infamous 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement was engineered. By greenlighting their potential release, the judges signaled that the public interest in understanding the inner workings of Epstein's sweetheart deal outweighed the government's habitual reliance on secrecy. It was a rare rebuke to the Department of Justice, which has consistently dragged its feet or outright resisted efforts to expose its complicity in protecting Epstein.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein Docs - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A few years ago, flight attendants Lacey and Marli were investigated, questioned and fired by Alaska Airlines for asking faith-based questions on an employee-only website about the company's support of the Equality Act. That's why we have asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to fix this issue. Specifically, we asked the court to honor Lacey and Marli's right to have their day in court and have the merits of their case argued before a jury of their peers. Watch a short preview of today's proceedings with First Liberty's David Hacker and then we'll send you into the 9th Circuit courtroom for all of the action.

On 19 August 2025, the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Democrat Legislature in New Mexico on the 7-day "cooling off period" wait for firearms. And the 3 judge panel split along Republican/Democrat lines , 2 to 1, with both George W. Bush and Trump Republicans on the same side of the Constitution against an Obama judge. Here's a link to the decision. For some reason, the text I was reading on the podcast didn't display properly on the YouBoob recording, but you can follow along here. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111284574.pdf We begin that story in a two part series here on The Republican Professor podcast. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-the-Second-Amendment's-moral-and-legal-boundaries, anti-silly-prohibitions podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

We recently wrote about the August 15th D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the lawsuit brought by the labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The unions sought injunctive relief in response to what they described as an attempted “shutdown” of the Bureau. In a 2–1 ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. That injunction had temporarily blocked the CFPB from carrying out a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) that would have left the Bureau with only about 200 employees to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Today, our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast takes a deep dive into this critical decision and its implications. Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former practice group leader, now Senior Counsel in our Consumer Financial Services Group) joins Joseph Schuster (a partner in the Group) for a wide-ranging conversation covering: The majority opinion by Judge Katsos The dissenting opinion by Judge Pillard The plaintiffs' options for further review — and why the odds may be at least 50–50 that the full D.C. Circuit (with 11 judges, 7 appointed by Democratic presidents) will grant en banc review Why plaintiffs might choose to continue litigating in the District Court as the CFPB implements the RIF and scales back activities to only those that are statutorily mandated How the CFPB's sharply reduced budget (cut nearly in half by the “Big Beautiful Bill”) shapes the Bureau's future functions What the CFPB could look like once litigation ends and “the dust settles” The impact of the just-released semiannual regulatory agenda The current status of the complaint portal What's happening with the CFPB's supervision and enforcement efforts How the DOJ and FTC are approaching consumer financial services issues Whether state attorneys general are stepping up enforcement to fill the gap left by a diminished CFPB This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the future of the CFPB, the role of other federal agencies, and the actions of state AGs in regulating consumer financial services.

Neal Flanagan and Brandon Thurston discuss AEW's Forbidden Door event and press conference, WWE PLE starting on ESPN DTC streaming earlier than originally announced, plus recent legal developments.Also:WWE's PLEs moving to ESPN DTC and reworked NBCU dealNotes from the Forbidden Door post-show press conferenceDr. Carlon Colker briefly discloses Janel Grant's medical records before the filings were sealedKevin Foote v. AEW case in the 11th Circuit Court of AppealsVince McMahon's traffic case and next court dateLatest WWE and AEW ratings, including SmackDown's cable performance and Raw on Netflix

Neal Flanagan, filling in for John Pollock, and Brandon Thurston discuss AEW's Forbidden Door event and press conference, WWE PLE starting on ESPN DTC streaming earlier than originally announced, plus recent legal developments.Also:WWE's PLEs moving to ESPN DTC and reworked NBCU dealNotes from the Forbidden Door post-show press conferenceDr. Carlon Colker briefly discloses Janel Grant's medical records before filings were sealedKevin Foote v. AEW case in the 11th Circuit Court of AppealsVince McMahon's traffic case and next court dateLatest WWE and AEW ratings, including SmackDown's cable performance and Raw on NetflixVIDEO VERSION: https://youtube.com/live/m35ez44owXU

