Podcasts about Circuit court

Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

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-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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/

durée : 00:15:11 - Bienvenue chez vous, en cuisine - Découvrez la Ferme des Pampilles à Alixan, un lieu où les fromages de chèvre faits maison se savourent en direct. Une histoire de passion et de circuit court portée par Lionel et Florence. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

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.  

This Day in Legal History: Nineteenth Amendment RatifiedOn August 18, 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing women the right to vote and marking a major legal milestone in the struggle for gender equality. The amendment states simply: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged… on account of sex.” Its passage capped off more than 70 years of organized activism, dating back to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848. Suffragists like Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and Alice Paul played pivotal roles in maintaining momentum across generations, despite fierce opposition.The road to ratification was grueling. Congress passed the amendment in 1919, but it still required approval from three-fourths of the states—36 at the time. Tennessee became the critical 36th state, narrowly approving the amendment in a dramatic vote where a 24-year-old legislator, Harry T. Burn, changed his vote after receiving a letter from his mother urging him to support suffrage. That moment tipped the scales and enshrined the right to vote for women nationwide.Before the amendment, several western states had already extended suffrage to women, but many others actively suppressed it. The legal recognition of women's voting rights through constitutional amendment removed any ambiguity and forced all states to comply. The Nineteenth Amendment not only transformed the electorate but also reshaped American democracy by recognizing women as full political participants.The Trump administration is accusing a federal judge in Boston of undermining the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to block the administration from firing staff in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun had issued an injunction requiring the reinstatement of employees let go in a mass layoff, despite the Supreme Court having recently paused a broader version of that order. The Justice Department has asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene, arguing that Joun's refusal to lift the narrower injunction contradicts the Supreme Court's ruling and undermines the rule of law.The judge's decision stems from a lawsuit challenging Secretary of Education Linda McMahon's plan to lay off over 1,300 department employees, part of President Trump's broader goal of eliminating the department—something only Congress can authorize. The plaintiffs, including students and advocacy groups, focused specifically on the Office for Civil Rights, which was set to lose half its staff. They argue that lifting the injunction now would effectively reward the administration's ongoing failure to comply with the court's order, as the terminated employees have not yet been reinstated.Judge Joun, appointed by President Biden, criticized the Supreme Court's ruling as "unreasoned" and pointed to the administration's continued noncompliance. The 1st Circuit has asked the plaintiffs to respond promptly to the Justice Department's request, signaling an expedited review.Trump administration claims judge defied Supreme Court to bar Education Department firings | ReutersFederal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is preparing for what may be his final speech at the annual Jackson Hole conference, facing a complicated economic picture that challenges his data-driven policy approach. In past years, Powell used the conference to pledge aggressive action against inflation and, later, to support the labor market. Now, with inflation still above target and signs of economic slowdown emerging, Powell must decide whether to prioritize price stability or job preservation.The Trump administration and many investors expect interest rate cuts at the Fed's September meeting, but Powell's messaging—how he frames future actions—may matter more than the decision itself. Internally, Fed officials are split: some want to move quickly to protect jobs, while others want to wait for clearer evidence that inflation won't rebound. Powell has previously styled himself after past Fed chairs like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, with Volcker's inflation-fighting resolve and Greenspan's forward-looking leniency both offering competing models.Recent economic data has sent mixed signals. Revised job growth numbers were lower than initially reported, supporting arguments for easing monetary policy, but inflation has edged up again. Trump's tariff policies add further uncertainty, though their economic impact has so far been less severe than feared. With the economy growing slowly and inflation still above the Fed's 2% target, Powell must decide whether to stay the course, cut rates cautiously, or begin a broader shift.Powell has used Jackson Hole to battle inflation and buoy jobs; he's now caught between both | ReutersNovo Nordisk's shares rose by up to 5% after receiving accelerated U.S. approval for its weight-loss drug Wegovy to treat MASH (metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis), a progressive liver disease that affects about 5% of U.S. adults. This marks the first GLP-1 drug approved for MASH and offers a significant, if temporary, advantage over competitor Eli Lilly, which is still in clinical trials for its own MASH-targeting drug, tirzepatide.The news was a welcome reversal for Novo, which recently lost over $70 billion in market value following a profit warning and leadership change. The company, once Europe's most valuable publicly traded firm due to Wegovy's success, has seen its share price drop sharply over the past year amid intensifying competition in the obesity drug market and the rise of compounded copycat drugs.Although Novo now holds a short-term lead in the liver disease market, analysts expect that exclusivity will be brief once Eli Lilly gains approval. Novo has also submitted applications in Europe and Japan, signaling its intention to secure broader global use for Wegovy beyond weight loss.Shares in Novo Nordisk rise after Wegovy gets US nod for liver disease treatment | ReutersNorton Rose's ambitious tech partnership with NMBL Technologies has ended in failure and mutual lawsuits, highlighting how difficult it is for Big Law firms to pivot from selling legal services to selling tech products. The firm's Chicago office, launched in 2022 as an “innovation hub,” aimed to introduce 150 clients to Proxy, a legal workflow tool developed by a new partner, Daniel Farris. But three years later, not a single sale was made. NMBL claims Norton Rose didn't uphold its end of the deal and stifled the rollout, while the firm says clients weren't interested and is seeking damages for the investment.The fallout underscores broader challenges law firms face as they increasingly invest in artificial intelligence and legal tech amid growing demand and rising budgets. Unlike traditional legal work, selling products requires different infrastructure and skills—such as dedicated sales teams—that most law firms lack. Despite producing marketing materials and training resources, NMBL alleges that very few Norton Rose lawyers engaged with the product and that the firm failed to meaningfully promote it.NMBL is seeking $15 million in damages, accusing the firm of using the deal merely to recruit talent, while Norton Rose wants $250,000, calling the product commercially nonviable. The firm also allegedly created a shell subsidiary, LX, to meet contract terms but never properly funded or activated it. This case illustrates the steep learning curve law firms face in transitioning to tech-based business models and the internal resistance that can derail innovation.Firm's Failed Tech Venture Foretells Big Law's AI Sales Struggle 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

