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.

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

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 In 1971, amid growing backlash, Congress repealed the resolution, but its legacy endured.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

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

durée : 00:08:38 - Bienvenue chez vous, au menu du jour - À Beaumont-les-Valence, Steve Renaudat régale avec une cuisine fraîche, locale et inventive à "L'Instant Présent", une table gourmande qui change de menu tous les 15 jours. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

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

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!

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.

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

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.

This Day in Legal History: Patent Office OpenedOn this day in legal history, July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly created Patent Act of 1790. The inaugural patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a process of making potash, an essential industrial chemical used in soap and fertilizer production. Signed by President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, this first patent reflected the constitutional mandate to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.”The Patent Act established a system that allowed inventors to secure exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time, fostering a culture of innovation. Unlike today's process, early patents required a review by a board of Cabinet-level officials and carried no numbering system—Hopkins' patent is only retroactively considered Patent No. 1.This moment marked the beginning of formal intellectual property protection in the U.S., setting the foundation for one of the world's most robust patent systems. The legal infrastructure created that year would evolve into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, playing a central role in industrial and technological development over the next two centuries. It was a clear sign of the young republic's commitment to innovation through legal means.A White House report released Wednesday by President Trump's crypto working group calls for swift regulatory action on digital assets. The administration urged Congress to pass a comprehensive crypto bill, such as the Clarity Act, while advocating for key additions. These include allowing platforms to both trade and hold crypto, and tailoring disclosure requirements for crypto securities. The report also recommends giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) authority over crypto spot markets and embracing decentralized finance technologies.In addition to legislative suggestions, the White House wants the SEC and CFTC to act under their current powers to enable federal-level trading of digital assets. The report promotes using tools like safe harbors and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate access to new financial products, including tokenized assets like real estate and stocks. This approach reflects Trump's broader campaign promise to foster crypto innovation, in sharp contrast to the Biden administration's enforcement-heavy stance, which included lawsuits against major exchanges that have since been dropped.Despite concerns over potential conflicts of interest—given Trump's family's crypto ventures and his personal stake in a crypto platform—the administration has denied any impropriety. The report's findings could significantly shape the direction of ongoing legislative negotiations and regulatory frameworks.White House in crypto policy report calls for SEC action, new legislation | ReutersA proposed budget from the U.S. House of Representatives threatens major cuts to the federal public defense system, according to a July 25 memo from Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. If enacted, the judiciary warns it may be forced to eliminate more than 600 positions in the Defender Services program or delay payments to court-appointed defense attorneys by over two months—potentially the longest such delay ever.The $8.9 billion budget plan advanced by the House Appropriations Committee's financial services subcommittee increases overall judiciary funding by 3.5%, but it still falls significantly short of what the courts requested. Specifically, the $1.57 billion allocated to Defender Services is $196 million less than needed, despite being an 8.2% increase from the previous year. This shortfall could impair the judiciary's ability to meet its constitutional obligations under Gideon v. Wainwright, which requires that indigent criminal defendants receive legal representation.The judiciary is also currently experiencing a funding gap that has already caused a three-month delay in payments to Criminal Justice Act (CJA) panel attorneys. Without additional funding, the delay could extend to 77 days next year, further weakening the public defense infrastructure. The judiciary has asked for $116 million in supplemental funding to stabilize the program.The full House Appropriations Committee is not expected to take up the bill until September, and the Senate has not yet released its version.US House budget threatens over 600 public defender jobs, judiciary warns | ReutersUber is facing a pivotal legal challenge in California state court over its responsibility to protect riders from sexual assault by its drivers. A hearing before Judge Ethan Schulman will determine whether hundreds of consolidated cases move forward as bellwether jury trials this fall. These cases center on whether Uber should be liable for assaults allegedly committed by drivers who, plaintiffs argue, exploited Uber's lack of mandatory training, in-vehicle cameras, or stricter vetting.Uber defends itself by claiming drivers are independent contractors and that criminal behavior is unforeseeable, not the company's legal responsibility. It points to safety measures like GPS tracking and background checks as fulfilling its obligations. However, plaintiffs argue that Uber promoted itself as a safe alternative for intoxicated riders and should be held to the higher duty of care expected of a “common carrier,” similar to taxi services.A central legal issue is whether Uber's conduct constitutes misfeasance—actively creating risk—or nonfeasance—failing to prevent harm. Under California law, a company with a “special relationship” with its customers, like a common carrier, must exercise “utmost care.” A federal judge has already ruled that Uber qualifies as a common carrier in related litigation.Uber's broader legal strategy has included challenging consolidated suits through the Ninth Circuit and supporting a Nevada ballot measure to limit plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—both of which failed. Legal experts note Uber faces an uphill battle, as courts are increasingly viewing ride-hailing platforms as more than passive intermediaries.Uber's Legal Duty to Riders at Forefront of Mass Assault CasesEric Tung, President Trump's nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, defended controversial past remarks on gender roles during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday. Democratic senators, particularly Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin, pressed Tung over statements he made as a Yale undergraduate in 2004, where he criticized radical feminists and asserted that gender roles support institutions like marriage. Padilla called the comments “reprehensible,” while Durbin challenged Tung's recent views as expressed at a Federalist Society event, where Tung appeared to reject constitutional protections for abortion, same-sex marriage, and private sexual conduct.Tung explained that his undergraduate comments were based on his belief at the time that men and women had complementary roles and that the family should be strengthened. He noted that his wife has had a distinguished professional and political career, arguing she excels in many areas. Though he affirmed that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, is binding precedent, he declined to discuss his personal views on gender roles, citing potential future cases.Tung, a former clerk for Justices Scalia and Gorsuch and a partner at Jones Day, emphasized his originalist and textualist judicial philosophy. Despite strong backing from Republicans on the panel, Democrats criticized his ideological leanings and questioned his fitness for a lifetime appointment to the influential appellate court.Trump appellate court nominee defends comments on 'gender roles' | 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

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

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.