The world of Donald Trump's legal battles has shifted yet again over these past few days, with courtrooms buzzing from Atlanta to Washington, D.C. and even all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Let me walk you through what's unfolded, because the headlines haven't stopped and the stakes keep rising.Just last week, Trump claimed victory after a court threw out a massive civil fraud penalty that was hanging over him. That multimillion-dollar judgment stemmed from years of litigation around alleged financial misstatements in his business empire. While Trump declared this a vindication, things remain anything but quiet. There are still plenty of legal clouds on the horizon—especially when it comes to criminal charges tied to the 2020 election.Let's zoom in on the federal election obstruction case, one of the country's most closely watched trials. Jack Smith—the special counsel with the Department of Justice—charged Trump with conspiracy to overturn his loss to Joe Biden. This all ties back to the January 6th Capitol riot, and the allegation is that Trump spread lies about election fraud to pressure state officials and even tried to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject the results. Trump pleaded not guilty, but the case became tangled in questions about presidential immunity. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in early 2024 that Trump wasn't immune. He pushed it up to the Supreme Court, which decided in July 2024 that former presidents do have some immunity for their official acts, but not everything.Things took another twist when Jack Smith filed an updated indictment last August, only to later drop the charges in November after Trump won reelection—in part because as a sitting president, he'd be immune from prosecution on at least some charges. By January of this year, Smith issued a detailed report saying there was enough evidence to convict, but action has stalled.Meanwhile in Georgia, the election interference case has been bogged down by drama surrounding Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis—her personal relationship with a special prosecutor even led to her removal by a state appeals court last December. While Georgia's Supreme Court still has to decide if it'll take up an appeal on her removal, six counts have already been thrown out, and Trump still faces ten counts there. Whether that case goes forward during his presidency is completely up in the air.But Trump's legal teams aren't just fighting on criminal fronts. As of yesterday, the Trump administration jumped back into the Supreme Court ring, appealing a federal judge's order demanding that billions in foreign aid be paid out—foreign aid that was frozen by Trump's executive order back in January. Solicitor General John Sauer warned that if the court doesn't intervene, Trump's government will have no choice but to quickly spend billions they want to keep frozen under a review led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.That is the whirlwind—the cases are overlapping, the legal arguments are novel, and with Trump back in the White House, every trial is a political earthquake. For now, all eyes are on higher courts, and we're all waiting to see what the next headline brings. Thanks for tuning in. Come back next week for more updates. 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.ai

This week on our show, we're thrilled to welcome a true leader in the legal world, The Honorable Tarlika Nuñez-Navarro! As the Dean and Professor of Law at St. Thomas University College of Law, her impact is undeniable. Under her guidance, the school has reached new heights, with record enrollment and the highest bar passage rate in its history. Dean Navarro is a trailblazer, making history as the first Colombian American to serve on the Circuit Court bench in Florida's Ninth and Seventeenth Judicial Circuits. Her journey from the courtroom to the classroom is a testament to her dedication to both justice and education. Beyond her impressive professional achievements, Dean Navarro is also a champion for the well-being of legal professionals. She's conducted workshops on lawyer wellness and serves on the Florida Bar's Mental Health & Wellness Committee. Her commitment to fostering a healthy and supportive legal community is inspiring. A proud alumna of St. Thomas University College of Law herself, she is the first graduate to serve as the school's dean, and she is part of a distinguished group of alumni who form the largest cohort of female Hispanic judges in the nation. Join us as we dive into her remarkable career and the future of legal education. Tune in to hear more about: Her journey from Assistant State Attorney to Circuit Court Judge. The groundbreaking achievements at St. Thomas University College of Law under her leadership. Her passion for mental health and wellness within the legal profession. Her historic appointment as the first Colombian American to serve on the Circuit Court bench.