A federal lawsuit filed by immigrant advocacy groups in July accuses the Trump administration and its immigration enforcement agencies like ICE of engaging in systemic racial profiling during raids and detentions targeting individuals of color, primarily those perceived as immigrants. A U.S. District Judge issued a temporary restraining order, and the order was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 1. The Trump administration has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the restrictions hinder their ability to enforce immigration laws. We get some local context from South Florida immigration attorney, Amanda Velazquez. She represents several clients who have been detained in Key West while going about their daily lives, who had documents that allow them to be in the country while awaiting hearings, despite having no criminal record.

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

 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.

 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.

This Day in Legal History: Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, establishing the foundation of the modern American welfare state. The legislation was a centerpiece of Roosevelt's New Deal and aimed to address the widespread economic insecurity caused by the Great Depression. For the first time, the federal government created a structured system of unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, funded by payroll taxes collected from workers and employers. The law also introduced Aid to Dependent Children, a program designed to support families headed by single mothers, later expanded into Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).The Act marked a major shift in federal involvement in individual economic welfare and signaled a broader acceptance of the idea that the government bears some responsibility for the financial well-being of its citizens. Though limited in scope at first—agricultural and domestic workers, for example, were excluded—the framework it established would evolve through amendments and court challenges over the following decades.The Social Security Act was challenged on constitutional grounds shortly after its passage, but the Supreme Court upheld its key provisions in Helvering v. Davis (1937), affirming Congress's power to spend for the general welfare. Over time, the Social Security program expanded to include disability insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. While the structure and funding of these programs remain a subject of political debate, the 1935 Act remains one of the most enduring and significant pieces of social legislation in U.S. history.A Texas state court has appointed a receiver to take control of Alex Jones' company, Free Speech Systems LLC, the parent of his Infowars show, in an effort to collect on $1.3 billion in defamation judgments related to his false claims about the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. Judge Maya Guerra Gamble granted the request from families of victims in the Connecticut case, authorizing receiver Gregory S. Milligan to manage and potentially liquidate the company's assets. Another hearing is scheduled for September 16 to determine whether the Texas-based judgments should also be placed under receivership.Jones, who has been in personal bankruptcy since 2022, has been shielded from immediate collection on many of these judgments, but his company's Chapter 11 case was dismissed in 2024, giving a separate bankruptcy trustee limited control over its assets. The receiver now has authority, subject to that trustee's approval, to pursue the sale of Infowars' media assets, access financial records, and initiate legal actions to recover property.Attorneys for the Sandy Hook families hailed the order as a major step toward accountability. Meanwhile, Jones' legal team plans to appeal, arguing the court was misled about prior bankruptcy rulings. Jones is also seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the Connecticut judgment, with a filing deadline set for September 5.Alex Jones' Infowars Assets to Be Taken Over by Receiver (1)A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down Trump administration rules that allowed employers to deny birth control coverage based on religious or moral objections. U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone ruled that the 2018 exemptions were not justified and found a disconnect between the sweeping scope of the rules and the limited number of employers likely to need them. The ruling came in a case brought by Pennsylvania and New Jersey, which previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the rules on procedural grounds in 2020 but did not evaluate their substance.The Affordable Care Act mandates contraception coverage in employer health plans, with narrow exemptions for religious organizations. The Trump administration expanded this to a broader class of employers, arguing that even applying for exemptions could burden religious