This Day in Legal History: Medicare and Medicaid Signed into BeingOn July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of 1965 into law, creating the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The signing took place at the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri, with former President Harry S. Truman—an early advocate for national health insurance—present and symbolically receiving the first Medicare card. Medicare was designed to provide hospital and medical insurance to Americans aged 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history. Medicaid, created alongside Medicare, offered healthcare assistance to low-income individuals and families.At the time, nearly half of Americans over 65 had no health insurance. The passage of Medicare was a landmark achievement of Johnson's Great Society initiative and built on decades of political struggle over healthcare reform. The legislation amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act and was strongly opposed by many in the medical establishment and conservative politicians who labeled it as “socialized medicine.” Nevertheless, the program gained rapid popularity and provided immediate relief to millions.Administered by the federal government, Medicare initially had two parts: Part A, covering hospital insurance, and Part B, covering outpatient and physician services. It has since evolved to include prescription drug coverage (Part D) and options for private plans (Medicare Advantage). The law reshaped the American healthcare landscape and established the principle that access to healthcare for seniors was a federal responsibility.The U.S. Senate confirmed Emil Bove, a former lawyer for Donald Trump and senior Justice Department official, to a lifetime seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a narrow 50-49 vote. Bove faced unified Democratic opposition and criticism from over 900 former DOJ employees, who claimed he undermined the department's integrity. His nomination prompted a Democratic walkout during the Senate Judiciary Committee's vote and drew sharp condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.Despite controversy, Republicans praised Bove's background as a federal terrorism prosecutor and his legal work defending Trump in several criminal cases. His confirmation shifts the appellate court's balance back in favor of Republican appointees. Critics cited Bove's alleged directives that defied judicial authority and political interference in a corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Bove denied wrongdoing in both instances. His confirmation is part of Trump's renewed effort in his second term to reshape the judiciary, following over 230 appointments in his first term. Trump has also nominated another close adviser, Jennifer Mascott, to the same court.Trump lawyer Bove confirmed to US appeals court, overcoming Democratic opposition | ReutersBove Confirmed to Appeals Court After Whistleblowers Emerge (1)A White House crypto task force established by President Trump is set to release a highly anticipated report outlining the administration's policy goals for the digital asset sector. The report, expected Wednesday, will address tokenization, market structure legislation, and a regulatory framework for blockchain-based financial products. Created by executive order shortly after Trump took office in January, the group is led by Bo Hines and includes top officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and SEC Chair Paul Atkins.The document is expected to support expanded use of tokenization, which converts traditional assets like stocks and real estate into blockchain-based tokens. The report may call on the SEC to create a framework enabling firms like Coinbase to offer tokenized securities, though specific language remains under wraps. It will also outline the White House's preferences for crypto legislation currently advancing in Congress, including follow-up to the recently passed stablecoin law.Trump has made pro-crypto policies a centerpiece of his administration, reversing many of the enforcement actions taken under President Biden, such as lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance. While the industry sees the report as a roadmap for mainstream integration, concerns remain about conflicts of interest, particularly given Trump's financial ties to crypto ventures and meme coins. The administration has denied any ethical violations.White House set to unveil closely watched crypto policy report | ReutersThe Trump administration has formally requested the release of grand jury transcripts related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, citing public interest and mounting pressure over the government's handling of the sex trafficking cases. Prosecutors filed late-night motions with U.S. District Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer, arguing that the sealed testimony should now be disclosed, though the judges had previously asked for stronger legal justification. Grand jury records are typically secret, with limited exceptions for disclosure.Trump said he directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the unsealing after the Justice Department reaffirmed its conclusion that Epstein died by suicide and that there was no list of elite clients—a stance that frustrated some Trump supporters who suspect a cover-up. Epstein died in 2019 before his trial; Maxwell, convicted in 2021, is serving a 20-year sentence and has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.In a related effort, a Florida judge recently denied a separate request to release grand jury records from earlier state investigations into Epstein, ruling they did not meet legal exceptions. Even if the federal judges allow the current transcripts to be unsealed, the documents may not reveal new information, since much of the testimony was covered during Maxwell's trial. The transcripts also wouldn't encompass the full scope of investigative material held by the government.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former Trump lawyer, recently met with Maxwell for two days, reportedly seeking any names or evidence she could provide about others potentially involved. Neither Blanche nor Maxwell's attorney has commented in detail on those meetings.Trump administration asks judges to release Epstein, Maxwell grand jury transcripts | ReutersA Massachusetts jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay over $42 million to Paul Lovell, who developed mesothelioma after decades of using the company's talc products. Lovell and his wife sued in 2021, claiming the talc contained asbestos that he unknowingly inhaled, and accused J&J of failing to warn consumers despite knowing the risks. The jury awarded damages for pain, suffering, and medical costs.J&J denied any wrongdoing, calling the verdict “junk science” and saying its products are asbestos-free and safe, with plans to appeal the decision. The company ended U.S. sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020. This case adds to a string of multi-million-dollar verdicts against J&J in talc-related mesothelioma lawsuits, although some have been overturned on appeal.J&J is facing over 63,000 active lawsuits, and possibly up to 100,000 claims in total, most alleging ovarian cancer from talc use. The company's attempts to resolve the claims through bankruptcy have failed in court three times, including a $10 billion settlement proposal rejected in March. The Lovell case is part of ongoing litigation that continues to test J&J's legal strategy and product safety claims.Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $42M after jury finds talc caused man's cancer | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Senate confirmed Emil Bove, a former lawyer for President Donald Trump, to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a tight 50-49 vote. Whistleblowers allege Bove encouraged DOJ attorneys to defy court orders and Congress, and his dismissal of a corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams led to several federal prosecutors' resignations. More than 900 former DOJ attorneys warn the appointment threatens judicial integrity. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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.

Send us a textRoyce references several stories that highlight what most of us already know; gun control is a farce that is sold to gullible citizens who then become unwitting accomplices in the civilian disarmament movement.Gov. Newsom (CA) is apoplectic over the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals slapping down his state's law that requires a background check just to buy ammo.Sen Chris (the Marxist) Murphy is attempting to reinstate the NFA tax, made conformable to inflation, to well over $4,700.00 per stamp.Royce references an article titled "The Hucksters of Gun Control" by Bill Cawthon, a well-written piece that likens gun control to the snake oil of the Old West, sold to gullible citizens by hucksters and fraudsters.Royce ties all those together in this episode!Tune in and share!Support the showGiveSendGo | Unconstitutional 2A Prosecution of Tate Adamiak Askari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels: Forcelli, Peter J., MacGregor, Keelin, Murphy, Stephen: 9798888456491: Amazon.com: BooksVoice of the Blue (buzzsprout.com)

Coming up on today's Local: ICE vs. LA in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ... Trump & the EU strike a deal ... local guy crank calls 911 many, many times.

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.