As the world turns away from traditional news sources, gay journalist Enrique Anarte is building trust — and an audience — on social media (interviewed by David Hunt). And in NewsWrap: the United Kingdom's first transgender judge Victoria McCloud is taking her country's Supreme Court ruling on the legal definition of “woman” to the European Court of Human Rights, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must immediately release gay Jamaican refugee Rickardo Anthony Kelly by order of a federal district court judge, a student-sponsored charitable drag show on the campus West Texas A&M University was unconstitutionally banned according to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, books found to be “suspect” under Florida's expanded “Don't Say Gay” law will be returning to classroom and school library shelves by order of a U.S. federal judge, local officials in more than two dozen Florida cities have been ordered to remove their LGBTQ Pride rainbow crosswalks, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Sarah Montague and David Hunt (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the August 25, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

Buck v. Bell is the 1927 SCOTUS decision that upheld the constitutionality of laws allowing involuntary sterilization of people deemed to be “unfit.” Most of these laws have been repealed, but Buck v. Bell has never been directly overturned. Research: "Buck v. Bell." Gale Encyclopedia of American Law, edited by Michael J. Tyrkus and Carol A. Schwartz, 4th ed., vol. 2, Gale, 2022, pp. 174-177. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX8276200650/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=84626437. Accessed 5 Aug. 2025. “BUCK v. BELL, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200 Brosnahan, Cori. “Finding Carrie Buck.” American Experience. 11/2/2018. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/eugenics-finding-carrie-buck/ Circuit Court of Amherst County. "Judgment Against Carrie Buck (April 13, 1925)" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 06 Aug. 2025 https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/judgment-against-carrie-buck-april-13-1925/ Derrig, Collin. “Buck v. Bell in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson: The Supreme Court’s Opportunity to Correct a Hundred-Year-Old Injustice.” University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog. 6/17/2025. https://uclawreview.org/2025/06/17/buck-v-bell-in-the-aftermath-of-dobbs-v-jackson-the-supreme-courts-opportunity-to-correct-a-hundred-year-old-injustice/ Disability Justice. “The Right to Self-Determination: Freedom from Involuntary Sterilization.” https://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-self-determination-freedom-from-involuntary-sterilization/ Dobbs, J.T.. "Petition to Commit Carrie Buck (January 23, 1924)" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 06 Aug. 2025 https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/petition-to-commit-carrie-buck-january-23-1924/ Fair, Alexandra. “The Sterilization of Carrie Buck.” OSU.edu. https://origins.osu.edu/read/sterilization-carrie-buck General Assembly. "An ACT to define feeble-mindedness (1916)" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 06 Aug. 2025. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/an-act-to-define-feeble-mindedness-1916/ General Assembly. "Chapter 46B of the Code of Virginia § 1095h–m (1924)" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 06 Aug. 2025. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/primary-documents/chapter-46b-of-the-code-of-virginia-%c2%a7-1095h-m-1924/ Harris, Jasmine E. “Why Buck v. Bell Still Matters.” The Petrie-Flom Center. 10/14/2020. https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2020/10/14/why-buck-v-bell-still-matters/ Larson, Edward J. “Putting Buck v. Bell in Scientific and Historical Context: A Response to Victoria Nourse.” Pepperdine University. 12/15/2011. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1353&context=plr Lombardo, Paul A. "Facing Carrie Buck. (essay)." The Hastings Center Report, vol. 33, no. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 14+. Gale OneFile: Business, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A101259980/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=46aca03c. Accessed 5 Aug. 2025. Lombardo, Paul A. "Involuntary sterilization in Virginia: from Buck v. Bell to Poe v. Lynchburg." Developments in Mental Health Law, vol. 3, no. 3, July-Sept. 1983, pp. 13+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A235104880/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=aad8cdbf. Accessed 5 Aug. 2025. Lombardo, Paul. “In the Letters of an ‘Imbecile,’ the Sham, and Shame, of Eugenics.’ Undark. 10/4/2017. https://undark.org/2017/10/04/carrie-buck-letters-eugenics/ Oberman, Michelle. “Thirteen Ways of Looking at Buck v. Bell: Thoughts Occasioned by Paul Lombardo’s Three Generations, No Imbeciles.” Journal of Legal Education, Volume 59, Number 3 (February 2010). https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1268&context=home Smith, J., and Dictionary of Virginia Biography. "Carrie Buck (1906–1983)" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (07 Dec. 2020). Web. 06 Aug. 2025. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/buck-carrie-1906-1983/ Thompson, Philip. “Silent Protest: A Catholic Justice Dissents in Buck v. Bell.” The Catholic Lawyer. Vol. 43, No. 1, spring 2004. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl/vol43/iss1/ Wolfe, Brendan. "Buck v. Bell (1927)" Encyclopedia Virginia. Virginia Humanities, (12 Feb. 2021). Web. 06 Aug. 2025 https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/buck-v-bell-1927/ Lombardo, Paul A. “Carrie Buck’s Pedigree.” J Lab Clin Med 2001;138:278-82. doi:10.1067/mlc.2001.118091 Lombardo, Paul A. “Three Generations, No Imbeciles.” Johns Hopkins University Press. 2008. Gould, Stephen J. “Carrie Buck's Daughter.” Constitutional Commentary. 1015. 1985. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/1015 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As summer winds down and school beckons, we're looking back in our archives and assigning some back-to-school reading—grown-up style. In this episode, Judge Robert Bacharach shares insights from his book on the science of persuasive legal writing and why judges love to talk about language. —-- There's plenty of conventional wisdom about what makes a good legal brief or court opinion. Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals says that when judges socialize, their conversations often devolve into discussions about language and pieces of writing they enjoy or revile. But Bacharach decided he wanted to dive deeper, to see what the science of psycholinguistics could teach lawyers and judges about how written words persuade an audience. The result was his new book, Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written Word, published by the ABA. Legal Writing is a slim volume, but it's packed with tips. It considers details as microscopic as a serif on a letter and as macroscopic as how to create an outline for an argument. In this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast, Bacharach chats about his own writing process; shares his top takeaways from the psycholinguists he consulted; and offers his advice for young litigators looking to hone their skills.  