practice. Judge Beetlestone disagreed, saying the administration failed to show a rational link between the perceived issue and its response.The Biden administration had proposed reversing the Trump-era policy in 2023, but that effort stalled before Biden left office. The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic group involved in defending the rules, plans to appeal the new decision. The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling.US judge blocks Trump religious exemption to birth control coverage | ReutersPresident Trump revoked a 2021 executive order issued by then-President Joe Biden that aimed to promote competition across the U.S. economy. Biden's order targeted anti-competitive practices in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and labor, and was a key element of his economic agenda. It included efforts to reduce consumer costs by curbing monopolistic behavior and increasing oversight of mergers.Trump's administration criticized the Biden-era approach as overly restrictive and burdensome. The Justice Department, under Trump, endorsed the revocation, stating it would pursue an “America First Antitrust” strategy focused on market freedom and less regulatory interference. Officials also announced plans to streamline the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process and reinstate targeted consent decrees to address specific anti-competitive behavior.Critics argue the revocation will weaken protections for consumers and small businesses. A June 2025 report by advocacy groups estimated that dismantling consumer protection policies, including those from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has cost Americans at least $18 billion through higher fees and lost compensation. Trump has also taken steps to drastically reduce the CFPB's workforce.Former Biden competition policy director Hannah Garden-Monheit condemned the move, claiming it contradicts Trump's promise to support everyday Americans and instead benefits large corporations.Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says | ReutersA federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit filed by video-sharing platform Rumble, which had accused major advertisers—Diageo, WPP, and the World Federation of Advertisers—of conspiring to boycott the platform by withholding ad spending. U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle ruled that the Northern District of Texas was not the appropriate venue for the case, as the defendants are based in the UK and Belgium. Her decision did not address the substance of Rumble's antitrust claims.Rumble's lawsuit alleged that the advertisers participated in a “brand-safety” initiative through the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which it claims was used to pressure platforms like Rumble—known for minimal content moderation—into compliance or risk being excluded from ad budgets. The defendants countered that business decisions not to advertise on Rumble were based on brand protection and had nothing to do with collusion or a boycott.Judge Boyle noted it remains an "open question" whether the Texas court is the right venue for a similar lawsuit brought by Elon Musk's social media platform X, which is also pending. The advertisers argued Rumble's legal action was a misuse of antitrust laws intended to force companies to do business with it.US judge tosses Rumble lawsuit claiming advertising boycott | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing him to halt billions in foreign aid payments that had been previously approved by Congress. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction issued by a lower court that had ordered the administration to resume nearly $2 billion in aid. The aid freeze was initiated on January 20, 2025—Trump's first day of his second term—through an executive order and followed by significant staffing and structural changes to USAID, the government's main foreign aid agency.The lawsuit challenging the freeze was brought by two nonprofit organizations that depend on federal funding: the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network. The appeals court, however, ruled that the groups lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze and that only the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, had authority to do so.Judge Karen Henderson, writing for the majority, explicitly stated the court was not deciding whether Trump's actions violated the Constitution's separation of powers or Congress's control over federal spending. In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued the decision undermined the Constitution's checks and balances and enabled unlawful executive overreach.A White House spokesperson praised the ruling, framing it as a victory against "radical left" interference and a step toward aligning foreign aid spending with Trump's "America First" agenda.US appeals court lets Trump cut billions in foreign aid | 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