This Day in Legal History: National Security Act of 1947On this day in legal history, July 25, 1947, Congress passed the National Security Act of 1947, fundamentally reshaping the American national security infrastructure in the wake of World War II. The legislation created a unified framework to coordinate defense and intelligence operations, aiming to prevent the bureaucratic fragmentation that had plagued wartime decision-making. One of its central provisions was the formation of the National Security Council (NSC), designed to advise the president on domestic, foreign, and military policies related to national security.The Act also established the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which replaced the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and became the first peacetime intelligence agency tasked with gathering, analyzing, and coordinating intelligence. Additionally, it created the National Military Establishment (later renamed the Department of Defense in 1949), which consolidated the War Department and the Navy Department under a single executive authority.Within the National Military Establishment, the Act preserved the autonomy of the Army and Navy while officially creating a separate branch: the United States Air Force. It also formalized the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide coordinated military advice to civilian leadership. These structural reforms sought to ensure more cohesive planning and execution of U.S. defense policy during a time of growing Cold War tensions.The legislation marked a profound shift in how the federal government approached global strategy, institutionalizing the military-intelligence bureaucracy that would define American power projection for decades. It also laid the legal groundwork for the modern national security state, with broad implications for executive authority, covert operations, and civil-military relations. As Cold War dynamics evolved, the institutions born from this Act became central to both overt diplomacy and covert action around the world.Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year sentence for aiding Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of minors, is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Her legal team argues that a 2007 non-prosecution agreement made with Epstein in Florida should have shielded her and other associates from future federal prosecution. The case raises a significant legal issue: whether plea deals made by one U.S. Attorney's Office bind other federal jurisdictions. This question has divided circuit courts, increasing the chances the Supreme Court might take up the case when justices return from summer recess in late September.The Justice Department under Trump acknowledged the legal split but urged the Court to deny Maxwell's appeal, arguing that plea agreements are binding only between the negotiating parties. Maxwell's defense contends the 2007 deal's broad language promised immunity for co-conspirators nationwide, and that allowing prosecutors to renege undermines trust in the justice system. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supports her petition, citing the widespread use of plea agreements in American jurisprudence.The case unfolds amid renewed political pressure over Epstein-related disclosures, with Trump's administration walking back earlier commitments to release more records. The political sensitivity may affect the Supreme Court's willingness to get involved, especially given the presence of three Trump-appointed justices. Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman noted the unusual breadth of Epstein's original deal might make this a poor case for setting a national precedent, despite its legal significance.Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from US Supreme Court | ReutersThe Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to implement major funding cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, arguing the cuts align with its broader effort to dismantle federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. A lower court had blocked the move in June, with U.S. District Judge William Young ruling that the cuts were unlawfully arbitrary and lacked clear justification, violating administrative law. The decision came after lawsuits from a coalition of researchers, public health groups, and 16 states led by Democratic administrations, who argued the grant cancellations were politically motivated and targeted research associated with DEI or gender identity.The administration contends that continuing to pay the $783 million in grants contradicts its policy goals. The Justice Department is also challenging the venue of the lawsuits, arguing they should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims, which specializes in monetary claims against the federal government. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected that argument, refusing to pause Judge Young's ruling.Judge Young, despite being a Reagan appointee, sharply criticized the administration's actions as lacking any rational explanation and as ideologically driven. He noted that officials failed to define DEI while broadly discrediting grant-supported research without evidence. Critics, including NIH employees and scientists, have warned that the cuts undermine scientific integrity and public health.The Supreme Court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, has been receptive to Trump administration appeals in similar cases. In April, it allowed comparable cuts to teacher training grants to proceed. The administration hopes for a similar result in this case.Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to allow NIH diversity-related cuts | ReutersGlass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), two leading proxy advisory firms, have filed lawsuits against Texas over a new state law restricting their ability to advise shareholders on environmental, social, governance (ESG), and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) matters. Proxy advisors provide independent recommendations to institutional investors—such as pension funds and asset managers—on how to vote on issues at shareholder meetings, including board elections, executive compensation, and corporate policies. This means their influence is significant in shaping corporate governance across markets.The new Texas law, signed by Governor Greg Abbott, requires these advisors to include disclaimers stating their recommendations may not be in the financial interest of shareholders and to back up ESG or DEI-related advice with financial analysis. Glass Lewis and ISS argue the law violates their First Amendment rights by forcing them to include government-mandated speech that contradicts their independent analysis and perspectives.Filed in federal court in Austin, the lawsuits name Attorney General Ken Paxton as the sole defendant. Both firms contend the law is politically motivated and will damage their reputations, cost them clients, and undermine shareholder oversight of corporate boards. ISS also criticized the law as serving to protect corporate executives from accountability, labeling it "anti-capitalist" and counter to shareholder interests.The legal challenge comes amid a broader rollback of corporate DEI programs nationwide and is part of a trend in Republican-led states to push back against what they see as left-leaning influence in financial decision-making. The law is scheduled to take effect on September 1, unless blocked by the court.Glass Lewis, ISS sue Texas over law limiting DEI, ESG proxy advice | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Enrique Granados.This week's closing theme is Granados' masterwork Goyescas, Op. 11, a piano suite composed in 1911 and widely regarded as the Spanish composer's magnum opus. Subtitled Los majos enamorados (The Gallants in Love), the suite captures the spirit and elegance of 18th-century Madrid, evoking a romanticized world of passionate young lovers, elaborate dress, and melancholic reverie. Granados drew inspiration from the art of Francisco Goya, though the individual pieces are not linked directly to specific paintings. Instead, they are tonal impressions—musical vignettes steeped in the colors and textures of Goya's Spain.Goyescas is divided into two books. Granados premiered Book I on March 11, 1911, at the Palau de la Música Catalana in Barcelona, showcasing his own virtuosic pianism. Book II followed in December of that year and was first performed in Paris at the Salle Pleyel on April 2, 1914. Each movement in the suite is rich with rhythmic flair, lyrical warmth, and emotional depth, capturing the elegance of Spanish courtship rituals and the melancholy undercurrents of unfulfilled longing.The suite's most famous piece, Quejas, o La Maja y el Ruiseñor (Lament, or The Maiden and the Nightingale), would later be famously echoed in the song “Bésame Mucho.” Granados' idiomatic use of ornamentation, rubato, and folkloric rhythms set a high watermark for Spanish piano music and influenced later composers such as Albéniz and Falla. Through Goyescas, Granados created a work that is both a tribute to Goya's vision and a deeply personal expression of turn-of-the-century Spanish romanticism.Without further ado, Enrique Granados' The Gallants in Love, the third movement, El Fandango del Candil. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

In the most recent developments surrounding Donald Trump's court trials, things have remained complex and charged with legal maneuvering. Starting with the situation in New York, the case known as The People for the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump saw a definitive moment early this year. On January 10, 2025, Judge Merchan issued a sentence in the case involving 34 counts of falsifying business records. This stemmed from charges brought by a Manhattan grand jury back in March 2023. The trial began in April 2024 and concluded with Trump being found guilty on all counts by a jury in May 2024. Notably, rather than imposing jail time, Judge Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, effectively ending that chapter of the criminal proceedings in New York City.Meanwhile, the federal case out of the Southern District of Florida took quite a different turn. This indictment, originally unsealed in mid-2023, accused Trump, along with aides Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, of multiple serious offenses including 32 counts of willfully retaining national defense information, along with obstruction of justice and making false statements. However, on July 15, 2024, Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the indictment, ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith had been improperly appointed and funded. Despite the Justice Department's initial plans to appeal this dismissal to the 11th Circuit Court, the appeal was later dropped in early 2025 for Trump and his co-defendants. This dismissal significantly stalled the federal government's efforts on that front.In Georgia, Fulton County prosecutors indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants on August 14, 2023, on charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. This case has been closely watched as it involves state-level allegations tied to election interference. Trump has pursued strategies to move the state charges into federal court, but as of late 2024, those efforts were unsuccessful. Appeals and motions continue to shape the battlefield there, showing that Georgia's legal drama remains active and ongoing.Adding dimension to the legal landscape, the federal courts recently allowed Trump's administration plans to move forward toward significant federal workforce reductions. On July 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed a federal judge's injunction against these reductions, signaling a judicial willingness to let the executive order proceed for now. This work force downsizing stems from an executive order Trump issued in February and marks continued legal engagement beyond just criminal trials.Throughout these parallel legal stories, Trump's persistent use of appeals and motions characterizes much of what's unfolding. From questions about the appointment of special counsels to multiple attempts to shift venues or delay proceedings, the legal strategy has been as important as the evidence itself. As these cases unfold in courtrooms from New York to Florida to Georgia, the nation watches a historic legal saga that could redefine presidential accountability.Thank you for tuning in to this update on the ongoing court trials involving Donald Trump. Be sure to come back next week for more insights. This has been a production of Quiet Please, and for more information, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

To what extent should UK judges anticipate the decisions of foreign courts when considering extradition requests? https://uklawweekly.substack.com/subscribe Music from bensound.com