This Day in Legal History: Economic Opportunity ActOn August 20, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act into law, marking a major legal milestone in the federal government's efforts to address systemic poverty. The Act authorized $1 billion to fund a wide range of social programs aimed at improving education, employment, and economic security for low-income Americans. It was the legislative backbone of Johnson's "War on Poverty" and a cornerstone of his broader Great Society agenda.The law created the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to oversee a suite of initiatives, including Job Corps, Head Start, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). These programs sought to address poverty through direct services, job training, and community empowerment rather than traditional welfare.Legally, the Act reflected a dramatic expansion of federal authority in the realm of economic and social rights, shifting the understanding of poverty from a local issue to a national legal and policy concern. It encouraged the formation of Community Action Agencies, which brought poor communities into the policy-making process—a novel approach for federal law at the time.Critics challenged the constitutionality and effectiveness of the programs, with some arguing the Act encroached on states' rights and created administrative overreach. Nonetheless, the Economic Opportunity Act became a model for future federal social legislation.By institutionalizing anti-poverty efforts through law, the Act marked a turning point in American legal and political history. While many of its original provisions have since been revised or repealed, its legacy continues in modern public assistance and education programs.California Republican lawmakers have filed an emergency lawsuit with the state Supreme Court to block Governor Gavin Newsom's redistricting proposal, which would create five new Democratic congressional districts. The GOP legislators argue that the state constitution requires a 30-day review period for new legislation and that Democrats cannot legally move forward with the plan until September 18 unless both legislative chambers approve it by a three-fourths vote. The lawsuit seeks either a ruling on the merits by Wednesday or a temporary halt to the legislative process.Newsom's proposal is intended as a direct response to a controversial redistricting initiative in Texas, championed by Governor Greg Abbott and supported by President Donald Trump, which is expected to yield five new Republican congressional seats. With the GOP holding a narrow 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, the outcome of these redistricting efforts could have significant national political implications ahead of the 2026 midterms.California Democrats aim to pass the redistricting bills by August 22 in order to place the revised maps on a special November ballot. They justify bypassing the state's independent redistricting process, established by voters in 2008, as a necessary emergency countermeasure to what they describe as partisan manipulation in Texas. That state's plan, criticized for potentially disenfranchising minority voters, led to a dramatic walkout by Texas House Democrats. Upon their return, Republican leaders imposed restrictions requiring lawmakers to remain under state police escort during sessions, sparking further protest.California Republicans sue to block Democratic redistricting plan | ReutersA federal appeals court has sided with Elon Musk's SpaceX and two other companies, ruling that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is likely unconstitutional. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that laws protecting NLRB board members and administrative judges from being removed at will by the president likely violate the Constitution's separation of powers. The court said these protections improperly restrict the president's authority over the executive branch.This decision is the first from a federal appeals court to challenge the NLRB's structure on these grounds, setting a precedent as similar lawsuits are pending. The ruling blocks the NLRB from continuing enforcement actions against SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Aunt Bertha while the companies' constitutional challenges proceed. Circuit Judge Don Willett, writing for the panel, stated that the companies should not have to choose between following NLRB procedures and asserting their constitutional rights.The NLRB, an independent agency created by Congress, handles private-sector labor disputes, and its structure was designed to insulate it from political influence. However, this independence is now under scrutiny. The issue gained momentum after President Trump fired Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox in January—a move that left the board without a quorum and marked the first time a sitting board member had been removed by a president.Musk, once an adviser to Trump, has a separate pending lawsuit against the NLRB related to another dispute. The court's panel consisted entirely of Republican-appointed judges.Musk's SpaceX, others win US court challenge to labor board's structure | ReutersNevada's Chief Justice Douglas Herndon is spearheading an initiative to establish a dedicated business court in the state, aiming to attract companies seeking an alternative to Delaware's Chancery Court. During a public hearing in Las Vegas, Herndon urged the state Supreme Court to approve a commission to draft rules for the new tribunal, which could begin hearing cases as early as 2026. The court would feature judges appointed by the chief justice to four-year terms from a vetted list, with input from legal, governmental, and business stakeholders.Currently, Nevada handles business cases through district courts in Las Vegas and Reno, where judges balance other civil and criminal matters. Herndon said the creation of a specialized court would streamline corporate litigation and provide data to inform future legislative reforms. While a constitutional amendment to establish a fully independent business court is underway, that process will take years. The commission's work would serve as an interim step.This move follows a broader trend of states competing for corporate incorporations. Nevada and Texas are positioning themselves as more business-friendly venues, especially for Big Tech and firms led by controlling shareholders. Companies like Andreessen Horowitz and AMC Networks have already opted to leave Delaware in favor of Nevada. Recent changes in Nevada law now allow companies to waive jury trials via their articles of incorporation, aligning the state more closely with Delaware's procedures.Delaware, while still the leading venue for corporate law, has faced criticism over judicial bias and repetitive judge assignments. In response, it has revised statutes and begun implementing judge rotation. Texas, meanwhile, launched its business court last year and issued its first final judgment in June. Judges there serve two-year terms and juries are allowed in some cases.Nevada's Top Judge Calls for Plan to Craft Business Court RulesInvestors suing Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of a large Twitter stake in early 2022 are challenging his attempt to use an advice-of-counsel defense while withholding related legal documents. The plaintiffs, led by an Oklahoma firefighters pension fund, argue Musk is employing a “sword and shield” tactic—invoking legal advice to justify his actions while citing attorney-client privilege to avoid releasing relevant evidence.They've asked a federal judge in Manhattan to force Musk to formally declare whether he intends to rely on legal counsel or a good-faith defense before he testifies in late August and early September. If Musk invokes this defense, plaintiffs want access to communications with lawyers from Quinn Emanuel and McDermott Will & Emery, both of which advised Musk around the time he disclosed his 9.2% Twitter stake in April 2022.The lawsuit alleges Musk defrauded shareholders by delaying disclosure, causing them to sell stock at artificially low prices. Musk has denied wrongdoing, stating he misunderstood SEC disclosure rules and acted in good faith once he realized the mistake. Plaintiffs argue that if Musk refuses to share legal advice-related documents, the court should prevent him from using that defense at trial.A similar civil lawsuit by the SEC over the same issue remains pending. The outcome of this discovery dispute could shape the strength of Musk's defense in both cases.Musk's advice-of-counsel defense faces test in Twitter 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