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

This Day in Legal History: East German Border SealedOn August 13, 1961, the East German government abruptly sealed the border between East and West Berlin, cutting off one of the last open crossings between the Eastern Bloc and the West. Overnight, streets were blocked, barbed wire unrolled, and armed guards posted, turning neighbors into strangers by force. For years after World War II, Berlin had been a divided city within a divided Germany, but its open border allowed thousands of East Germans to flee to the West. By 1961, East Germany's leadership, with Soviet backing, viewed the steady exodus as both an economic drain and a political embarrassment. The border closure was quickly followed by the construction of the Berlin Wall — initially a rudimentary barricade, later reinforced into a heavily guarded concrete barrier. Families were split, jobs lost, and daily life in the city transformed, as movement between the two halves became nearly impossible. West Berlin became an isolated enclave of democracy surrounded by a communist state, symbolizing Cold War tensions. The Wall also became a stage for daring escape attempts, some successful, others tragically fatal. Its legal underpinning rested on East Germany's assertion of sovereignty and border control, which the West rejected as illegitimate. International condemnation followed, but geopolitical realities left the Wall in place for nearly three decades. The border closure and Wall construction intensified the East–West standoff, influencing Cold War diplomacy, military posturing, and propaganda. The Wall finally fell on November 9, 1989, marking the beginning of German reunification. The events of August 13, 1961, remain a stark reminder of how governments can physically enforce political divisions.The American Bar Association has voted to eliminate its longstanding rule that reserved five Board of Governors seats specifically for women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ members, and people with disabilities — what can only be described as a stunning kowtowing to authoritarianism. Instead, those positions will now be open to anyone who can demonstrate a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, regardless of personal demographic background. The change was approved by the ABA's House of Delegates during its annual meeting in Toronto, where members also considered, but rejected, proposals to shrink the size of both the House and the Board. Advocates for the shift argued that broadening eligibility could help the ABA sidestep potential lawsuits, while critics noted it follows years of political pressure from the Trump administration and conservative legal groups. That pressure has included threats to strip the ABA of its law school accreditation role and formal complaints alleging its diversity programs discriminate against non-minorities. The ABA has already paused its law school diversity accreditation requirement until at least 2026. Membership in the association has also sharply declined over the past decade, falling from nearly 400,000 in 2015 to about 227,000 in 2024, with leadership citing the elimination of free and low-cost memberships as one factor. Previously, eligibility for the diversity-designated seats was based strictly on identity, but the new rules rely on factors such as lived experience, involvement in relevant initiatives, and resilience in the face of obstacles. While the ABA did not cite political motives, the timing and surrounding context suggest a strategic retreat in the face of escalating ideological confrontation.ABA ends diversity requirements for governing board seats | ReutersAT&T has reached a settlement with Headwater Research, ending a wireless patent infringement lawsuit just days before trial in a Texas federal court. Headwater, founded by scientist Gregory Raleigh, claimed AT&T used its patented technology for reducing data usage and easing network congestion without permission, allegedly copying the inventions after a 2009 meeting with company employees. The suit, filed in 2023, targeted AT&T's cellular networks and devices, with the telecom giant denying infringement and challenging the patents' validity. The case was set for trial Thursday, but both parties asked the court to pause proceedings due to the settlement. Headwater has had recent success in the same court, winning $279 million from Samsung and $175 million from Verizon in separate wireless technology disputes earlier this year. Terms of the AT&T settlement were not disclosed.AT&T settles US wireless patent case before trial | ReutersA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore part of the $584 million in federal grants it recently froze for UCLA, finding the move violated a prior court injunction. Judge Rita Lin, ruling from San Francisco, said the National Science Foundation's suspension of funds breached her June order that blocked the termination of multiple University of California grants. The decision affects more than a third of the frozen amount, which had been halted amid President Trump's threats to cut funding to universities over pro-Palestinian campus protests. The administration has accused UCLA and other schools of allowing antisemitism during demonstrations, while protesters — including some Jewish groups — argue the government is conflating criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza with bigotry. The funding freeze comes as UCLA faces a proposed $1 billion settlement demand from the administration, a figure the university says would be financially devastating. Critics, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, have labeled the offer as extortion, raising broader concerns about free speech and academic freedom. UCLA has already settled a separate antisemitism lawsuit for over $6 million and faces litigation tied to a 2024 mob attack on pro-Palestinian demonstrators. The administration has reached settlements with other universities, including Columbia and Brown, while talks with Harvard continue.Judge orders Trump administration to restore part of UCLA's suspended funding | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld Arkansas's ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, reversing a lower court's ruling that found the law unconstitutional. In an 8-2 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent approval of a similar Tennessee law, concluding that Arkansas's restrictions do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The majority also rejected claims that the ban infringes on parents' constitutional rights to seek medical treatment for their children, finding no historical precedent for such a right when the state deems the care inappropriate. The dissent argued the law lacked evidence to support its stated goal of protecting children and would harm transgender youth and their families. Arkansas passed the first statewide ban of its kind in 2021, overriding a veto from then-Governor Asa Hutchinson, and it has since been followed by similar laws in 25 states. The ruling represents a significant victory for Republican-led efforts to restrict gender-affirming care and comes amid a wave of federal and state litigation over such policies.US appeals court upholds Arkansas law banning youth transgender care | 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