This week on Fresh Tracks Weekly, we break down what's in the “Big Beautiful Bill” and how it impacts hunters and public land users—even without the controversial land sale provision. We also look ahead to next week's launch of Elk Week, where we'll be rolling out elk-focused content daily. News Stories Covered: – Wall Street Journal Opinion Piece: The WSJ Editorial Board criticized the removal of the public land sale from the bill, backing false claims about affordability and land use. – Wyoming Corner Crossing Case: A new petition has been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. – BLM Wild Horse Roundup Blocked: The 10th Circuit Court halted a planned roundup of 3,600 feral horses in southern Wyoming due to insufficient explanation on ecological balance. – Backcountry Lake Contamination: A lake in the Wind River Range showed fecal contamination 384x over safe swimming levels. – Solar Farms and Wildlife Displacement: A new study tracks pronghorn movement around a Wyoming solar facility and reveals how habitat use changes after construction—even beyond the fenced area. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Second Confiscation ActOn July 17, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Second Confiscation Act into law, dramatically expanding federal wartime powers during the Civil War. Building on a more limited first version passed in 1861, the new act authorized the seizure of property—particularly land and slaves—from individuals engaged in or supporting the rebellion. It declared that any Confederate supporter who did not surrender within sixty days would have their property “forfeited and seized” by the United States government. Crucially, the law applied even to those who had not been convicted in court, effectively bypassing traditional due process protections.One of the most controversial aspects was the emancipation provision: slaves of disloyal owners were to be “forever free.” While limited in scope—applying only to territories held by Union forces and to those enslaved by rebels—it marked a key moment in the legal evolution of emancipation as a war aim. Lincoln, a lawyer sensitive to constitutional boundaries, had reservations about the law's due process implications. To address these, he issued a “signing statement” urging that the law be enforced in a way that preserved judicial oversight where possible.Still, the act laid the legal groundwork for broader emancipation efforts, including the Emancipation Proclamation issued six months later. It also reflected increasing pressure from abolitionist Republicans in Congress who sought a more aggressive stance against the Confederacy. The Confiscation Act expanded the Union's legal toolkit for undermining Confederate infrastructure and punishing rebellion, though enforcement was often inconsistent on the ground. It pushed the boundaries of property rights and signaled a shift in federal authority during wartime.A U.S. appeals court appears likely to block the Trump administration's effort to revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants. During oral arguments on July 16, 2025, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the abrupt reversal of TPS protections just days after President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem took office. Judges expressed skepticism about the administration's rationale, particularly since the Biden administration had extended TPS protections until October 2026 only two weeks earlier.Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw questioned how conditions in Venezuela could have changed so significantly in such a short timeframe. Government attorney Drew Ensign argued that the Biden administration's extension was legally insufficient and that agencies have the authority to reconsider decisions. However, Judge Anthony Johnstone countered that policy changes must follow proper legal channels, not be masked as legal corrections. Judge Salvador Mendoza raised concerns that Noem and Trump's comments—some of which he described as “arguably racist”—might reflect racial bias in the policy shift.The TPS Alliance, represented by Ahilan Arulanantham, argued that federal law only allows revisions to TPS decisions for minor corrections, not full reversals. District Judge Edward Chen had already blocked the TPS termination in March, citing discriminatory motivations. The case affects Venezuelans who received TPS in 2023, with their status set to expire in April unless court protections remain in place. If the administration's policy holds, earlier TPS recipients from 2021 could also lose their status by September. Several other lawsuits have also challenged the termination of TPS for Venezuelans and Haitians.US judges skeptical of Trump ending Venezuelan migrants' legal status | ReutersNinth Circuit skeptical of Venezuelan immigration status terminations, despite SCOTUS block | Courthouse News ServiceThe U.S. Department of Justice has fired Maurene Comey, a prominent federal prosecutor and daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, without providing a clear reason. Comey had led high-profile prosecutions, including the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Jeffrey Epstein case and the recent case against music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. Two anonymous sources confirmed the dismissal and said Comey received a memo citing the president's Article II constitutional authority to remove federal employees.The move comes amid broader personnel changes at DOJ under the Trump administration, which recently reversed its position on releasing Epstein-related documents—an about-face that has frustrated Trump's supporters. Maurene Comey was part of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Manhattan and played a key role in Maxwell's 2022 conviction and sentencing. She also prosecuted Combs, who is currently in jail awaiting sentencing for transporting women for prostitution. Although jurors acquitted Combs of the most serious charges, he remains in custody.The dismissal of Comey follows a pattern of DOJ firings under Attorney General Pam Bondi, who recently terminated several prosecutors involved in investigations tied to Trump, including members of Special Counsel Jack Smith's team. James Comey, fired by Trump in 2017, is currently under investigation alongside former CIA Director John Brennan. Neither the DOJ nor Maurene Comey has commented on her termination.US DOJ fires federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, daughter of ex-FBI head James Comey | ReutersEx-FBI Chief James Comey's Daughter Ousted as Federal Prosecutor - BloombergTwenty U.S. states—mostly led by Democratic governors—filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from ending a federal grant program aimed at disaster prevention. The program, known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), was launched in 2018 to help fund infrastructure improvements that protect communities from natural disasters such as floods and wildfires. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues that FEMA acted beyond its legal authority when it terminated the program in April without congressional approval.The states, led by Washington and Massachusetts, assert that ending BRIC violates the separation of powers, as Congress explicitly funded the program and made disaster mitigation a key function of FEMA. They also contend that the decision-makers at FEMA—former acting director Cameron Hamilton and his successor David Richardson—were not lawfully appointed and therefore lacked authority to shut down the program.FEMA defended the decision by claiming the program had become wasteful and politicized, but bipartisan lawmakers criticized the move, especially given BRIC's importance to rural and tribal communities. Over the past four years, the program has awarded approximately $4.5 billion for nearly 2,000 projects, including flood walls, road improvements, and evacuation centers.The lawsuit comes amid scrutiny over FEMA's recent handling of deadly floods in Texas, which killed over 130 people, reinforcing concerns about cutting pre-disaster funding. The plaintiff states are seeking a preliminary injunction to reinstate the BRIC program while the case proceeds.Trump administration sued by US states for cutting disaster prevention grants | ReutersFEMA Sued By 20 States Over Cuts to Disaster Mitigation ProgramGeorge Retes, a 25-year-old U.S. citizen and Army veteran, says he was wrongfully detained for three days following an immigration raid at a cannabis farm in Camarillo, California. Retes, who works as a security guard at the site, described a violent arrest by federal agents during a chaotic scene involving protestors. He alleges that officers broke his car window, used tear gas on him, and restrained him forcefully, despite his repeated statements that he was a citizen and an employee.The raid was part of a broader immigration enforcement effort under the Trump administration, which began ramping up in June. Retes claims he was never told what he was being charged with and was taken to a downtown Los Angeles facility without explanation. He missed his daughter's third birthday while detained and now plans to sue the federal government.Immigrant rights groups have warned that U.S. citizens and legal residents are sometimes wrongly caught up in such raids. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Retes' arrest and release, stating that his case, among others, is under review by the U.S. Attorney's Office for potential federal charges. Retes condemned the treatment he received and called for greater accountability, saying no one—regardless of immigration status—should be subjected to such abuse.US citizen says he was jailed for three days after California immigration raid | 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

durée : 00:58:13 - On va déguster - par : François-Régis Gaudry - Chaque semaine des milliers de Français vont chercher leurs paniers de légumes et de produits bio, dans des AMAP (Associations pour le Maintien d'une Agriculture Paysanne). Ce concept a été importé des États-Unis en France par Daniel et Denise Vuillon, agriculteurs bio dans le Var. - réalisé par : Lauranne THOMAS Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

Employees at the General Services Administration appear poised to test Grok 3, the artificial intelligence tool built by Elon Musk's company xAI, according to a GitHub page referencing the agency's work. The GitHub page operated by GSA and its digital government group Technology Transformation Services references the Grok AI model as one it is testing and that the team is actively discussing as part of its 10x AI Sandbox. A GSA spokesperson told FedScoop in a response to an inquiry about the agency's work with Grok “GSA is evaluating the use of several top-tier AI solutions to empower agencies and our public servants to best achieve their goals. We welcome all American companies and models who abide by our terms and conditions.”A post from Tuesday shows what appears to be one GSA employee trying to access Grok 3 for testing, but struggling to do so. Several names of the people active on the GitHub page match those of workers affiliated with GSA. The 10x AI Sandbox project is described on GitHub as “a venture studio in collaboration with the General Services Administration (GSA). Its primary goal is to enable federal agencies to experiment with artificial intelligence (AI) in a secure, FedRAMP-compliant environment.” It continues: “By providing access to base models from leading AI companies and offering advanced UI features, the sandbox empowers agencies to test and validate new AI use cases efficiently.” The public version of the 10x AI Sandbox project page on GitHub was taken down after the publication of this story, redirecting now to a 404 error page. Interest in testing Grok comes as GSA continues to work on GSAi, an artificial intelligence tool built by the agency and meant to help employees access multiple AI models. At launch, the GSAi tool included access to several systems, including tools from Anthropic and Meta. Notably, Grok came under fire last week after promoting various antisemitic statements on the Musk-owned social media platform X. A top digital rights group is pushing back on the IRS's data-sharing agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, writing in a new court filing that the pact violates federal tax code and fails to take into account the real-world consequences of bulk data disclosure. In an amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that the “historical context” of the tax code section that ensures confidentiality of returns and return information “favors a narrow interpretation of disclosure provisions.” EFF also made the case for why the bulk disclosure of taxpayer information — in this case to Immigration and Customs Enforcement — is especially harmful due to “record linkage errors” that set the stage for “an increase in mistaken and dangerous ICE enforcement actions against taxpayers.” Nonprofit groups sued the Trump administration in March, shortly after the data-sharing deal between the IRS and ICE was announced. Soon after, the tax agency's then-acting commissioner resigned, reportedly in protest. In May, a Trump-appointed federal judge refused to block the agreement, allowing the IRS to continue delivering taxpayer data to ICE. The ruling, DHS said in a statement, was “a victory for the American people and for common sense.” As the D.C. Circuit Court considers the appeal, the Electronic Frontier Foundation wants to make sure that the “historical context” of tax and privacy law is taken into account. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