As summer winds down and school beckons, we're looking back in our archives and assigning some back-to-school reading—grown-up style. In this episode, Judge Robert Bacharach shares insights from his book on the science of persuasive legal writing and why judges love to talk about language. —-- There's plenty of conventional wisdom about what makes a good legal brief or court opinion. Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals says that when judges socialize, their conversations often devolve into discussions about language and pieces of writing they enjoy or revile. But Bacharach decided he wanted to dive deeper, to see what the science of psycholinguistics could teach lawyers and judges about how written words persuade an audience. The result was his new book, Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written Word, published by the ABA. Legal Writing is a slim volume, but it's packed with tips. It considers details as microscopic as a serif on a letter and as macroscopic as how to create an outline for an argument. In this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast, Bacharach chats about his own writing process; shares his top takeaways from the psycholinguists he consulted; and offers his advice for young litigators looking to hone their skills.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As summer winds down and school beckons, we're looking back in our archives and assigning some back-to-school reading—grown-up style. In this episode, Judge Robert Bacharach shares insights from his book on the science of persuasive legal writing and why judges love to talk about language. —-- There's plenty of conventional wisdom about what makes a good legal brief or court opinion. Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals says that when judges socialize, their conversations often devolve into discussions about language and pieces of writing they enjoy or revile. But Bacharach decided he wanted to dive deeper, to see what the science of psycholinguistics could teach lawyers and judges about how written words persuade an audience. The result was his new book, Legal Writing: A Judge's Perspective on the Science and Rhetoric of the Written Word, published by the ABA. Legal Writing is a slim volume, but it's packed with tips. It considers details as microscopic as a serif on a letter and as macroscopic as how to create an outline for an argument. In this episode of the Modern Law Library podcast, Bacharach chats about his own writing process; shares his top takeaways from the psycholinguists he consulted; and offers his advice for young litigators looking to hone their skills.  