Fighting for LGBTQ+ rights in the Caribbean has been difficult, but the winds of progress are blowing strong in Saint Lucia. ECADE, the Eastern Caribbean Alliance for Diversity and Equality, just won its fourth court victory since 2022 over long prison sentences for same-sex intimacy. Executive Director Kenita Placide talks about the legal tempest sweeping across the islands (interviewed by David Hunt). And in NewsWrap: the early retirement benefits transgender U.S. Air Force personnel with 15 to 18 years of service were promised for voluntarily agreeing to leave the military have been withdrawn, a majority of people in China support LGBTQ rights according to a new study released by The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, pediatric gender affirming healthcare will be illegal in New Hampshire under a law signed by Republican Governor Kelly Ayotte, Massachusetts' existing protections for transgender and reproductive healthcare are enhanced under legislation signed by lesbian Democratic Governor Maura Healey, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals supports the denial of a preliminary injunction to prevent Oklahoma's ban on pediatric gender-affirming healthcare from being enforced while its constitutionality is litigated, Bishop of Monmouth Cherry Vann is voted the Church in Wales' first female and first out Archbishop, and more international LGBTQ+ news reported this week by Nathalie Munoz and Allan Tijamo (produced by Brian DeShazor). All this on the August 11, 2025 edition of This Way Out! Join our family of listener-donors today at http://thiswayout.org/donate/

I woke up early this morning, knowing the nation was still reeling from a torrent of courtroom drama centered around Donald Trump. The tension hasn't eased since last week: all eyes remain fixed on the nation's capital, where Trump's legal battles continue to command headlines and ignite debate in every corner of the country. The latest developments are dense, but I'll take you straight into the core action.Just days ago, the Supreme Court made a headline-grabbing move in Trump's presidential immunity appeal. On August 2nd, the justices vacated the previous judgment from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and sent the case back down for further proceedings. That decision established a crucial window—between August and late October—when pretrial deadlines for Trump's criminal charges are mostly paused, raising both suspense and frustration for those who want resolution. Judge Tanya Chutkan now has full jurisdiction again, and legal teams on both sides are positioning their arguments for the next round in this high-stakes chess game.The civil side has been no less dramatic. Trump's legal calendar still features the ongoing saga with writer E. Jean Carroll, whose defamation suits in federal court have produced two separate jury verdicts against the former president. Trump's appeal of the second Carroll case adds yet another layer to the web of litigation that has become his signature. The sharp exchanges between Carroll's lawyers and Trump's attorneys have fueled endless speculation about whether Trump will ever actually take the stand himself.This week, the Supreme Court again became the battleground, as Trump's administration sought to overturn a ruling in Los Angeles that restricts federal immigration stops. The government argued that Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong's order threatens the ability of immigration officials to enforce the law—especially during what they're calling the “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in U.S. history. Citizens' groups claim civil rights violations, and now the fate of thousands might hinge on whether the Supreme Court decides to intervene by Tuesday.Perhaps most consequential of all, Trump v. CASA this week reshaped legal history. The Supreme Court eliminated nationwide injunctions that used to block controversial executive actions everywhere at once. This means people affected by policies like Trump's crackdown on birthright citizenship now have to join lawsuits individually if they want protection—a formidable barrier for most.Through each of these cases, the same names echo in courtrooms—Judge Tanya Chutkan, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, E. Jean Carroll, and attorneys representing the government. And each verdict, injunction, or appeal shapes not just Trump's future, but national law and social fabric.Thank you for tuning in. I hope you'll come back next week for more. This has been a 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