We begin on a positive note by welcoming a “doer,” citizen extraordinaire, Jon Merryman, who couldn't stand the trash, especially old tires, being dumped in his neighborhood. So, he took it upon himself to clean it up and has now expanded his efforts across the country. Then co-president of Public Citizen, Robert Weissman, joins us to explain how spending in the recent bill passed by the Republican controlled Congress prioritizes the Pentagon and deportation enforcement at the expense of the social safety net, essentially trading life for death.Jon Merryman was a software designer at Lockheed Martin, who after retiring found his true calling, cleaning up trash in every county in America.When I first started looking at the environment next to my place of work, one of the things I did uncover was tires. And they were definitely there from the '20s, the '30s, and the '40s, they've been there for decades. And then just after a while, the soil and the erosion just covers them up. And you just discover them, and you realize this has been going on forever.Jon MerrymanNature is innocent. It really doesn't deserve what we've given it. And I feel like someone's got to step up to undo what we've done.Jon MerrymanRobert Weissman is a staunch public interest advocate and activist, as well as an expert on a wide variety of issues ranging from corporate accountability and government transparency to trade and globalization, to economic and regulatory policy. As the Co-President of Public Citizen, he has spearheaded the effort to loosen the chokehold corporations, and the wealthy have over our democracy.The best estimates are that the loss of insurance and measures in this bill will cost 40,000 lives every year. Not once. Every year.Robert Weissman co-president of Public Citizen on the Budget BillPeople understand there's a rigged system. They understand that generally. They understand that with healthcare. But if you (the Democrats) don't name the health insurance companies as an enemy, as a barrier towards moving forward. You don't say United Health; you don't go after a Big Pharma, which is probably the most despised health sector in the economy, people don't think you're serious. And partially it's because you're not.Robert WeissmanNews 7/11/251. This week, the Financial Times published a stunning story showing the Tony Blair Institute – founded by the former New Labour British Prime Minister and Iraq War accomplice Tony Blair – “participated” in a project to “reimagine Gaza as a thriving trading hub.” This project would include a “Trump Riviera” and an “Elon Musk Smart Manufacturing Zone”. To accomplish this, the investors would pay half a million Palestinians to leave Gaza to open the enclave up for development – and that is just the tip of the harebrained iceberg. This scheme would also involve creating “artificial islands off the coast akin to those in Dubai, blockchain-based trade initiatives…and low-tax ‘special economic zones'.” The development of this plot is somewhat shadowy. The FT story names a, “group of Israeli businessmen…including tech investor Liran Tancman and venture capitalist Michael Eisenberg,” who helped establish the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in February 2025. GHF has been accused of using supposed aid distribution sites as “death traps,” per France 24. Boston Consulting Group, also named in the FT story, strongly disavowed the project, as did the Tony Blair Institute.2. In more positive news related to Gaza, the National Education Association – the largest labor union in the United States – voted this week to sever ties with the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL, once an important group safeguarding the civil rights and wellbeing of American Jews, has completely abandoned its historic mission and has instead devoted its considerable resources to trying to crush the anti-Zionist movement. The NEA passed a resolution stating that the NEA “will not use, endorse, or publicize materials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), such as its curricular materials or statistics,” because, “Despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be.” Labor Notes writes that the ADL “has been a ubiquitous presence in U.S. schools for forty years, pushing curriculum, direct programming, and teacher training into K-12 schools and increasingly into universities.” One NEA delegate, Stephen Siegel, said from the assembly floor, “Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change.”3. Another major labor story from this week concerns sanitation workers in Philadelphia. According to the Delaware News Journal, AFSCME District Council 33 has reached a deal with the city to raise wages for their 9,000 workers by 9% over three years. The union went on strike July 1st, resulting in, “massive piles of trash piling up on city streets and around trash drop-off sites designated by the city,” and “changes to the city's annual Fourth of July concert with headliner LL Cool J and city native Jazmine Sullivan both dropping out,” in solidarity with the striking workers, per WHYY. The deal reached is a major compromise for the union, which was seeking a 32% total pay increase, but they held off on an extended trash pickup strike equivalent to 1986 strike, which went on for three weeks and left 45,000 tons of rotting garbage in the streets, per ABC.4. Yet another labor story brings us to New York City. ABC7 reports the United Federation of Teachers has endorsed Democratic Socialist – and Democratic Party nominee – Zohran Mamdani for mayor. This report notes “UFT is the city's second largest union…[with] 200,000 members.” Announcing the endorsement, UFT President Michael Mulgrew stated, “This is a real crisis and it's a moment for our city, and our city is starting to speak out very loudly…The voters are saying the same thing, 'enough is enough.' The income gap disparity is above…that which we saw during the Gilded Age." All eyes now turn to District Council 37, which ABC7 notes “endorsed Council speaker Adrienne Adams in the primary and has yet to endorse in the general election.”5. The margin of Mamdani's victory, meanwhile, continues to grow as the Board of Elections updates its ranked choice voting tallies. According to the conservative New York Post, Zohran has “won more votes than any other mayoral candidate in New York City primary election history.” Mamdani can now boast having won over 565,000 votes after 102,000 votes were transferred from other candidates. Not only that, “Mamdani's totals are expected to grow as…a small percent of ballots are still being counted.”6. Meanwhile, scandal-ridden incumbent New York City Mayor Eric Adams has yet another scandal on his hands. The New York Daily News reports, “Four high-ranking former NYPD chiefs are suing Mayor Adams, claiming they were forced to retire from the department after complaining that his ‘unqualified' friends were being placed in prestigious police positions, sometimes after allegedly bribing their way into the jobs.” Former Police Commissioner Edward Caban, who was already forced to resign in disgrace amidst a federal corruption investigation, features prominently in this new lawsuit. Among other things, Caban is alleged to have been “selling promotions” to cops for up to $15,000. Adams is running for reelection as an independent, but trails Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani and disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo.7. Turning to the federal government, as the U.S. disinvests in science and technology, a new report published in the Financial Times finds that, “Almost three-quarters of all solar and wind power projects being built globally are in China.” According to the data, gathered by Global Energy Monitor, “China is building 510 gigawatts of utility-scale solar and wind projects… [out of] 689GW under construction globally.” As this report notes, one gigawatt can potentially supply electricity for about one million homes. This report goes on to say that, “China is expected to add at least 246.5GW of solar and 97.7GW of wind this year,” on top of the “1.5 terawatts of solar and wind power capacity up and running as of the end of March.” In the first quarter of 2025, solar and wind accounted for 22.5% of China's total electricity consumption; in 2023, solar and wind accounted for around 14% of electricity consumption in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.8. Developments this week put two key rules promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission under former Chair Lina Khan in jeopardy. First and worse, NPR reports the Republican-controlled FTC is abandoning a rule which would have banned non-compete clauses in employment contracts. These anti-worker provisions “trap workers and depress wages,” according to Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who has introduced legislation to ban them by statute. Perhaps more irritatingly however, Reuters reports the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis has blocked the so-called “click to cancel” rule just days before it was set to take effect. This rule would have, “required retailers, gyms and other businesses to provide cancellation methods for subscriptions, auto-renewals and free trials that convert to paid memberships that are ‘at least as easy to use' as the sign up process.” A coalition of corporate interests sued to block the rule, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a trade group representing major cable and internet providers such as Charter Communications, Comcast and Cox Communications along with media companies like Disney and Warner Bros. Discovery. Lina Khan decried “Firms…making people jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription, trapping Americans in needless bureaucracy and wasting their time & money.”9. In another betrayal of consumers, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to break promises and speak out of both sides of his mouth. A new report in NPR documents RFK Jr. speaking at a conference in April, where he “spoke about the health effects of exposure to harmful chemicals in our food, air and water…[and] cited recent research on microplastics from researchers in Oregon, finding these tiny particles had shown up in 99% of the seafood they sampled.” Yet Susanne Brander, the author of the study, had gotten word just an hour earlier that “a federal grant she'd relied on to fund her research for years…was being terminated.” Brander is quoted saying "It feels like they are promoting the field while ripping out the foundation." Ripping out the foundation of this research is felt acutely, as “regulators are weakening safeguards that limit pollution and other toxic chemicals.” So Mr. Secretary, which is more important – stopping the proliferation of microplastics or slashing funding for the very scientists studying the issue?10. Finally, in Los Angeles masked federal troops are marauding through the streets on horseback, sowing terror through immigrant communities, per the New York Times. President Trump mobilized approximately 4,000 National Guard members – putting them under federal control – alongside 700 Marines in response to protests against immigration raids in June. As the Times notes, “It has been more than three weeks since the last major demonstration in downtown Los Angeles,” but the federal forces have not been demobilized. While some have dismissed the shows of force as nothing more than stunts designed to fire up the president's base, Gregory Bovino, a Customs and Border Protection chief in Southern California told Fox News “[LA] Better get used to us now, cause this is going to be normal very soon.” As LA Mayor Karen Bass put it, “What I saw…looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation…It's the way a city looks before a coup.”This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Like it or not, Todd and Julie Chrisley are out of prison, way ahead of schedule, thanks to President Trump's pardon. It seems like the short 28 months they did spend in federal prison didn't do much to change their narrative, however. Just two days after Todd and Julie's release from their respective prisons, Todd held a press conference where he proclaimed that he was convicted of something he didn't do, and that there was a tremendous amount of misconduct by the government during the investigation and trial. This, even though the district court judge who oversaw their trial didn't buy the Chrisleys' allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, the jury certainly didn't hear any proof of it, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals also didn't find that there was misconduct on the government's part… or on the part of the district court judge who oversaw the trial. The Chrisleys have already done a few sit-down interviews, and have had cameras filming their every move since the moment they exited prison. There's also a new TV show set to release this year, and hints of others to come. Will viewers be able to see through the lies and manipulation, particularly in the interviews the Chrisleys have done recently? Will Todd and Julie be able to win back their reality TV following and line their pockets with millions as if none of this ever happened, or will America wise up, see through their bullsh*t, and finally send the Chrisleys into obscurity? Follow Jami Rice on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube @JamiOnAir to keep up with true crime cases she's weighing in on. Check out Jami's other true crime podcast, MURDERISH, which is available in all podcast apps. Dirty Money Moves is a collaboration between MURDERISH and Cloud10 Media. Executive Producers are: Jami Rice and Sim Sarna Research and writing by: Gina Mazzolini  If you enjoy Dirty Money Moves, please do us a favor and give the podcast a 5-star rating and review in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or any podcast player. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Richard and Mildred Loving ArrestedOn this day in legal history, July 11, 1958, Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested in Central Point, Virginia, for violating the state's Racial Integrity Act, which banned interracial marriage. The couple had legally wed in Washington, D.C., but upon returning to Virginia, they were charged with "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth." Richard, a white man, and Mildred, a Black and Indigenous woman, pled guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, suspended on the condition that they leave the state for 25 years.The Lovings relocated to Washington, D.C., but their desire to return home ultimately led to a pivotal civil rights case. In 1963, they wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who referred them to the ACLU. Attorneys Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop took up their case, arguing that Virginia's law violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After years of legal battles, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court unanimously struck down laws banning interracial marriage, declaring that "the freedom to marry… may not be infringed by the State." Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that Virginia's law served no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The decision invalidated similar laws in 15 other states.The Lovings never sought to become civil rights icons—they simply wanted to live as a married couple in their home state. Their quiet determination reshaped American constitutional law, affirming marriage as a fundamental right and setting a legal precedent that continues to influence equal protection jurisprudence.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily paused a lower court ruling that had blocked President Donald Trump's executive order removing collective bargaining rights for large segments of the federal workforce. U.S. District Judge James Donato had issued the initial injunction in June, finding the executive order likely violated federal employees' First Amendment rights and targeted unions viewed as adversarial to Trump. The appeals court's administrative stay keeps the order in limbo while it considers the administration's appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for July 17.Trump's order affects 21 federal agencies and would make it easier to discipline or fire employees while restricting union challenges. The order notably broadened national security exceptions to collective bargaining beyond intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI. Unions argue the move is retaliatory and affects many workers who don't handle national security matters.Earlier, a Washington, D.C. judge blocked the same order at seven agencies, including the DOJ and Treasury, but that ruling is also stayed pending appeal. The Trump administration has also filed lawsuits to void existing union contracts, though one such suit by the Treasury was dismissed for lack of standing. A related case remains pending in Texas.US court pauses block on Trump eliminating union bargaining for federal workers | ReutersThe White House is currently reviewing federal agency layoff plans following a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits large-scale downsizing of the government workforce. Two senior officials confirmed the review is aimed at minimizing future legal challenges by ensuring all plans comply with congressional rules and civil service regulations. Coordination is being handled through the White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Personnel Management. Although no specific timeline has been announced, officials say the layoffs are an "immediate priority," with a goal to reduce the size of government swiftly.The ruling, welcomed by the Trump administration, allows agencies to act on plans developed earlier this year under the guidance of the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk. However, the administration acknowledged that labor contracts and due process protections still apply, and lawsuits are expected even if legal thresholds are met.The State Department has already confirmed it will begin issuing termination notices imminently, having proposed nearly 2,000 job cuts in May. Overall, about 260,000 federal employees have already exited through firings, resignations, or early retirements since January. The layoffs are expected to affect more than a dozen departments, including Agriculture, Commerce, and Veterans Affairs.White House reviews mass federal layoff plans, aims for swift action | ReutersMahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and permanent U.S. resident, has filed a $20 million claim against the Trump administration, alleging false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist, was detained for over 100 days by immigration authorities who accused him of undermining U.S.–Israel relations. His legal team submitted the claim under federal rules requiring damages claims to be filed before a lawsuit. Homeland Security dismissed the claim as "absurd," defending its actions as lawful.Khalil argues his arrest was politically motivated, targeting him for his pro-Palestinian speech, and says he would accept an official apology and a policy change as an alternative to monetary compensation. He was released on bail in June after a federal judge ruled his detention violated his First Amendment rights. The case has drawn widespread attention from civil rights and Palestinian advocacy groups, who accuse the administration of equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.Trump has publicly pledged to deport foreign students participating in anti-Israel protests, and Khalil was the first high-profile detainee under this initiative. His lawyers continue to challenge his deportation, and the administration has six months to respond to his compensation claim.Mahmoud Khalil seeks $20 million from Trump administration over immigration arrest | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by George Gershwin.This week's closing theme is dedicated to one of America's most iconic composers—George Gershwin, who died on July 11, 1937, at just 38 years old. Though his life was short, Gershwin's musical legacy is vast, bridging the worlds of classical music and jazz with unprecedented flair. His compositions resonate with a distinctively American voice, and no piece captures that better than Rhapsody in Blue. Premiered in 1924, the work opens with a now-famous clarinet glissando and bursts into a vibrant, restless energy that seems to embody the optimism and chaos of early 20th-century New York.Commissioned by bandleader Paul Whiteman, Rhapsody in Blue was Gershwin's first major attempt to merge classical form with jazz idioms. What emerged was a concerto-like work that thrilled audiences and critics alike and marked the beginning of serious recognition for jazz as a concert-hall art form. Gershwin performed the piano solo himself at the premiere, having written much of it in a hurry and leaving some sections to be improvised on the spot.His sudden death from a brain tumor shocked the music world. It cut short the career of a composer who had already revolutionized American music and was poised to do much more. In works like Porgy and Bess and An American in Paris, Gershwin demonstrated a rare ability to synthesize European traditions with American vernacular music. But Rhapsody in Blue remains his most enduring testament—a collision of elegance, innovation, and vitality.As we reflect on Gershwin's passing this week, we close with Rhapsody in Blue, a work that continues to pulse with life nearly a century after its premiere. Its blend of bluesy lyricism and orchestral sweep makes it a fitting tribute to a composer whose voice was silenced too soon.Without further ado, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Join us for this special episode featuring Judge Janice Rogers Brown (U.S. Circuit Court for D.C, ret.). Her remarks, given in 2023 as she received the James Wilson Leadership & the Law Award, comment on the need for judicial courage and fortitude, especially for those who take the Natural Law seriously.