Thursday, August 17th, 2023In the Hot Notes: a former fundraiser for George Santos has been indicted for impersonating Kevin McCarthy's chief of staff; a transcript of the hearing about the Trump Twitter account search warrant has been unsealed; Fulton County DA sets arraignment for September 5th and requests a March 4th trial date; the judge who approved the raid on a Kansas newspaper has a history of DUI arrests; President Biden will visit Maui next week; the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals puts a hold on mailing mifepristone; abortion rights have won in every election since Roe v Wade was overturned; plus Allison and Dana read your good news.  Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)

In this episode of Leupold's Hunt Talk Radio, host Randy Newberg is joined by Dylan Soares, an attorney and conservationist with the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), to dive deep into the legal and practical implications of corner crossing—a hot topic in public land access. The discussion begins with an overview of the high-profile Wyoming corner-crossing case, where four hunters were acquitted of criminal trespass but later faced a civil lawsuit. Dylan explains the legal nuances between criminal and civil trespass, the role of the Unlawful Enclosures Act, and how the 10th Circuit Court ruled that state trespass laws are preempted in cases where public land is effectively blocked by private landowners. Disclaimer: Nothing in this podcast constitutes legal advice. Always consult an attorney for legal matters. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

 In its brief, the U.S. government argues that Maxwell received a fair trial in the Southern District of New York, that the evidence against her was overwhelming, and that any alleged errors raised by her defense do not warrant reversal. The prosecution maintains that witness testimony, corroborating records, and other evidence firmly established Maxwell's role in facilitating and participating in Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. They emphasize that the district court properly handled jury selection, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing, and that Maxwell's claims of prejudice or legal error are unfounded.The government's filing further contends that Maxwell's constitutional rights were respected throughout the proceedings, and that the trial judge acted within the bounds of discretion in all key rulings. It dismisses arguments that the jury was improperly influenced or that Maxwell was denied a fair opportunity to defend herself, stating that these claims misrepresent the trial record. The brief concludes by urging the Second Circuit to affirm Maxwell's conviction in its entirety, citing the strength of the government's case and the fairness of the process that led to the verdict.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.ca2.57831.79.0_1.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

AlabamaCindy Myers declared winner in Tuesday's GOP special primary runoff voteCongressman Moore says record in US house to be part of senate campaignAuburn University to sunset its "test optional" admissions process by 2027Hoover city council  members say oversight role bypassed by mayor BrocatoAerospace company Lockheed Martin to expand its facility in CortlandVideo of debate between Orange Beach mayoral candidates now on websiteNationalAn Appeals court rules in favor of Trump admin cutting foreign aid fundsTrump to meet with Russian president this Friday in Alaska for peace talksFBI busts human trafficking ring run out of  4 hotels in Omaha, NebraskaDoctor at OH Children's hospital charged with 150K child sex abuse images8th Circuit Court rules that AR can ban transgender surgeries for minorsA press conference set for 9.3 in DC with victims of Jeffrey Epstein