Dani Pinter (Chief Legal Counsel at NCOSE) and Haley McNamara (Chief Strategy Officer and Executive Director at NCOSE) talk about the latest ruling from the 9th Circuit Court in the ongoing Twitter (Now X) case. They talk about the heartbreaking circumstances that led to the lawsuit and what the ruling means for this case as well as broader implications for Section 230. They also discuss the latest news about Grok creating deepfake nude imagery of celebrities without even being prompted to do so. Is this part of the design and programming or is Grok out of control?     Read our blog about the Twitter decision: https://tinyurl.com/3tmdsste   Donate to the Law Center to support pro bono legal work for survivors: https://tinyurl.com/8xbfce93   Urge Congress to Remove Section 230: https://tinyurl.com/ymfj57p9  

This Day in Legal History: Gulf of Tonkin ResolutionOn August 7, 1964, the U.S. Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, dramatically reshaping the legal landscape of American military engagement. Prompted by reports—later disputed—of North Vietnamese attacks on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, the resolution granted President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authority to use military force in Southeast Asia without a formal declaration of war. It passed nearly unanimously, with only two dissenting votes in the Senate, reflecting the tense Cold War atmosphere and congressional trust in the executive branch.Legally, the resolution functioned as an open-ended authorization for the president to escalate military operations in Vietnam. Within months, it led to the deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. Critics would later argue that it allowed the executive to bypass Congress's constitutional war-making powers, effectively green-lighting a years-long conflict based on contested facts.As the war dragged on and public opinion turned, the resolution became a focal point for debates over separation of powers, congressional oversight, and executive overreach. In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured. It served as a legal and historical precedent for future authorizations of force, including those passed after 9/11.A federal appeals court has upheld the SEC's long-standing “gag rule,” which prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement cases from publicly denying the agency's allegations. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the rule is not unconstitutional on its face but left room for future challenges depending on how it's applied. The policy, in place since 1972, requires settling parties to at least refrain from admitting or denying wrongdoing. The court emphasized that defendants remain free to reject settlements if they wish to speak out.Twelve petitioners, including former Xerox CFO Barry Romeril and the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), challenged the SEC's January 2024 decision not to revise the rule. Romeril had previously brought a similar challenge to the Supreme Court with support from Elon Musk, but the Court declined to hear it. Writing for the panel, Judge Daniel Bress noted that removing the gag could reduce the SEC's ability to settle cases efficiently and that speech restrictions are voluntary components of settlement agreements.The NCLA criticized the decision, arguing it effectively sanctions government-imposed silence and announced plans to pursue further appeals. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce also dissented from the agency's refusal to revisit the rule, arguing that it hinders public accountability by suppressing potential criticism. The SEC declined to comment on the ruling, which came in the case Powell et al v. SEC.US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections | ReutersThe Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the free speech rights of foreign students. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that threats of arrest, detention, or deportation have created a climate of fear among international students, discouraging them from writing about sensitive political issues—particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Two unnamed students joined the paper in the lawsuit, which names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as defendants.According to the plaintiffs, the administration has labeled pro-Palestinian viewpoints as antisemitic or extremist and attempted to deport students expressing such views, framing them as threats to U.S. foreign policy. In some instances, students have been detained without charges, though judges have later ordered their release. The lawsuit contends that these actions have led to widespread self-censorship among international students, chilling constitutionally protected speech in areas such as protests, slogans, and commentary on U.S. and Israeli policy.The Stanford Daily is seeking a court ruling affirming that the First Amendment protects non-citizens from government retaliation based on their speech. The university clarified it is not involved in the suit, as the newspaper operates independently. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, representing the paper, called the government's actions antithetical to American values of free expression.Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration for alleged free speech violations | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit accusing major drugmakers Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca of conspiring to limit drug discounts provided under the federal 340B program. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's dismissal, allowing two health clinics—Mosaic Health and Central Virginia Health Services—to proceed with their proposed class action. These clinics claim the companies colluded in 2020 to restrict discounts on diabetes medications, harming safety-net providers and the low-income patients they serve.The court found that because the four companies control much of the diabetes drug market, coordination to limit discounts could be feasible. Judge Myrna Pérez, writing for the panel, noted the allegations were plausible enough to move forward. The drugmakers have denied wrongdoing and argue their policies were developed independently to address alleged fraud in the 340B program. Sanofi and Novo Nordisk said they are reviewing the decision, while Lilly criticized the ruling and defended its practices as legal.The clinics say the drugmakers earned billions in extra profits through these policies, which allegedly undercut essential savings for providers. The case underscores the broader tension between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers over the administration of the 340B program, which requires drugmakers to offer discounts in exchange for access to federal healthcare funds.US appeals court reinstates drug-price conspiracy lawsuit against Sanofi, rival pharma companies | ReutersPepsiCo is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging it engaged in illegal price discrimination by giving more favorable pricing and discount terms to large retailers like Walmart while denying the same deals to smaller businesses. Filed in federal court in Manhattan by an Italian restaurant operator, the lawsuit claims this practice violates the Robinson-Patman Act, a rarely enforced 1936 antitrust law meant to prevent discriminatory pricing that harms competition.The suit accuses Pepsi of providing payments and allowances to Walmart that were not extended to other retailers, placing smaller businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Although Walmart is named in the allegations, it is not a defendant in the case. The plaintiff argues that Pepsi's pricing tactics unfairly burden other merchants who must pay more for the same products.This legal action echoes a previous Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit filed against Pepsi in January under the Biden administration. However, the second Trump administration dropped the case in May, with Trump-appointed FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson criticizing it as a politically motivated effort launched too late in the prior administration's term. The FTC has not commented on the new private lawsuit.The class action seeks unspecified damages on behalf of thousands of Pepsi purchasers nationwide. Neither Pepsi nor Walmart has publicly responded to the allegations.Pepsi accused of price discrimination in new merchant class action | 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

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.

Visit: RadioLawTalk.com for information & full episodes! Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/RLTFacebook Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/RLTTwitter Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/RLTInstagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Owf1BEB-klmtD_92-uqzg Your Radio Law Talk hosts are exceptional attorneys and love what they do! They take breaks from their day jobs and make time for Radio Law Talk so that the rest of the country can enjoy the law like they do. Follow Radio Law Talk on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter & Instagram!

John discusses Trump announcing workplace rules that stand to make it easier for federal employees to pressure their colleagues to convert to their religion of choice. He also talks about the Senate voting to confirm Emil Bove as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, granting a lifetime appointment to Trump's former personal lawyer. Then, he jokes with actor, director, and podcast star Bob Cesca about the Jeffrey Epstein debacle and of course current movies and Star Trek shows. Next, John speaks with The God Squad featuring former pastor Desimber Rose and theologian Dillan Naber Cruz. They talk about Trump's new Christian work place rules and other disruptions to the separation of church and state. Then finally, he chats with legal analyst Dr. Tracy Pearson and they take calls from the Evil Army of the Night on Emil Bove, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to overturn her sex trafficking conviction on September 17, 2024. The court upheld the 20-year sentence and dismissed Maxwell's main argument that she should have been protected by a 2008 non-prosecution agreement made between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors. The court made it clear that this agreement didn't apply to her case in New York.Maxwell also challenged the trial's fairness, claiming a juror's failure to disclose his own history of sexual abuse biased the outcome. The court didn't buy that either, stating that the omission wasn't deliberate and had no bearing on the trial's integrity.Ultimately, the court concluded that Maxwell played a pivotal role in facilitating Epstein's predatory behavior, and the sentence reflects the gravity of her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein deal didn't save Ghislaine Maxwell: Court (lawandcrime.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's attempt to overturn her sex trafficking conviction on September 17, 2024. The court upheld the 20-year sentence and dismissed Maxwell's main argument that she should have been protected by a 2008 non-prosecution agreement made between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors. The court made it clear that this agreement didn't apply to her case in New York.Maxwell also challenged the trial's fairness, claiming a juror's failure to disclose his own history of sexual abuse biased the outcome. The court didn't buy that either, stating that the omission wasn't deliberate and had no bearing on the trial's integrity.Ultimately, the court concluded that Maxwell played a pivotal role in facilitating Epstein's predatory behavior, and the sentence reflects the gravity of her crimes.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Jeffrey Epstein deal didn't save Ghislaine Maxwell: Court (lawandcrime.com)

A major victory for gun rights advocates: California's controversial 2016 ammunition law has just been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Effective immediately, millions of Californians can buy ammunition without background checks or extra fees.Passed as Proposition 63, the law required a background check for every ammo purchase—until now. This landmark decision could have massive implications for gun legislation nationwide.

In its motion opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, the Department of Justice argued that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida did not and could not shield Maxwell from prosecution in a different jurisdiction. The DOJ emphasized that Maxwell was not a signatory to the agreement and that the language of the NPA did not expressly bind federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. By reinforcing that the agreement applied only to Epstein and only within Florida's jurisdiction, the government maintained that Maxwell's prosecution was not only lawful but well within constitutional and statutory boundaries.The DOJ also dismantled several of Maxwell's other appellate claims, including challenges related to the statute of limitations, juror misconduct, and alleged flaws in jury instructions. Prosecutors argued that the indictment fell squarely within the allowed time frame under the applicable federal laws governing crimes against minors, and that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying Maxwell's request for a new trial. They also rejected the notion that the jury had been misled or that any aspect of the charges had been constructively amended. The motion concluded by urging the Second Circuit—and ultimately the Supreme Court—not to disturb the conviction or sentence, framing Maxwell's appeal as a meritless attempt to relitigate settled issues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US government urges appeals court to uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction | Daily Mail Online

In its motion opposing Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, the Department of Justice argued that the 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida did not and could not shield Maxwell from prosecution in a different jurisdiction. The DOJ emphasized that Maxwell was not a signatory to the agreement and that the language of the NPA did not expressly bind federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. By reinforcing that the agreement applied only to Epstein and only within Florida's jurisdiction, the government maintained that Maxwell's prosecution was not only lawful but well within constitutional and statutory boundaries.The DOJ also dismantled several of Maxwell's other appellate claims, including challenges related to the statute of limitations, juror misconduct, and alleged flaws in jury instructions. Prosecutors argued that the indictment fell squarely within the allowed time frame under the applicable federal laws governing crimes against minors, and that the lower court acted within its discretion in denying Maxwell's request for a new trial. They also rejected the notion that the jury had been misled or that any aspect of the charges had been constructively amended. The motion concluded by urging the Second Circuit—and ultimately the Supreme Court—not to disturb the conviction or sentence, framing Maxwell's appeal as a meritless attempt to relitigate settled issues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:US government urges appeals court to uphold Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking conviction | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On June 30, 2008, in the Circuit Court of the City of Portsmouth, Demetrius L. Neely was convicted on multiple drug‑ and firearm‑related counts. Those convictions included: possession of cocaine with intent to distribute (second offense), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of a Schedule I/II controlled substance while in possession of a firearm, and possession of marijuana. For these crimes, he received a total sentence of 50 years and six months, with nine years suspended.https://linktr.ee/Unforbiddentruth.Change.org Petition: https://www.change.org/p/virginia-governor-demetrius-neely-clemency-petitonBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/unforbidden-truth--4724561/support.

Encino community is on high alert after another home break-in. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's ammunition background check law, ruling it unconstitutional. Altadena: Still Finding Victims.

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