Sherrill L. Rosen is a retired Missouri Circuit Court Commissioner who served with distinction in the 16th Judicial Circuit, based in the Eastern Jackson County Courthouse. With a legal career spanning a decade, Commissioner Rosen was widely respected for her commitment to family law and her tireless advocacy for survivors of domestic violence. Born in Denver, Colorado, and raised in St. Louis, Missouri, Rosen earned a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Colorado at Boulder at just 20 years old. She went on to receive her law degree from the University of Missouri School of Law in 1978. Rosen began her legal career at Legal Aid of Western Missouri, where she represented survivors of domestic violence. She played a key role in drafting and lobbying for Missouri's first adult abuse statute, laying the groundwork for stronger protections for abuse victims across the state. She later transitioned to private practice, continuing her focus on family law. In 1994, she was appointed as a Family Court Commissioner, where she presided over contested family law cases and a truancy court program. Throughout her judicial tenure, she was recognized for her integrity, compassion, and unwavering commitment to justice. She also served as a guardian ad litem.Her contributions have been honored by the Kansas City Bar Association and Missouri Lawyers Weekly, reflecting her impact both in the courtroom and in the broader legal community. Now retired, Commissioner Rosen leaves behind a legacy of advocacy, service, and leadership in Missouri's family court system. https://www.kcjc.com/current-news/top-stories/9963-sherrill-rosen-transformer-of-missouri-family-law-retires-after-46-yearsAdvocating Justice: The Legal BattleWelcome to Illuminating Hope, a podcast of Hope House. In the series Advocating Justice: The Legal Battle, we dive into the legal battles that shape the fight for domestic violence survivors. In each episode, we bring you powerful conversations with the legal teams, court advocates, and changemakers working tirelessly to bring justice, protection, and hope to survivors of domestic violence.From the courtroom to policy changes, from survivor rights to legal strategies, we uncover the critical role the justice system plays in breaking cycles of abuse. Whether you're a survivor, advocate, or someone passionate about justice, this podcast series will empower and inform you."Justice isn't just about the law—it's about giving survivors a voice, protection, and a future.Hosts: MaryAnne Metheny, Ilene Shehan and Tina JohnsonIf you are in an emergency, call or text 9-1-1.For information about our services and how Hope House can help, call our 24-Hour Hotline at 816-461-HOPE (4673) or the National Domestic Violence Hotline 800-799-7233.hopehouse.net

On our season 6 finale, Amanda Tyler and Holly Hollman explore some of the consequential decisions from the final days of the Supreme Court term, including Mahmoud v. Taylor – which involves parents who want to opt their children out of curriculum they find in conflict with their religious beliefs – and U.S. v. Skrmetti, which focuses on access to medical care for transgender youth. They discuss the real world implications of these and other recent rulings. Amanda and Holly also celebrate a decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals striking down Louisiana's law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom and share why this case might find its way up to the Supreme Court before too long.     SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): Recent activities and news For the latest on the budget reconciliation bill and ways to make your voice known, visit BJConline.org/budgetbill2025   Segment 2 (starting at 07:01): A federal court decision and a Supreme Court case with far-reaching implications Roake v. Brumley is the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case that struck down the Louisiana law mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Read more about the decision and BJC's brief on our website: Federal appeals court finds Louisiana's Ten Commandments law unconstitutional as Texas enacts a similar measure Trump v. CASA is the case often called the “birthright citizenship” case that is about national injunctions. Amanda and Holly recommended listening to the oral arguments and reading the decision and the dissent. All are available on the Supreme Court's website.    Segment 3 (starting at 19:07): The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor and its potential impact Amanda and Holly discussed oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor in episode 15 of season 6. You can read the decision and the dissent on the Supreme Court's website. Holly mentioned this piece on the case from Religion News Service: ‘We were called book burners': Families react to SCOTUS LGBTQ+ books decision   Segment 4 (starting 46:13): U.S. v. Skrmetti and what's ahead for the Court Amanda and Holly discussed U.S. v. Skrmetti in episode 6 of season 6. You can read the decision and the dissent on the Supreme Court's website. For more on the case involving the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that the Supreme Court will hear this fall, read this piece by Adam Liptak for The New York Times: Supreme Court to Hear Rastafarian Prisoner's Suit Over Shaved Dreadlocks Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – Like the Nuns in New York who are suing the state for requiring them to provide abortion in their employee healthcare. Or the case where the United States sued the State of Tennessee for banning sexual identity procedures on minors. Or the right of the States of Oklahoma and Utah to have their case against the EPA heard in their Circuit Court rather than...

As a result of a new ruling by a California appeals court, the people's First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly suffered a setback. The rule of law suffered a setback. Justice suffered a setback.The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left a stay in place, blocking the trial court's order that Trump must turn control of the California National Guard back to Governor Gavin Newsom.Fortunately, the ruling is a temporary/interim ruling and the case is far from over.Glenn discusses some of the unfortunate aspects of this ruling, including how Trump gets to create chaos and confusion in California and then uses that chaos as a pretext to order the military into the streets of California. No court should endorse such a transparent ruse and abuse of power.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A week ago, E. Jean Carroll beat Trump in his appeal of the $5 million jury award in one of her defamation cases. Now, Ms. Carroll has won another victory in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in her $83.3 million defamation case against Trump. Specifically, the court rejected AG Bondi and the DOJ's attempt to get Trump out of the case and insert the DOJ into the case as the defendant. Glenn discusses the importance of this court loss for Trump/Bondi/&the DOJ. One wonders if Trump is second-guessing the wisdom of making Bondi his Attorney General when Bondi's DOJ is losing Trump-related cases in court an overwhelming majority of the time.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It's Tuesday, June 24th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson and Adam McManus Syrian suicide bomber A suicide bomber entered an Orthodox Church in Damascus, Syria on Sunday killing 22 people and wounding at least 63 others, reports ABC News. The ISIS terrorist group has claimed responsibility. No increased nuclear radiation levels after U.S. bombing in Iran The International Atomic Energy Agency reports no increase in off-site radiation levels at the three Iranian sites bombed by the United States and Israel. The neighboring Kuwait government has also confirmed that “no abnormal radiation levels have been detected in any of the member states.” The whereabouts of 400 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium in Iran is still a mystery. Israel bombed Iran's Evin Prison Israel continues its bombardment on Iran, including a bombing of the notorious Evin prison, where a number of Christians are held, and have been tortured over the last several decades. Trump: Israel & Iran agreed to cease-fire to end “12-Day War” On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a cease-fire, declaring an end to what he referred to as “The 12 Day War,” reports The Epoch Times. In a Truth Social Post, Trump wrote,  “It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE … for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered ENDED!” Both sides will wind down their final military operations within 12 hours, beginning what Trump expects to be “PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL” on both sides. The conflict will be declared over within 24 hours. However, The New York Times indicated that there is no confirmation yet from Israel and Iran. Russia bombed Ukraine with 16 missiles and 352 drones The Russian army unleashed a heavy bombardment on Kiev, Ukraine yesterday involving 352 drones and 16 missiles, reports Reuters. At least 10 Ukrainians died in the attack. This follows another attack last week which killed 28 people.  Zelensky assassination plot foiled Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was the target of an assassination plot to be carried out by a Polish elderly man who had first been recruited by the Soviet Union decades ago, reports Newsweek. The man was activated to take out Zelensky at Poland's Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport using either a first-person view drone or a sniper rifle. The would-be assassin was a firm believer in Soviet ideology. The assassination plot was foiled by a joint effort of Ukraine's SBU, the main internal security agency, and the Polish internal security service known as ABW. Americans less isolationist Americans are moving away from isolationism according to a recent survey by the Ronald Reagan Institute. In the last three years, Americans who believe the United States should be more engaged in international events has seen a 24% increase. Specifically, 69% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, and 73% of MAGA/Trump Republicans want to see more engagement internationally. A supermajority of Americans – 84% -- state their support for preventing the Islamic Republic from gaining access to nuclear weapons. Only 57% of Americans would agree with the statement that “the United States is better served by withdrawing from international events and focusing on problems here at home.” The major shift in American opinions on this has occurred since the November election.  Russia economy expanded by 4.3% last year Despite international pressures, the Russian economy expanded by 4.3% last year. This compares to a 1.1% bump for the United Kingdom, and a 2.8% bump for the U.S. economy last year. Supreme Court temporarily allows deportations to third countries In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court temporarily lifted a lower court order blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal immigrants to so-called third countries to which they have no connection, reports The Epoch Times. The unsigned order came in the case known as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. Michigan church shooting prevented   A heavily-armed man attempted a massacre at the Wayne, Michigan Crosspointe Community Church, reports CBS News. Thankfully, he didn't make it into the building. A parishioner rammed him with his truck, and the security team engaged him in the parking lot.  The suspect was pronounced dead when police arrived on the scene. One security guard took a shot in the leg. Based on national news sources, there are 1-2 church shootings per year in this country. That's 1 out of 380,000 churches.  Psalm 27:1-2 is always the right mindset. It says, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; Of whom shall I be afraid?  When the wicked came against me to eat up my flesh, my enemies and foes, they stumbled and fell.” Ohio pro-life legislators want to protect babies from conception Several Ohio legislators are floating a bill that outlaws the willful murder of a child from the point of conception. The "Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act,” introduced by state Representatives Levi Dean and Johnathan Newman, would overturn the 2023 referendum amendment that legalized abortion in Ohio.  In Psalm 22, the psalmist confesses, “You … took me out of the womb; You made me trust while on my mother's breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. from my mother's womb You have been my God.”  Older Americans more likely to have Biblical worldview George Barna's 2025 American Worldview Inventory report has been released and he concludes that only 1% of adults under 30 have a Biblical worldview. That compares with 5% for adults over 50, and 8% for adults over 65. Also, 69% of young Gen Z Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable. That's up from 60% for the Gen X and Boomer generations. Then, 73% of Gen Zers agree that sex outside of marriage is okay.  That's up from 59% with the Boomer Generation.  Fifth Circuit deems Louisiana Ten Commandments law unconstitutional The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Louisiana's law requiring the posting of The Ten Commandments in public schools, reports Courthouse News Service. The Louisiana law required schools which receive public funding to post a framed copy of The 10 Commandments in the classrooms. Observatory identified and photographed 10 million galaxies The Rubin Observatory, located in South America's Andes Mountain, has completed its first 10 hours of operation and identified 2,104 new asteroids never seen before, and photographed 10 million galaxies, reports the BBC. The observatory features a 28-foot telescope and an ultra-wide, ultra-high definition camera.  Sperm donor passed cancer gene to 67 children In other science news, a sperm donor in Europe has passed a cancer gene on to 67 children. Already, at least ten of the children have signs of cancer, all of them born between 2008 and 2015. The case was discussed at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Edwige Kasper, a specialist in genetic predisposition to cancer at the Rouen University Hospital in Rouen, France, said, “The variant would have been practically undetectable in 2008 when the individual started to donate sperm.” U.S. housing prices spike Housing prices in the U.S. are still reaching record highs. The median price of homes sold last month was $423,000, up 1.3% from May of 2024. 7 Worldview listeners gave $2,828.30  to fund our annual budget And finally, toward our final $123,500 goal by Monday, June 30th to fully fund The Worldview annual budget for our 6-member team, 7 listeners stepped up to the plate. Our thanks to Nathan in Cleveland, Tennessee who gave $25, N.B. in Ripon, North Yorkshire, England who gave $30, and Logan and Bianca in Manzini, Eswatini, Africa who gave $70. And we're grateful to God for Gloria in  Westminster, Colorado who gave $103.30, Payton in Georgetown, Texas who pledged $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600, Amy in Eldorado, Wisconsin who gave $1,000, and Pamela in Sierra Madre, California who also gave $1,000. Those 7 Worldview listeners gave a total of $2,828.30. Ready for our new grand total? Drum roll please.  (Drum roll sound effect) $65,401.55 (People clapping and cheering sound effect)  Still need to raise $58,098.45!  Looking for 9 Super Donors! That means by this coming Monday, June 30th, we need to raise a whopping $58,098.45 in just 7 days.  Oh my!  I've got butterflies in my stomach. Is there 1 businessperson who could donate $10,000?  3 businesspeople who could give $5,000?  5 businesspeople who could contribute $2,500? If so, those donations would total $37,500. Then we would need another 8 people to pledge $100/month for 12 months for a gift of $1,200.  And another 16 people to pledge $50/month for 12 months for a gift of $600? Please, go to TheWorldview.com and click on Give on the top right.  If you want to make it a monthly pledge, click on the recurring tab. If everybody does something – no matter how big or small – we will knock this relatively modest budget out of the park. Attention donors from this year: Send email urging others to donate! Lastly, I would love to feature a 2-3 sentence email from those who have already given this year, whose names I will not cite, with your encouragement for your fellow listeners to consider a last minute gift.  Just include your city and state send it to Adam@TheWorldview.com Speak from your heart about why you gave and why you would urge others to join you to fund The Worldview in 5 Minutes. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, June 24th, in the year of our Lord 2025.  Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

In This Hour:-- Incredibly, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down California's gun rationing (only 1 gun in 30 days) law.--  What's the best upgrade for an AR-15?--  A man shoots up a Michigan church only to be run over by a deacon and then shot to death by a church security guard.Gun Talk 06.22.25 Hour 3Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/gun-talk--6185159/support.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump can maintain control of the National Guard in California. The King County Housing Authority could be facing cuts from the federal government. Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson performed a shockingly bad anti-Trump version of Jimi Hendrix’s song “Hey Joe.” // Jason made a guest appearance on CNN and lived to tell the tale. The world waits to see if the United States will get involved in Iran. // The Oregon legislature invited a black drag show to perform at the opening ceremony of the legislative session. ‘The View’ is blaming Sunny Hostin for Kamala Harris’s election loss.

In today’s live edition of the Trish Regan Show — MAJOR headlines breaking right now:

The 9th Circuit Court rules President Trump DOES have command over the National Guard after California governor Gavin Newsom sued to remove the control from him. Newsom digs himself a bigger hole with another stupid tweet. New data suggests republicans who go up against Trump suffer greatly in polls and JD Vance addresses the people of East Palestine, Ohio: You are Not Forgotten. Vance unveils a new $10M initiative to study the long-term effects of the toxic train derailment. Good News will make you cry. 

In today’s LIVE Trish Regan Show: We break down the escalating legal battle over Trump’s authority to federalize the National Guard, as the 9th Circuit Court takes up the case. This is a major moment in the fight between state power and federal control—and the implications are huge for California and beyond. Plus—AOC has a MELTDOWN on Capitol Hill, and Trish draws a surprising comparison between Barack Obama in 2013 and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem today… are their messages more similar than the media wants you to believe? Later, Trish welcomes Rep. Bill Huizenga from the House Financial Services Committee to talk about the future of crypto regulation—what YOU need to know now as the government moves in. And in a wild culture moment: a singer defies the Dodgers and performs the National Anthem in Spanish—Trish shares her reaction and then her own rendition of the National Anthem. Oh...and there's more: Trish Regan sings, 'America The Beautiful.' It's a patriotic day here on the Trish Regan channel! Don't miss it—subscribe now and join the conversation. Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks: ▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join