Wednesday, August 13th, 2025Today, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the Arkansas ban on gender affirming care; bigot Kim Davis has asked the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality; a federal judge has ordered improved conditions for immigrants detained at 26 Federal Plaza; how the State Department grappled with the release of a triple murderer in the CECOT prisoner exchange; Trump's new jobs numbers guy suggests suspending monthly job reports; Putin visits Alaska as talks swirl about a new Trump Tower Moscow; core inflation continues to rise in the United States; Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton urges prosecutors to jail Beto O'Rourke; Sherrod Brown announces his bid for Senate in 2026; and Allison and Dana read your Good News.Thank You, IQBARText DAILYBEANS to 64000 to get 20% off all IQBAR products, plus FREE shipping. Message and data rates may apply. Guest: Adam KlasfeldAll Rise NewsAll Rise News - Bluesky, @klasfeldreports.com - BlueSky, @KlasfeldReports - Twitter, @senecaprojectus - InstagramGeneral commanding troops in LA delivers, then revises, damaging testimony to Trump | All Rise NewsGuest: Tara SetmayerThe Seneca Project, @senecaproject.us - Bluesky,  @senecaprojectus - TwitterThe Seneca Project - YouTube, The Stakes with Tara Setmayer and Michelle Kinney - YouTubeTara Setmayer, @tarasetmayer.bsky.social - Bluesky, @TaraSetmayer - Twitter, @thetarasetmayer - InstagramStoriesSupreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling | ABC NewsV Spehar (@underthedesknews) - InstagramTrump's pick for BLS commissioner floated suspending the monthly jobs report before apparently backing off | CNN BusinessEighth Circuit Upholds Arkansas's Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Youth | American Civil Liberties UnionRussia Has High Hopes for Trump-Putin Summit. Peace With Ukraine Isn't One of Them. | WSJ‘Can We Extradite Him?' How U.S. Officials Grappled With the Release of a Triple Murderer | The New York TimesCPI rose in July by 2.7% on an annual basis. Here's what that means. | CBS NewsPaxton urges Texas judge to jail Beto O'Rourke over fundraising related to redistricting fight | POLITICO Good Trouble Protest Putin in Alaska! Thursday, August 14 - 5:00 p.m. Valdez, AK, Small Boat Harbor Boardwalk. Putin will be traveling to Alaska to meet with Trump. They will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Putin is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).Join Alaskans all over the state and rally to show that we oppose rolling out the red carpet for Putin and Trump and to show our solidarity with Ukraine. Bring Ukrainian Flags if you have them. From The Good NewsRepublican Rep. LaMalfa hammered in profanity-laced town hall - ABC NewsRose HavenCT State Community CollegeReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beans Federal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts

Accountability or weaponization? That's the question Andrew and Mary tackle in their 150th episode together, starting with the distraction of the Office of the Special Counsel's investigation into Jack Smith for possible Hatch Act violations. In other DOJ related matters, they give some context to the Trump administration's continued battle to keep Alina Habba, a Trump ally, as New Jersey U.S. Attorney, just as The Legal Accountability Center filed bar complaints against lawyers who have represented Trump's White House in court. In another sideshow, Andrew and Mary break down what to make of a report on the “Clinton Plan” emails, declassified amid the Epstein controversy. And last up, they detail the decision out of the 9th Circuit Court which upheld a pause on ICE raids in California.  Further Reading: Here is the piece Andrew and his colleague Ryan Goodman wrote for Just Security in October 2024: Refuting the Latest Baseless Attacks Against Special Counsel Jack SmithHere is the 9th Circuit Court decision on ICE Raids: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California And some exciting news: tickets are on sale now for MSNBC Live – our second live community event featuring more than a dozen MSNBC hosts. The day-long event will be held on October 11th at Hammerstein Ballroom in Manhattan. To buy tickets visit msnbc.com/live25.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Emil Bove has been behind many of the Justice Department's most controversial recent decisions, and now he's President Trump's nominee to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. We discuss the controversy around Bove's nomination and what it could mean for future judicial appointments. This episode: political correspondent Sarah McCammon, justice correspondent Carrie Johnson, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Bria Suggs and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy