Podcasts about Civil Rights Act

What if the very institutions designed to educate and empower were also places where harm could quietly thriveIn this powerful and eye-opening episode, I sit down with Julie Cruse—writer, inventor, instructional designer, and author of The Burn List: A Memoir of Abuse from Home to Higher Education. Julie has been recognized by Dance Magazine as a “pioneer of computational choreography,” and her work spans over two decades across Ivy League, public, and community colleges. With more than 30 grants and honors, including a National Science Foundation fellowship, her accomplishments are remarkable—but her story is also deeply sobering.Julie courageously shares her journey from an abusive childhood into a prolonged experience of academic exploitation. Across seven universities, she faced grooming, harassment, and retaliation from faculty—experiences that ultimately forced her out of her PhD program and academic career.What Is Academic Abuse?Academic abuse is often hidden in plain sight. It can include:Grooming and manipulation by those in positions of authorityHarassment and coercionRetaliation when boundaries are set or complaints are madeDespite protections like Title IX and Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), these issues persist—making awareness and advocacy more important than ever.Key Takeaways from This Episode✨ Why some students are more vulnerable Julie explains how factors like isolation, power imbalance, and a desire to succeed can make students easier targets.✨ How to protect yourself Practical, empowering advice including:Set clear boundariesAvoid being alone with faculty in private settingsKeep detailed records of interactions (dates, times, events)✨ What to do if harassment occurs There is often a required process and hierarchy of reporting. Understanding the steps ahead of time can help you navigate the system more effectively.✨ Why this conversation matters Silence allows abuse to continue. Open conversations help validate survivors, create accountability, and drive change.A Safe Place to Be HeardJulie has created a survivor-led platform at Academic Abuse where individuals can:Share their stories in a safe, supportive environmentAccess resources for healingResearch documented cases of abuse at specific universitiesIf you or someone you know has experienced discrimination or abuse in higher education, this platform offers both validation and support.Connect with JulieWebsite: Julie Cruse official website https://www.juliecruse.com/Advocacy Platform: Academic Abuse https://www.academicabuse.com/  Final ThoughtsThis episode is a courageous step toward shining light on a difficult but critical issue. By speaking openly about academic abuse, we can better protect students, support survivors, and work toward meaningful change in higher education.If this episode resonated with you, please share it with someone who might benefit.And don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review Linda's Corner to help spread more hope, healing, and awareness.Listen, Share, and SupportIf this episode resonated with you, please share it with someone who may need hope today.Be sure to subscribe, leave a rating and review, and help us spread more healing and inspiration to the world.Free Resource for HealingIf you're ready to release stress, calm your mind, and begin healing from within, visit:

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Story of the Week (DR):SuperBroIpoDystopia: Some key facts: MMa record-breaking $135 per share with$1.8T valuationTo make that math make sense, analysts estimate the company needs to grow its sales by 50% every single year for the next decadeSpaceX lost $4.9B last yearWall Street is Being Treated Like Order-Takers: Musk pre-set the IPO price strictly at $135 and dictating exactly which investors got allocations. This forced major investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to act as glorified order-takers without even knowing their exact compensation beforehandSaudi Aramco $1.7T; Alibaba: $237B; Facebook $118BNasdaq aggressively pushed through "fast-entry" rule changes specifically to allow mega-caps like SpaceX to bypass the traditional year of seasoning and enter the Nasdaq-100 in just 15 trading days. This forces passive index funds to buy in blindly to avoid tracking errorsMeme stocker bros: $100B in share orders30% of $75B offering is earmarked for individual retail investors. This effectively shifts late-stage, hyper-inflated valuation risk away from institutions and onto the public.BlackRock $5BInstitutional investors admitted that when they bought into SpaceX privately, they were given high-level revenue figures but were denied a copy of the actual balance sheet—an unprecedented lack of transparency for a company raising tens of billionsUniversity of Washington more than 10% of its $17B in assetsUNC about 10%SpaceX will make $75B in proceedsSaudi Aramco $26B; Alibaba $22BElon Musk's Absolute Voting Tyranny (80% of voting power)personal net worth has officially skyrocketed past $1.1TSpaceX's foundational scale was built on the back of the American public, securing over $20 billion in U.S. federal government contracts to fund its rocket developmentAntonio Gracias: personally lent Musk $1M to keep him afloat; his PE firm Valor gave $76MThat $1M lifeline and early institutional backing from 2008 have compounded into what analysts are calling the most lucrative return on a personal favor in business history.The Second-Largest Shareholder: Through various Valor entities, Gracias controls roughly 7.3% of SpaceX's Class A stock (more than 500 million shares)Gracias's stake is officially worth anywhere from $91B to over $140BThis single corporate listing instantly catapults Gracias into the ranks of the world's 50 richest people.The big party: combined valuation of $3.6TAnthropic ($965B) filed confidentially on June 1OpenAI ($1T) filed confidentially on June 8"We have not decided on timing yet; it may be a while because there are things we want to do that are likely easier as a private company. But it's a complicated set of tradeoffs, and this gives us the option to go public sooner if that ends up being best."What does it all amount to? 4 horrible objectives:Funding a Sci-Fi Passion Project with Public CashBecoming the Pentagon's Irreplaceable War MachineForget the folksy narrative that Starlink is just for connecting rural schools or isolated communities: SpaceX is systematically turning itself into the ultimate military contractorProject Starshield: Those satellites are the foundation for a highly classified, militarized version of the network designed for government surveillance, secure communications, and real-time battlefield tracking.Too Big to Regulate: By launching the vast majority of the world's payloads and controlling the dominant orbital communications network, SpaceX is making the U.S. military entirely dependent on its hardware. The ultimate point is to become so deeply embedded in national defense that the government can never afford to regulate, penalize, or dismantle Musk's empireAn Orbital Real Estate Land GrabBuilding a Borderless, Lawless EmpireSpaceX is attempting to build a tech infrastructure that exists entirely outside the jurisdiction of EarthUltimately, SpaceX isn't trying to save humanity from a dying Earth; it's trying to ensure that whoever controls Earth's future has to pay rent to Elon MuskIran threatens Elon Musk's companies in Middle East: Iranian state mediaAll of Elon Musk's companies in the Middle East are military targets for Iran as it retaliates against the U.S., Iranian state media outlet Fars reported.The targets include a regional Starlink ground station, according to Fars.Sen. Warren calls on SEC to delay SpaceX IPO, flagging concerns about valuation and governanceThe letter to the heads of the Nasdaq, S&P Dow Jones Indices, FTSE Russell and Morningstar Indexes sent on Thursday asked the companies whether they had made or considered rule changes based on lobbying from Elon Musk, other SpaceX officials or officials from OpenAI or Anthropic, and asked for any communications between the companies and the indexesLSEG, which owns the FTSE Russell, and Nasdaq declined to comment. Morningstar did not respond to a request from CNBC for comment.S&P Dow Jones Indices didn't comment on the letter, but the company noted it had decided not to change its rules regarding indexes: “S&P DJI determined that exceptions to these requirements should not be granted solely based on market capitalization,” it said in a statement to CNBC. “The decision not to adopt the proposed exceptions preserves core index principles by maintaining consistent application of these key requirements.”Democrats ask Goldman Sachs CEO why he's keeping lawyer who said she'd resign over ties to EpsteinGoldman Sachs CEO David Solomon is facing new scrutiny from congressional Democrats over his reported effort to retain the bank's top lawyer months after she said she would resign over revelations about her ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey EpsteinIn a letter sent Wednesday:U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs CommitteeRepresentative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services on the House Oversight Committee“Ruemmler ‘educated (Epstein) on how the law differentiates between underage victims of sex crimes and adult prostitutes…'”In February, Ruemmler announced her resignation from Goldman Sachs, effective June 30, 2026: “At the time, you stated that you “reluctantly” accepted Ruemmler's resignation. While Goldman Sachs has declined to comment on this matter, new reporting suggests that you ‘pressed' her to reconsider her resignation and instead move to a new position within the firm.”Teardown of Trump Phone Reveals Incredibly Embarrassing SecretA recent teardown by repair company iFixit confirmed that the T1 is an almost entirely unmodified HTC U24 Pro, a two-year-old and mid-tier Android phone, with a cheap coat of gold colorationTrump is selling an entirely Chinese smartphone, despite waging an economic war against the country.Apart from minuscule changes to the speaker grille and a lengthened flex cable, iFixit concluded that “everything is the same, except the pattern of holes in the case.”Goodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Google and Meta denied new trial in youth social media addiction caseMM: In the United States, Solar Energy is Outpacing Coal for the First Time EverAssholiest of the Week - SPEED ROUND (MM):BP's useless, reactionary board of directors: BP drops net zero division in wake of boardroom turmoil; BP's new CEO Meg O'Neill rips up the energy giant's playbook—and the ‘green' era with it - 10Ryanair blowhard CEO Michael O'Leary: Ryanair investigated over charging parents to sit with children - 5EV killing GM and Mary Barra: GM is pivoting its battery expertise toward powering AI data centers and the grid - 10Every company that fired employees and replaced them with AI: Unfortunate Company Accidentally Blows Half a Billion Dollars on Claude in One Month; AI sticker shock hits corporate America - 10Everything out of Alex Karp's fat mouth: Palantir CEO Alex Karp says executives who brag about their AI cuts might as well ‘sign up for the Bernie Sanders manifesto'; Palantir CEO says AI companies 'don't understand how unlikeable they are'; - 10Sorry Liz, this is investors job: Sen. Warren calls on SEC to delay SpaceX IPO, flagging concerns about valuation and governance - 0Every investor in SpaceX IPO: Franklin Templeton to participate in SpaceX IPO, CEO Johnson tells CNBC; SpaceX IPO demand is approaching four times oversubscribed, source says; Wall Street's undignified SpaceX mania; SpaceX's president hints at a Tesla merger: 'That might make Elon's life a little easier' - 10Billionaires: Billionaires' Billions Are Increasing Faster Than Ever - 10Beef (not Ebola): Elon Musk Faces Backlash as a Horrific Texas Screwworm Outbreak Follows Brutal DOGE Budget Cuts - 10Mark: Meta Furious Over Bombshell Smart Glasses Revelation“Last week, Wired reported that Meta discreetly moved to infuse facial recognition tech into its popular smart glasses, as evidenced by a piece of code discovered in the Meta AI app by the magazine's journalists.” - 10Headliniest of the WeekDR: UBS CEO [Sergio] Ermotti hopes to step down before 2030MM: You Can Now Get a Religious Exemption From Using AI at Work“The funniest possible outcome of the AI mandate era is about to be HR departments discovering that ‘sincerely held religious belief' under Title VII has a much lower bar than they assumed, and Pope Leo handed every Catholic employee a written excuse,” tweeted San Francisco-based startup founder Corey Quinn. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex.)MM: Furious Judge Cancels Entire Trial After Finding Out Lawyers on Both Sides Used AIWho Won the Week?DR: HTC U24 Pro, a two-year-old and mid-tier Android phone. Or maybe it was the cheap gold paint?MM: Everyone religious - what CAN'T you opt out of using a religious exemption? PredictionsDR: Attacking dictator-run companies (i.e., Iran/Tesla) starts to enter the realm of normalcyMM: Atheists adopt a religion to opt out of tech bro oligarchies

This Day in Legal History: Wallace Stands in the Schoolhouse DoorOn this day in 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace physically stood in the doorway of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to block the registration of Vivian Malone and James Hood, the two Black students whose enrollment had been ordered by a federal district court. Wallace's “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” was the culmination of a long campaign of state defiance of federal desegregation orders that ran from Brown v. Board in 1954 through Cooper v. Aaron in 1958 — the case in which a unanimous Supreme Court told the Little Rock school district, and by extension every state actor, that federal constitutional rulings are the supreme law of the land and that state officials may not nullify them.President Kennedy responded to Wallace's stand by issuing Executive Order 11111, which federalized the Alabama National Guard, and ordering Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach down to Tuscaloosa to confront the governor. Wallace gave a long speech invoking states' rights and Tenth Amendment sovereignty, then stepped aside, and Malone and Hood walked in and registered. That night, Kennedy went on national television and delivered the civil rights address that put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 onto the national agenda. The legal and political throughline matters: the schoolhouse door, the executive order federalizing the Guard, the televised address, and the omnibus civil rights legislation that followed were a single coordinated federal response to massive resistance, and the institutional habit they built — the willingness of the federal political branches to back federal court orders with whatever force is necessary — is the substrate on which the modern enforcement of civil rights law sits. Whether that habit holds up under contemporary pressure is one of the live constitutional questions of our moment.The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” saga we have been following all week reached at least a partial resolution on Wednesday when Judge Leonie Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia declined to extend her temporary restraining order against the program into a preliminary injunction. The reason, in essence, is that the Justice Department has now formally represented to the court, in writing and through acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, that the $1.8 billion fund is “not going forward.” Brinkema took DOJ at its word for present purposes and dissolved the TRO, which under standard mootness doctrine is the right call when a defendant credibly commits to abandoning the challenged program. But she also did something practical: she warned the government in plain terms not to “play possum with this court,” language that gives the plaintiffs a built-in mechanism to come back fast if the fund quietly re-emerges under a different name.The substantive theory the plaintiffs were pressing — that the fund is an unappropriated expenditure of public money, that the underlying Trump-IRS settlement was a litigation in which the United States was never really adverse to the President in his personal capacity, and that the program's payout criteria are based on political characterizations of past prosecutions rather than any neutral standard — is now preserved for another day rather than litigated to judgment. The practical lesson is the durability of voluntary-cessation doctrine: a government defendant who is willing to abandon a program in court usually wins on mootness, but the cost is real, because future revivals get scrutinized against the prior representation. Watch the Federal Register and the DOJ component-level budget submissions for the next six months — if there is a successor program coming, those are where the first signal appears.Judge declines to halt “anti-weaponization fund” since Blanche says it's dead, but warns DOJ not to “play possum” | CBS NewsA coalition of environmental and tribal-nation plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday seeking to block a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-approved land exchange that would transfer 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge to SpaceX, in return for 683 acres of privately owned land elsewhere. The plaintiffs are the Center for Biological Diversity, Save RGV, the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, and the South Texas Environmental Justice Network.The legal theory of the case is unusually multi-statute: the complaint alleges violations of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, with the central administrative-law argument being that the Fish and Wildlife Service's environmental analysis failed to grapple seriously with impacts on endangered ocelots, aplomado falcons, and a long list of migratory species whose habitat the refuge was designed to protect when Congress created it in 1979. The plaintiffs describe this as one of the largest national-wildlife-refuge land exchanges outside Alaska, and the suit asks for vacatur of the exchange decision rather than damages — the standard APA remedy.The political and infrastructural backdrop is hard to miss: SpaceX's Starbase facility at Boca Chica has been expanding into the Lower Rio Grande Valley for years now, and the exchange would consolidate the company's footprint on land previously held for the protection of one of the last remaining ocelot ranges in the country. The merits of the case will turn on the rigor of the FWS environmental analysis. Expect a request for a preliminary injunction within weeks.Lawsuit challenges Trump administration's land swap with SpaceX in Texas | The Washington PostA Los Angeles County jury on Wednesday added $22 million in punitive damages to the $176 million compensatory verdict already entered against socialite and former philanthropist Rebecca Grossman and former Major League Baseball pitcher Scott Erickson, bringing the total civil award to the Iskander family to roughly $198 million.The underlying facts of the case are stark: in September 2020, Grossman and Erickson left a Westlake Village restaurant after drinking and street-raced separate Mercedes SUVs through a residential neighborhood, with Grossman striking and killing two young brothers, Mark and Jacob Iskander, then 11 and 8, as they crossed a marked crosswalk with their parents.Grossman was convicted of two counts of murder in 2024 and is serving 15 years to life. The civil case the family brought is the wrongful-death companion, and the punitive damages award the jury added on Wednesday is the part that does the most policy work: the jury split the punitive award $21 million against Grossman, $1.17 million against Erickson, which under California's reprehensibility-and-net-worth framework reflects both the much greater direct culpability of Grossman as the driver and the substantial disparity in their respective financial positions.The case is notable beyond the parties involved because of how clean it is on the standard punitive-damages analysis the Supreme Court laid out in BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell: high reprehensibility, a relatively modest single-digit ratio of punitive-to-compensatory damages, and an underlying compensatory award that itself was supported by the gravity of the loss. Watch for an appeal that focuses on the compensatory rather than the punitive number — that is where the appellate leverage actually is.Jury Ups Philanthropist, Ex-Pitcher Crash Verdict To $198M | Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Kennedy Signs the Equal Pay ActOn this day in 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, the first federal statute aimed directly at sex-based wage discrimination. The law took the form of an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which meant that it slid into an existing enforcement framework run by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor — a deliberate choice that bypassed the need to build new institutional machinery and harnessed thirty years of FLSA caselaw and habits of compliance. The legal hook is the Act's “equal pay for equal work” command: employers may not pay employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for jobs requiring “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.”Four affirmative defenses are written into the text — a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or “any other factor other than sex” — and that fourth catch-all has done more work in litigation than the other three combined, shaping how courts evaluate market-based, education-based, and prior-salary-based pay differentials decades later. The wage gap at the moment Kennedy signed was about 59 cents on the dollar; six decades on, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics's standard measure, it sits closer to 84 cents. That tells you something about how a clean, structurally well-designed statute can still leave a lot of the work undone, because the gap is and always was about more than identical pairs of jobs at the same employer.The Equal Pay Act is not the whole story of American workplace-equality law; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and a long line of state-law analogues do much of the modern enforcement work. But June 10, 1963 is the day Congress, with the President's signature, said for the first time that paying a woman less than a man for the same work was unlawful, full stop. Everything that has followed in this corner of the law has been built on top of that sentence.The Federal Circuit on Monday affirmed a Delaware district court judgment invalidating four Purdue Pharma patents covering an abuse-deterrent, low-toxicity version of the opioid OxyContin, in a decision the patent bar has been waiting on for months. The case is Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC. The patents covered Purdue's reformulation of OxyContin to make the pills crush-resistant and to reduce a manufacturing impurity, and the asserted innovation grew, the company said, out of its discovery of the source of a particular toxic impurity that had previously eluded chemists at competing labs. Purdue's argument on appeal was, in essence, that the discovery of the impurity's source was itself nonobvious, and that the resulting patents inherited that nonobviousness. The Federal Circuit said no.The panel held that the relevant obviousness inquiry asks whether the claimed reformulation — not the discovery that motivated it — would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and that once the prior art is taken into account, the answer is yes. The practical consequence of the ruling is large. It opens the door wider for generic abuse-deterrent OxyContin alternatives and clarifies a doctrinal point pharmaceutical companies have been pressing on for years: a hard-won research insight does not, on its own, automatically save a patent from obviousness if the resulting product was within the prior art's reach. Purdue's options now are a rehearing petition at the Federal Circuit, a cert petition at the Supreme Court (which the company has already pursued in a related case last spring), or quiet acceptance. Expect a cert petition. Expect the cert petition to be denied. Watch the generic-drug filings that follow.Fed. Circ. Panel Backs Invalidation Of OxyContin PatentThe plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia lawsuit over the Trump administration's $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” — a story we covered earlier htis week— went back to Judge Leonie Brinkema on Tuesday and asked for permission to conduct limited discovery into whether the Justice Department's recent representation that it would stop work on the fund is a real commitment or a litigation convenience.The plaintiffs' problem is straightforward: acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has filed papers saying the program is “not going forward,” but President Trump publicly described the fund last week as a “great idea” that many Republicans support, and the executive order that created the fund has not been formally rescinded. From a litigation-strategy standpoint, the plaintiffs do not want to walk away from a live case on the strength of a DOJ filing, accept dismissal as moot, and then find out three months later that the fund has been quietly resurrected under a different name.Judge Brinkema has a hearing scheduled for Friday, June 12, on whether to extend the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction. The Tuesday filing teed up the broader mootness fight that will dominate Friday's hearing: when does a federal agency's promise to stop doing something actually deprive a court of jurisdiction to enjoin the underlying program, and what discovery, if any, is a plaintiff entitled to before that determination is made. The doctrine here — voluntary cessation, capable of repetition yet evading review, and the heavy burden the Supreme Court has placed on the party claiming mootness — favors the plaintiffs procedurally. Whether Brinkema agrees on Friday is the question to watch.‘Anti-weaponization' fund challengers question its demise – Roll CallSCOTUSblog's John Elwood walked through a useful relist roundup on Tuesday, and the four cases sitting in the relist pile are worth flagging because each of them touches a different load-bearing wall in federal practice. The first is a prolonged-detention challenge to immigration custody under Section 1226(c). The ACLU is asking the Court to clarify that very long mandatory-detention periods trigger procedural due process review under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test, picking up on the Second Circuit's willingness to do so. The second is Newberry v. Texas, a case where Texas itself has confessed error — a rare procedural posture in which the State agrees the defendant should win — and the question is what the Court does when the parties on both sides ask for the same remedy. The third is Kian v. Florida, a Sixth Amendment challenge to the use of six-person juries in serious felony cases, on the theory that the historical understanding of “jury” in the founding era assumed twelve and that the Court's mid-twentieth-century cases approving six-person juries were wrong on the originalist analysis. The fourth is Maxwell v. Thomas, a federal habeas case asking whether the First Step Act‘s halfway-house and home-confinement provisions are properly enforceable through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions, an issue with a real circuit split. None of these have been granted yet — they are relists, which means at least one Justice is interested but the Court has not yet decided whether to hear them — but the mix is the part to watch: it tells you what the Justices are circling without committing to. Expect at least one of these to be granted before the term ends.A random assortment of relists: prolonged detention, confessions of error, small juries, and new rules on habeas | SCOTUSblog 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

Pastor Dale Partridge boldly confronts one of liberalism's greatest sacred cows — the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He demonstrates how it has not brought racial peace, but has instead made racial tension far worse, and makes the compelling case for why this law must be repealed so that Americans can once again enjoy their fundamental right to freedom of association.

Christ Is King: America After Trump — November 12–14, 2026 in Dallas, Texas. Tickets are limited. Register now to secure your seat!https://newchristianright.com/conference/Get The Silent Jihad At: https://newchristianright.com/jihad

Audio Disclaimer from Anne Marie: I am still learning how to record and edit with two live microphones and unfortunately in the transfer and editing process, I deleted the original file with the better audio quality. The episode you'll hear is a result of this mistake (only my microphone became the driving audio of the playback track). I apologize for the unevenness in the quality, but sincerely hope you stick around for the content! It was an incredible conversation and I'm glad I can still share it in some capacity.Episode Summary: This week, Anne Marie Gunn welcomes her former high school history teacher, Jane Thompson, as a guest to talk about the American Sexual Revolution of the 1960's and 1970's. The conversation begins with how World War II, Margaret Sanger/the (white) women's suffrage movement and movement towards family limitations, and the 1950's all led to an American Sexual Revolution. Jane and Anne Marie discuss the influence of culture on politics and vice versa (ie. through language about gender and sex changing over time). Their conversation highlights key figures in the Sexual Revolution including researcher Alfred Kinsey and author Betty Friedan (The Feminine Mystique). Other topics covered include: the Civil Rights Act of 1965, Roe v. Wade (1972) and its overturn (2022), Vietnam War protests, free love/drug culture of the hippie movement, Title IX and its impact on higher education, women's sports & equal pay, and girls' agency over their bodies, the Equal Rights Amendment not being signed, the LGBTQ+ movement, the AIDs crisis, the disability rights movement, the 80's mirroring the 50's, and the development of technology and the internet impacting American music and sex. Finally, Jane and Anne Marie discuss how the paradox of American individualism and idealism of unification impacts societal progress.

May 22, 2026In a graduation speech at the University of Michigan in 1964, President Lyndon Johnson laid out his vision for “the Great Society,” It was a forward looking vision of a country that used its post-World War II prosperity to look toward greater things, and to advance civil rights and end poverty, Congress would pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and the Food Stamp Act, Democrats were able to pass 84 new laws to put the Great Society into place, Congress took on voting rights, access to education, health insurance, and the rights of consumers, It enacted laws protecting the environment and supporting the arts, In his speech at the University of Michigan, Johnson charged the graduates to lead America toward a new age, reminding them that Americans have the power to shape the civilization that we want.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

Episode 291-Drop Your Socks and Grab Your Glocks Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 14 Gun Lawyer — Episode 291 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun rights, Second Amendment, gerrymandering, New Jersey, federal law, AK-47, AR-15, gun laws, Supreme Court, carry permit, gun dealers, political power, racial discrimination, gun ownership, legal battles. SPEAKERS Speaker 1, Teddy Nappen, Speaker 3, Evan Nappen Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, Teddy, what’s on your mind today? Teddy Nappen 00:27 Well, I never realized the guy that wrote the Zombie Survival Guide, Max Brooks, was related to Mel Brooks. I thought it was a common name. Evan Nappen 00:38 What? How is he related to Mel Brooks? Teddy Nappen 00:40 It’s his son, so. Evan Nappen 00:42 Oh, my G-d! Is he gonna make a movie, you know, Young Zombie or something? Teddy Nappen 00:44 Yeah, no, Young Zombie. Evan Nappen 00:46 Or a zombie movie with lots of farts? Page – 2 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 00:52 No. Evan Nappen 00:53 Blazing Zombies, Blazing Zombies. Teddy Nappen 00:55 Yeah! Blazing Zombies, that’s it, kind of like what was it, Abraham Lincoln and the Vampire Abraham Lincoln. Evan Nappen 01:02 Right. I think Blazing Zombies would probably be very popular. Teddy Nappen 01:06 Yeah, I know, right. Let’s see them try to reboot Blazing Saddles. Good luck with that. Evan Nappen 01:12 Well, they could do Blazing. Yeah, but if they did Blazing Zombies, they would never be able to say certain words that they used in Blazing Saddles. Teddy Nappen 01:23 Yeah, like calling the zombies a bunch of leg draggers. Evan Nappen 01:26 Ha, ha, ha, ha. Actually, we’re kind of dealing with a zombie apocalypse with the Democrat party lately. I think they are a bunch of, you know. They don’t have brains. They just try to eat brains. Teddy Nappen 01:48 Yeah. And unfortunately, they keep coming up with new ideas to screw us out of our rights. Evan Nappen 01:55 Right! That’s it. That’s what they do. They send the horde out to eat our rights. They do the horde, and they just try to get everybody on board to sacrifice for their pure unadulterated political power. Like trying to get college athletes to boycott their entire athletic career, over, for example, they’re flipping out over the ending of racial gerrymandering. I mean, it’s kind of unbelievable when you watch them talk about this being, you know, Jim Crow II, when all that is being done is ending racial discrimination, with setting up voting districts. Somehow ending racial discrimination is Jim Crow. Only a Democrat with zombie brains could ever make that argument with a straight face. Teddy Nappen 02:59 Well, it’s also very funny because, if you cut to all of New England, where the breakdown is roughly like 40 to 50% Republican, and there’s no representation for that. And so, they, and it’s all the states are heavily, heavily gerrymandered, like zero representation for Republicans, but oh, that’s fine. It’s only Page – 3 – of 14 when the Republicans say, you know what? You’ve established the rules of engagement, and we will oblige. That’s just how the game is played. Evan Nappen 03:29 Now, you would think that the Democrats would have expert knowledge on Jim Crow, because they’re the ones that started it. The original Jim Crow laws were done by Democrats after the Civil War. And, of course, who opposed the Civil Rights Act? The Democrats. They were the originals. And then for them to get up now and claim how much they want to oppose what they are perceiving as Jim Crow laws are kind of rich. And, of course, it isn’t. It is the actual elimination of the racial discrimination that is in place by way of their gerrymandering, and this is very important to our gun rights, Teddy. Very important to our gun rights. As voting is turned around, so that it actually reflects the voters, as opposed to these bizarre jurisdictions engineered for Democrats just to maintain power, we will see more and more advances in the fight for our gun rights. It is the other side there that constantly is trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 04:52 What always makes me laugh, though, is they always try to say the party switched. They always make that argument. By the way, it’s a completely disproven argument. Like, okay, what time period? Was it under Senator (Robert) Byrd, who was a, what was it? The Grand Wizard? Evan Nappen 05:07 The Grand Wizard of the KKK. Teddy Nappen 05:10 Which, by the way, he was a mentor to Joe Biden throughout his political career. But no one talks about that. Or when Joe Biden, what did Joe Biden say on the stage? Evan Nappen 05:21 Oh, don’t even. Teddy Nappen 05:21 Yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah. Evan Nappen 05:25 party, Evan Nappen 05:25 The party hasn’t switched. They’re just trying to build a bigger fence with a plantation. They are the ones trying to run a plantation, and that’s what gerrymandering, prior to this Calais Supreme Court case, that’s what it was really about. How does the Democrat maintain their plantations of voter districts, to maintain their power? Page – 4 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 05:50 Yeah, exactly. They put up the creation that Johnson, what was it? We’re going to get these guys voting Democrat for the rest of their lives. They created the giant welfare state. Evan Nappen 06:01 Yeah. And by the way, he didn’t even call them “these guys”. Teddy Nappen 06:05 I know I was trying to, I was paraphrasing. Evan Nappen 06:11 Describing them. Yeah, just their hypocrisy definitely knows no bounds, and this time period now is somewhat encouraging, because a lot of everything that they’ve built on, including taking our gun rights, it’s collapsing all around them. It’s very encouraging to see that. You just saw the primaries go here. Trump with what 34 zero or whatever on his picks, and that helps get us further with the expansion of our Second Amendment rights. This is all a part. Because part of MAGA is the rebirth of the power of the Second Amendment, that is a part of MAGA, guys. You’ve got to know that, and you can see it. We are now in a completely different world than in the Biden era. I mean, Biden was essentially engaging in a clamp down, a clamp down on our rights in every way that he could abuse federal power to do so. And we’re seeing incredible changes in the other direction now. Teddy Nappen 07:29 I’ll give you the highlight of that. We dealt with this, where it was weaponization. They were going after dealers for the most minuscule things with a zero tolerance. And now that’s been eliminated, and it has been helping. Of course, New Jersey picks up the mantle from their new AG. Now they’re going after FFL dealers and demanding records detailing the sales of Glocks, which I could have sworn they already knew about the sales, because every time you purchase. Evan Nappen 08:01 Yeah, this is what is such crap about these subpoenas to all the dealers to turn over their records of the last decade for every Glock sold. New Jersey has a pistol purchase permit system, which is a form of register. So, the State Police already have the computerized registered database of every purchase of a Glock since the computerization of the pistol permit system, which completely covers the decade that they’re requesting. In other words, the only reason for this subpoena is essentially, in my opinion, to harass dealers because the information itself is already at their fingertips. Now, the bigger legal question is, is that something legally they’re allowed to access because New Jersey has Administrative Code provisions that mandate confidentiality on all gun records of purchase acquisition. All that kind of stuff is protected by that confidentiality. So, maybe they themselves thought that trying to just get dealer records, maybe could do an end run over their own Administrative Code, preventing the release of this information. Although there is a provision in the Code that says for law enforcement purposes it can be accessed. But this is a lawsuit, not law enforcement purposes. So, it really is interesting the approach they’re taking. If they’re righteous in the law, in being able to access this data, then they can access it through the database in the appropriate legal manner, if they are qualified. And if not, why are they subpoenaing dealers to turn over information that is already in the possession of the State of New Page – 5 – of 14 Jersey? And these application forms, et cetera, are protected by way of their own Administrative Code provisions, setting out confidentiality. Teddy Nappen 10:20 So, Teddy Nappen 10:21 Yeah, I will say what’s really messed up is I love the AG’s response. So, this was actually from 2A News Team. They asked these questions and the AG responded. Oh no, no. These requests are not seeking information about individual purchasers or any person’s identifying information about their purchases. However, the subpoena says that exact wording. Evan Nappen 10:50 Right. Teddy Nappen 10:51 Documents show sufficient sale or transfer of Glock handguns from you to New Jersey customers. Literally, it’s the first line in the subpoena. Evan Nappen 11:03 Right. And the thing about Glocks. Look, if you own a Glock, you know you better hold on to it. This is the new tactic of the anti-Second Amendment rights movement. To try to ban and restrict Glocks because of a claim that they can be relatively easily converted to fully automatic using what’s called a Glock switch. But mere possession of a Glock switch under federal law is considered a machine gun in and of itself, and these switches are banned in New Jersey as well. The component is already illegal. So, trying to link Glocks to them so that they can further take away one of the most popular self-defense handguns in the world. This is their gambit. This is their gambit now to try to do that. Teddy Nappen 12:10 So, it was also interesting, is pull it was from the article. Out of the 15 FFLs that they subpoenaed, they were roughly, there was 15 of those FFLs were out of the total authorized Glock dealers. So, I’m trying to think the strategy of it. If they’re trying, if these were just the 15, were kind of like where they went after those two gun dealers and forced them to basically have to essentially declare and register every purchase or gun-related material. Are they just going for the small fish to then go after the whole? Kind of like a staff? Teddy Nappen 12:46 Out of curiosity. Could there be a constitutional challenge because there’s a federal firearms license? Could you either make the Supremacy Clause argument or just going with the idea of there shouldn’t be a state license, too? Evan Nappen 12:46 Okay. At a minimum, it’s designed to harass gun dealers. I mean, New Jersey is dedicated to that principle, given the excesses that they go to regarding being a New Jersey retail firearm dealer. I mean Page – 6 – of 14 having an FFL, that’s a federal firearm license. New Jersey also requires for a dealer to have a New Jersey retail dealer firearms license, and the retail dealer firearms license is what is managed by the state of New Jersey. And that’s where you see an incredibly excessive and additional amount of requirements, far beyond what federal law requires, designed to be a legal discouragement to being a dealer. Also, it’s been used in the past as a pretext to raid individuals that had FFLs but did not have a NJ retail dealer license. I’ve had cases on this where individuals that had a federal firearms license for Curio and Relic, collector licenses, the state alleged they were federal firearm licensees and acting as dealers, which they were not. They are collectors. And because they alleged they had a federal license, they needed a New Jersey firearm retail dealer license. They proceeded to conduct raids on the individuals that held Curio and Relic licenses. So, this is one of the risks out there. They were able to purge and merge the federal list to the state list of New Jersey retailers. Evan Nappen 14:31 Well, the problem is that the federal firearm law is expressly not preemptive. It’s designed to be the absolute minimum gun control harassment that exists throughout the entire country. And then states are invited to, you know, this was the philosophy, invited to go wild. So, you have the baseline of the federal law, which has many constitutional questions about it itself, expressly not being preemptive, and the states are left to their own devices to create whatever stricter and stricter and more harassing and more discouraging gun laws that they want to pass. And as long as those laws are somehow upheld constitutionally, they can keep on going. There is no cap. There’s no cap placed on the attack on our rights. It should exist, but doesn’t, except in a few very narrow areas where there is express preemption. Evan Nappen 16:22 One of those places where there is express preemption is Title 18 926 A for interstate transport of your guns. You can transport your guns cased, unloaded, locked, not readily accessible, etc., so that you can go through bad states in your travels. There’s areas of preemption, specifically for carry, like LEOSA, Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, where retired and active law enforcement can carry, regardless of the state law that might otherwise try to prevent them from doing so. There’s actually preemption for carry. It was the original carry preemption, which a lot of people don’t know was for armored car security. Armored car personnel was actually the first federal carry preemption. And then today we’re pushing to try to get national reciprocity, which is in effect national preemption, mandating that every state recognize every other state’s carry rights to that particular resident in whatever state that resident might be in. But generally across 99% of all the federal gun laws, it is expressly not preemptive. So, this is where the problems come in, because there is no cap on the damage that states can do. Teddy Nappen 17:55 So, it would require an, it would basically either require an act of Congress to amend it to include the preemption. Evan Nappen 18:02 Yes, literally, what would be great is if we finally get a cap. Now, in theory, the cap on bad gun laws is this little thing we call the Second Amendment, and the Second Amendment’s cap was fairly broad. The Page – 7 – of 14 cap, as I recall, it said shall not be infringed. Okay? Shall not be infringed. So, any infringement is arguably a violation of the Second Amendment. Therefore no state or federal government, because we now have it incorporated to the states through the McDonald case, through the 14th Amendment, like many of our other constitutional rights. No state or federal law should infringe on our gun rights. Yet we’re knee deep in battles over various gun laws that are utterly passed with contempt of the Second Amendment, and then we have to go through these fights over it. Teddy Nappen 19:09 Yeah, and it’s definitely. I noticed that whenever it comes to New Jersey, I mean, I know people always talk about state powers, how they, you know, always leave it to the states. However, there are some things that there’s just so much abuse by the states that what they do, I mean, just right now, what they are doing right now is disgusting. Where they’re just harassing these dealers, going after them, wasting the taxpayers dollars. And it’s the level of where, all right, the federal government needs to step in, and I can see everyone’s like, “Oh, don’t allow the feds to get in, but here is the truth. They abuse it so much that there’s just no, there’s no value. Evan Nappen 19:54 Well, frankly, if we simply made the federal law, as it stands right now, as the preemptive. Just passed a law saying federal law preempts state law. Then every state gun law would become mooted out. Done. Invalid. Because only the federal law would apply. And currently under federal law there are no prohibitions on carry. There’s no addressing that in a negative way. Now, they might say, because the federal law doesn’t address it at all, then the states could still try to regulate carry. But then we still have the constitutional Second Amendment with the Bruen decision and such regarding carry. Then if we look at how the impact would be beyond that, well, everything else that these states try to pass, particularly on sale, possession, or on any of that, it would all be preemptively null and void by way of a federal law that they first engineered to just be a minimum to suddenly become the maximum. And that would concentrate our efforts only to having essentially federal fights, which would be pretty good, because instead of the pro-gun movement, those that defend our gun rights, and instead of having them fighting in every jurisdiction, everywhere, every state or county or town that passes some anti-Second Amendment gun rights law that we have to go in and challenge, we would have a preemptive federal law. So, every battle would simply be taking place, for the most part, at the federal law level of preemption, and it would basically gut that entire expenditure of the battle that we constantly have to foot the bill and pay for. It would be an interesting thing to conceptualize, to finally have a federal full preemption. I think it’s workable. Teddy Nappen 22:18 Yeah, and look, I never thought we’d ever see, like, the tax stamp removed for suppressors, and having a chance for it to be removed from the NFA, so anything is possible. We just need to get the right people in, and the right amount of votes. Evan Nappen 22:30 Yeah, it might, it might actually be, but then you’ll have even pro-Second Amendment folks, say, oh, states rights, states’ rights, you know. And they become so focused on so-called states’ rights that we still are losing our rights, because, as you say, Teddy, there’s an abuse by the states of our rights, and Page – 8 – of 14 this could end that abuse. So, when you have an abuse of state power, then the federal government really should come in to stop the abuse by the states. Teddy Nappen 22:53 I think it was in New York, and this might have been years ago. Do you remember they posted the map of who owned firearms? Evan Nappen 23:15 Yeah, it was New York, yeah, right. And then the public record, and then you could, it was searchable when you could find the gun owners. Teddy Nappen 23:25 Of course, a lot of them got robbed and harassed, and everything in that, which is just like, all right, fine. And you know what? When is it going to be enough for states’ powers? When they say everyone wears a yellow armband? It’s a picture of an AR, like states power, states rights. It’s such BS for allowing the abuse that comes down from New Jersey. Where you have the gulag that is the symbol of oppression of a totalitarian regime, and it just pisses me off so much when I hear that argument. I hear the people that make perfect the enemy of good, every time. How long did it take us to lose our rights to these people? Decades. And that’s what it’s going to take to get them back. It’s just disgusting. Evan Nappen 24:12 It is. But we’re in the fight, and we have to keep this fight on. Politically, the big picture is critical in our ability to win and get these changes. As much as all this is aggravating, if you step back, man, I can step back and look from having been practicing gun law for over 40 years. I can look and say we have come a long way. We’ve come a long way. The fact that we can finally have a carry permit in New Jersey is astounding. It’s astounding that we got to that, because that was something that seemed like an impossibility, and yet it got achieved. You can see amazing other advances. Evan Nappen 25:07 Hopefully, shortly, we will see the Supreme Court take a hardware case. We need them to take a hardware case. What I’m talking about is so-called assault firearms or assault weapons, magazines, where there is hardware that’s been banned. Where the constitutionality of the ability to ban hardware finally gets established out of the Supreme Court to end it, to stop it. That’s something that we’ve got to get to, and I think we’re going to see that soon. It is coming. There are so many cases, and they’ve been going up the chain. I think we’re going to see it. I don’t know if it’ll be, you know, this session. We’re getting close, and that’s what we saw, the prediction by even the U.S. Attorney General. The U.S. Attorney General saying they believe that ARs and others, Supreme Court will eventually pronounce they are legal. Teddy Nappen 26:16 I know there’s like, I know there’s rumors, everyone, about the different justices retiring. Imagine if Justice Thomas’s retirement, his last decision that he does, is he legalized and ends the assault firearm bans across the country. Page – 9 – of 14 Evan Nappen 26:31 Oh, that’d be just wonderful. I’d like to see St. Thomas. Teddy Nappen 26:36 Yeah. You know they did the commemorative, like Heller, like revolver, I remember that they. Evan Nappen 26:43 Which I have, I have a commemorative Heller Smith & Wesson .38. Not only was it commemorative and put out by Smith when the Heller decision came down, so it’s actually a Smith & Wesson bonafide commemorative, but I have that, I think I showed it to you, Teddy, it’s signed personally by Dick Heller, who’s a friend. So, I have a signed commemorative of the Heller decision, signed by Dick Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 27:10 Well, the next one I want it to be just, it’ll say the name of the case, and it’s just the Clarence Thomas smile that you see. The GIF area Thomas commemorative AR. Evan Nappen 27:23 And then, of course, the Left would complain that it’s racist because it’s a black rifle. No. You can’t be racist against Thomas, right? I mean, they always talk. Teddy Nappen 27:37 No, no, they say you can, because they say that he’s not black enough. If you know his entire history, the like, his, you could not, you could not live as a like a black American, like his entire thing, like inner city kid, like I think he was a single, like single mom, they like raised, like literally did the like live the entire black experience like it would be a lifetime movie. It would be amazing. Evan Nappen 28:05 He is an amazing man with actually the embodiment of the American dream, in effect. Coming from an absolutely underprivileged, you know, situation where he rose to be one of the greatest Supreme, one of the greatest, for sure, Supreme Court justices. His amazing story about an amazing man. Just great. And they don’t, because just like with gerrymandering, where there are plenty of Republican minority reps out there, it’s not racism at all. It’s the Democrat power grab, and because Judge Thomas is conservative, they refuse to acknowledge the benefit of having such a great man. Teddy Nappen 29:03 Yeah. And he is what Joe Biden would describe as articulate, bright, and clean. Evan Nappen 29:09 Oh G-d. Teddy Nappen 29:13 I love how Biden said that to Obama. I know. Page – 10 – of 14 Evan Nappen 29:16 I mean. He would constantly say these things. And yet they will extrapolate 10 times out to try to paint Trump as racist when Biden was. He bona fide said stuff that was absolutely insane with racism. Stereotypical racism. Teddy Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Evan Nappen 29:45 Yeah, really. I mean, just come on. Insulting and amazing. Well, and let me tell you, Teddy, about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range. You and I have shot there, and you love WeShoot, don’t you, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 30:04 I had a great time. Evan Nappen 30:05 We always do, every time. We got our certifications there for our carries, and you can do the same. They’ve got a great pro shop, great trainers, great facility, and it’s really conveniently right off the Parkway in Lakewood, New Jersey. Lakewood, New Jersey. You want to check out the WeShoot website at weshootusa.com. And you should make sure you get on their email list, because WeShoot sends out a lot of great stuff via email. All their great deals and specials and cool events they’re doing and all kinds of fun things. WeShoot is extremely dynamic, and they are always doing something. WeShoot is just super fun. So, if you’re looking for a great range to belong to, a great place to shoot, a great place to hone your skills, get your training, you cannot do any better than WeShoot in Lakewood. Check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 31:18 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of New Jersey gun law. It is a book used by, well, everybody. If you want to understand New Jersey gun law, you need my book, which is not surprisingly titled New Jersey Gun Law. You can get your copy at EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. When you get the book, you’ll see it is very large. It is over 500 pages. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. And the greatest thing about my book is that the book itself can be used as a weapon. It’s that big. I’m not advising you to do that, but should you need to, yes, that is a book you don’t want to get hit in the head with. So, check out New Jersey Gun Law at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, I bet you have something else up your sleeve to tell us. Teddy Nappen 32:18 Well, one of the things that did come up, and I just thought, what the heck? This is in the feed of the New York Times. Where are all the AK 47s? Like, where have all the AK 47s gone? I know. Evan Nappen 32:19 I don’t know. Where have they gone? Page – 11 – of 14 Teddy Nappen 32:21 I know. It was a very interesting article, but it was also very strange. Just reading through, I don’t know if you ever heard of Jim Fuller? Evan Nappen 32:47 The Fuller Brush Man? Teddy Nappen 32:49 Apparently, he’s a gunsmith. He makes custom AKs. I’m not too familiar on that, but he was going into details of, like, and they were talking about the collapse of the AK market. Evan Nappen 33:01 Well, there is a downturn, but prices aren’t collapsing. Teddy Nappen 33:06 Yeah, I mean, how much are you going for? Evan Nappen 33:08 One of the Russian AKs going. You know the problem is, what led to the big boom, of course, was when we were importing AKs. We could have them from China and Russia. Although we were getting really cheap ammo, and there was so much of the surplus ammo, the 762 by 39 that it became extremely popular, because you could so reasonably shoot. Then it became so overwhelmingly possible that even American-made guns, like the Ruger Mini 30, for example, were being made in 762 by 39. Then you also had the influx of very reasonable SKSs. I mean, I remember when SKSs were under $100, for an SKS, and then you know the reasonable AKs and all that coming in with cheap ammo. Man, it was great. Then they started to ban the import, the ban of Chinese, ban of Russian, and the cheap ammo dried up. The guns that were coming in, the imports like those were dried up. Teddy Nappen 33:56 Apparently, it was in 1989 under Bush, because the shooter used the Chinese AK. Evan Nappen 34:32 Please remember, it was Bush. It was Bush, the Republican, the neocon, and this is one of the things that you got to always remember. Even though they may have the “R” there, they’re not necessarily a friend of the Second Amendment. Teddy Nappen 34:47 Yeah. And then the article tries to highlight more of like 2014 where the annexation of Crimea, the U.S. put sanctions on Russia. So, there goes all the Russian AKs. Evan Nappen 34:57 Well, not just Russian AKs. I mean, we were getting a lot of great guns, really cool guns from Russia, you know. We’re getting SKSs – originals, beautiful guns. I mean, phenomenal. Russian SKSs are probably the best SKS ever made, machined, gorgeous. Mosin-Nagant rifles, right? They were very Page – 12 – of 14 reasonable, and you know, you want to do the enemy at the gates, man. You got your gun and super strong, tough rifles. You know, a lot of great stuff could come in, and now we don’t see it anymore. And prices have skyrocketed. I mean, if you look at SKS prices today, holy crap. You’d be lucky to find a Chinese SKS that you used to be able to buy for less than $100, one in great shape today for 600 bucks, you know? I mean, easily 600, some even more. I’ve seen Russian SKSs pushing $2,000 a piece at the gun show. I mean, the prices are just unbelievable, because the market has a limitation now to the quantity that’s out there. And by the way, there’s probably only a 10th of the amount of Russian SKSs compared to Chinese SKSs. Even with that, the prices are way up there, and one of the reasons is that the SKSs, for example, are excellent functioning rifles. They’re handy. They function great and are very popular. Evan Nappen 36:36 With AKs, you know, there was that whole growth of it, and we were able to have all that great, cheap ammo. Once you got into an introductory, reasonable AK, then you wanted to up your game with other AKs, and all that. But what’s happened is, with the close out of that, we’ve become more, much, much more AR focused. The AR-15 platform, and everything about it. That’s all, a lot of it is U.S. made, and kind of America’s rifle. I would have to say today that America’s rifle, without a doubt, is the AR-15. Teddy Nappen 37:17 I would also say there’s also just the customization, and I think modularity. Evan Nappen 37:23 Its modularity seems to appeal to a lot of gun folks, because you can add and change and put all kinds of whistles and bells. Teddy Nappen 37:32 That also goes to the tone of American culture versus like the Eastern Bloc of the AK 47. We’re very individualistic, where we will make it so it is something that works for us, versus, you know, the AK 47 is designed, it is designed in that shape or form. You can do some small mods, but generally speaking, you pick up an AK 47 it’s, you know, hold it up to another one, like that’s the level of it. Evan Nappen 37:58 That’s an interesting point, Teddy, about how in those countries they don’t. It’s hard to find a Bubba AK in countries where they make the AKs, isn’t it? They don’t Bubbafi much, do they? But we love to modify, change, and customize, and that’s actually a lot of the fun of it. Let’s face it, it’s fun. It’s fun to add the accessories to fit your needs, make it look cooler, make it function better, make it more appropriate for whatever your needs may be. But then again, the anti-gun rights crowd will suddenly take any given feature and demonize certain features. So, if they are intrinsically evil, that if for some reason you have a telescoping stock on your AR or any other semi-auto, because your stock moves one or two inches back and forth, somehow that is such a huge impact on crime. Teddy Nappen 39:09 Or has a barrel shroud, which they can’t define. Page – 13 – of 14 Evan Nappen 39:12 Oh yeah, well, they try to. Remember. Teddy Nappen 39:15 The shoulder thingy that goes up, you know, the seat belt. Evan Nappen 39:18 The shoulder thingy that goes up is a barrel shroud. Isn’t that interesting? These are the experts that are voting for these laws. They have no clue what they’re even voting for, nor do they care. As long as it’s going against gun owners, they’re for it. They don’t care what it is. Teddy Nappen 39:39 Yeah, and I will say, just from the article, like, they try to, of course, they try to say, oh, Trump’s tariffs is what killed the AK market. There’s like also going from Russia, Ukraine, which they tried to say, you, oh, Poland is one of the key suppliers of Ukraine. No, the United States is one of the key suppliers of military to Ukraine. We’ve, you know, what is it, 40 billion, 80 billion, like crazy amounts, like they’re just still in that. And then again, tariffs are non-inflationary. We’ve known that, we’ve proven it. And I love how they try to say, well, we could get more AKs if we removed tariffs on Poland. Evan Nappen 40:21 Well, you know, it’s pretty bad when the Left media is trying to lure removal of tariffs by saying we could get more AKs in the country. That’s a pretty interesting stretch for them. Teddy Nappen 40:34 I know why they’re doing it. They’re trying to turn gun owners. They’re trying their best to turn gun owners into the debt, which is a ridiculous concept. They’ve demonized them, called them racist, call them everything under the sun. So, good luck trying to convince a gun owner to be considered a Democrat. If they are voting Democrat, you’re voting for your own destruction. I’m sorry. Evan Nappen 40:54 And speaking of destruction of gun owners, that is what GOFUs are. GOFU is our Gun Owner Fuck Ups. Every show we like to highlight the GOFU of the week, and this week’s GOFU is something that is constantly coming my way in the practice of law. And some of you listeners may say, yeah, it’s obvious, but I still have to say it because I keep getting case after case after case. It’s real simple, folks. You need to know your state’s gun laws. Most people understand that they need to know their state’s gun laws, but it doesn’t end there. If you travel out of state, you need to know the state’s gun laws that you’re traveling to. I constantly get cases of individuals that come from other states and end up being criminally charged in New Jersey because New Jersey’s gun laws are nothing like the gun laws of the state they were traveling from. The reverse is true, my friends. The reverse is true. Evan Nappen 42:13 You may have a New Jersey carry permit, but you need to know, if you don’t know, that no other state in America is recognized by New Jersey. No other state’s gun license is recognized by New Jersey. New Jersey has no reciprocity per se. When you travel, there are states where you can carry, because Page – 14 – of 14 despite New Jersey not recognizing their carry license, they’re willing to recognize any lawfully issued state carry. Many of the states, over 70% of the land mass in America, is constitutional carry, where as long as you’re law-abiding, you can carry even without a permit. But you still have to know, because I get calls from New Jersey folks that are getting jammed up in other states, making the mistake that others frequently make coming into New Jersey. Evan Nappen 43:24 So, the GOFU is real simple. Know the gun laws. Know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you are residing in, and know the gun laws of the jurisdiction that you may be traveling in. It’s critical! I see it every day as a classic of virtually all GOFUs. This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 3 44:05 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E291_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Christopher and Eric kick off their Pride Month celebration with a series of special Pride Pairings in which documentarians and dramatists alike illuminate the personal lives of two of gay culture's most towering figures. In this episode, we begin a two-part exploration of one of the civil rights movement's greatest – and previously unsung — heroes, Bayard Rustin, whose indefatigable nature and awe inspiring commitment to non-violence set the stage for one of the defining events of the entire civil rights era, the March on Washington. The documentary BROTHER OUTSIDER: THE LIFE OF BAYARD RUSTIN takes us inside his once secret relationships with other men, his mistreatment at the hands of some of his fellow civil rights activists and the causes to which he gave his heart after the Civil Rights Act became law due in no small part to his tireless efforts. It's a nice preparation for next week's serving of RUSTIN, the starry Netflix biopic based on his life and directed by George C. Wolfe.

1964: The Breaking Point...How a Texas President Helped Reshape American Politics Forever There are years in American history that feel less like moments… and more like fault lines. 1964 was one of them. It was the year the old political order began to crack. Not overnight.Not all at once.But in ways we are still living with today. And at the center of it all stood a Texan. Lyndon B. Johnson Growing up in Texas, Lyndon Johnson was never just another historical figure to some families. People remembered him. In my own family, my great-aunts grew up around Johnson City during the years when Lyndon Johnson was still simply “Lyndon.” Before the presidency. Before Vietnam. Before history turned him into something larger and far more complicated. And that's important to remember. Because Johnson understood Texas.He understood the South.And perhaps more than anyone else in Washington, he understood political power. Especially how to use it. By 1964, America was already under enormous strain. The images coming across television screens were becoming impossible to ignore. Black students being screamed at while trying to attend school.Peaceful protesters attacked with dogs and fire hoses.Freedom Riders beaten.Church bombings.Demonstrations erupting across the South. For many Americans, the Civil Rights Movement was becoming not just a regional issue but a moral one. And television changed everything. For the first time in American history, millions of people could witness these confrontations in their living rooms almost as they happened. The country was being forced to look at itself. John F. Kennedy had moved cautiously on civil rights during his presidency. But after Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, Lyndon Johnson inherited not only the presidency… but the unfinished battle over civil rights legislation. And Johnson knew something many younger Americans today may not fully appreciate: The bill would not pass simply because it was morally right. It would pass only if someone could force it through Congress. And Lyndon Johnson knew Congress better than almost anyone alive. Before becoming president, Johnson had served as Senate Majority Leader. He understood personalities, pressure, favors, intimidation, timing, all the invisible machinery of power. Historians would later call it “The Johnson Treatment.” He could flatter you.Threaten you.Charm you.Corner you.Convince you. Sometimes all within the same conversation. And in 1964, Johnson unleashed that political machinery behind what became the: Civil Rights Act Today, most Americans remember the Civil Rights Act as inevitable. It wasn't. The legislation faced fierce opposition, especially from Southern Democrats who viewed it as federal overreach into state affairs and Southern society. For decades, many Southern politicians had held enormous power in Congress. Committee chairmanships. Senate influence. Institutional seniority. But the country was changing. And Johnson understood that history was moving whether Congress wanted it to or not. So he pushed. Hard. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in public accommodations and prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Supporters viewed it as one of the most important moral and constitutional advances in modern American history. Opponents viewed it as a dangerous expansion of federal authority. And beneath the political arguments, something deeper was beginning to happen. The old Democratic coalition, the one that had held together since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt, was beginning to fracture. Then came the election of 1964. And this is where the political story becomes truly fascinating. The Republican nominee that year was: Barry Goldwater Goldwater was a conservative from Arizona. He opposed the Civil Rights Act, not necessarily because he supported segregation, but because he argued parts of the law violated constitutional limits on federal power. That distinction mattered to Goldwater. But politically, something much larger was unfolding. Goldwater lost the election badly nationwide. Lyndon Johnson crushed him at the national level. But then something unexpected happened. Goldwater carried several Deep South states. States that had been Democratic strongholds for generations. For many observers at the time, it looked strange. Temporary, even. But in hindsight, historians now recognize it as one of the first major warning signs that the political map of the South was beginning to change. Slowly. Unevenly. But undeniably. Now, none of this happened in a single election. The South did not suddenly wake up Republican in 1964. That transformation would take decades. Many Southern Democrats remained loyal to the party well into the 1970s and even the 1980s. Local courthouse politics, state offices, and regional traditions still mattered enormously. But the foundation had shifted. The old alliances were weakening. And the issues reshaping American politics were no longer simply economic. Increasingly, they were becoming cultural. Constitutional. Regional. Moral. And perhaps no one understood the price of what had happened better than Lyndon Johnson himself. According to one famous account, after signing the Civil Rights Act, Johnson reportedly told an aide: “We have lost the South for a generation.” Whether the quote is perfectly remembered or not, the political reality behind it proved remarkably accurate. The transformation had begun. In the next chapter of this story, we move into one of the most chaotic years in modern American history:   Assassinations.Protests.Riots.The Democratic Convention in Chicago.And the rise of a new political message that would reshape conservative politics for decades to come: “Law and order.” And once again… Texas and the South would stand near the center of the storm. Join me on BlueSky or Instagram Talk to me

May 16, 2026May 17th is the anniversary of the Brown v Board of Education decision declaring racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional, Three years later, President Eisenhower proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson wrestled the Act through Congress, But efforts to expand voter registration for Black Americans were stymied, even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, On March 7. 1965 after the shooting of Jimmie Lee Jackson, marchers set out from Selma AL to the state capital at Montgomery to draw attention to the struggle, they were stopped by the government. The march was started again, and this time 25,000 people completed their trip, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was signed on August 6, 1965, Yet the basic rights protected by the Act were gutted on April 29, 2026 by the Supreme Court, Thousands, including 18 members of Congress, traveled to Selma and Montgomery today, to call for action to protect voting rights, Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told an audience that those trying to gerrymander their way into controlling Congress have awakened a sleeping giant, as people come together knowing what it means to the country to protect the vote.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

We're back with another episode of “Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition.” This month, NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett is speaking with legal experts and lawyers to discuss the cases being argued this term — and the legal precedents that underpin them. Our second episode is about the transgender student athletes who are challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prevent them from competing on girls' teams in school sports. The courts of appeals in each district have sided with the student athletes, but Supreme Court watchers agree that the justices are likely to uphold the bans. Former ACLU national legal director David Cole argued Bostock vs. Clayton County (2020), in which a 6-3 majority of justices established transgender people as a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination. Host Laura Jarrett talks to Cole about his client Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job after she came out as transgender. He explains how he won over conservative justices on the high court, and why the stakes are different for the transgender athletes in these cases. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We're back with another episode of “Here's the Scoop: Supreme Court Edition.” This month, NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett is speaking with legal experts and lawyers to discuss the cases being argued this term — and the legal precedents that underpin them. Our second episode is about the transgender student athletes who are challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prevent them from competing on girls' teams in school sports. The courts of appeals in each district have sided with the student athletes, but Supreme Court watchers agree that the justices are likely to uphold the bans. Former ACLU national legal director David Cole argued Bostock vs. Clayton County (2020), in which a 6-3 majority of justices established transgender people as a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination. Host Laura Jarrett talks to Cole about his client Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job after she came out as transgender. He explains how he won over conservative justices on the high court, and why the stakes are different for the transgender athletes in these cases. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Welcome to Episode 89 of The Hidden History of Texas. After Sundown: The Hidden Geography of Fear in Texas Tonight, we're stepping onto a highway most history books barely mention. A road traveled in silence…A road traveled with caution…And sometimes, a road traveled in fear. This episode is called: “After Sundown: The Hidden Geography of Fear in Texas.” We're going to talk about Sundown Towns…The Green Book…And the hidden map Black Texans and Black travelers carried in their minds during the Jim Crow era. Now imagine this with me. The year is 1952. You've just crossed the Sabine River leaving Louisiana and entering Texas. The sun is beginning to sink low across the horizon. Your children are asleep in the back seat. Your gas gauge is dropping toward empty. And suddenly… you're nervous. Not because of bandits.Not because of weather.Not because of the road itself. You're afraid of where you might accidentally stop. Because there are towns ahead where being Black after dark could get you threatened… beaten… arrested… or worse. So before you ever left home, you packed something almost as important as gasoline. A small green book. Texas has always carried a larger-than-life image in the American imagination. Cowboys.Oil wells.Cattle drives.Wide-open skies.Frontier independence. But hidden beneath that mythology is another Texas. A Texas many people never experienced firsthand…and many others could never escape. For decades, scattered across this state and across America, were places known as Sundown Towns. Some had signs posted right at the city limits. Others didn't need signs at all. Everybody knew the rules. “Don't let the sun set on you here.” Now before we go further, let's talk about that little green book. The Negro Motorist Green Book was first published in 1936 by a Harlem postal worker named Victor H. Green. At first, it covered only New York City. But over time, it expanded across the United States, Canada, Mexico, and even Bermuda. Inside were lists of hotels, restaurants, tourist homes, gas stations, barber shops, beauty parlors, and businesses where Black travelers were welcome or at least safe. Safe. Think about that word. Today, most Americans choose a hotel based on price or reviews. Back then, Black families often chose places based on one simple question: “Will we survive the night?” The Green Book became known as “the bible of Black travel.” And it wasn't paranoia. It was necessity. Because across America, including Texas, there were towns where Black travelers knew not to stop after dark. So what exactly was a Sundown Town? A Sundown Town was a community that either formally or informally excluded minorities from remaining there after sunset. Most commonly, these policies targeted African Americans. But in some places, the hostility extended to Mexican Americans, Chinese Americans, Native Americans, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, almost anyone considered “outside” the community's idea of whiteness. Some towns passed ordinances. Others used intimidation. Violence.Threats.Economic pressure.Police harassment. And often, unwritten rules enforced the system more effectively than laws ever could. Maybe businesses mysteriously closed at sunset. Maybe hotels “had no vacancies.” Maybe gas stations refused service. Maybe local law enforcement simply escorted Black travelers to the city limits. The message was always understood. “You don't belong here.” Now many people think this was mostly a Deep South phenomenon. But Texas had its own long and painful history with Sundown Towns. Some communities openly embraced exclusion. Others quietly practiced it for generations. And some of those legacies still linger today. Take Alba. Small East Texas town.Population under five hundred. On the surface, it looks peaceful. But historically, Alba was founded as an all-white community. In the year 2000, it was still reported to be over 98 percent white. One local theory even claimed the town's name came from the Latin word for “white.” (note: the Latin word is album) Whether that story is fully true or not almost doesn't matter. Because the reputation itself tells us something important about how communities wanted to define themselves. Then there's Alvin. In 1933, a brutal axe murder shocked the community. When suspicion briefly turned toward a Black suspect, local newspapers reportedly noted that this seemed unlikely because “practically no negroes are allowed to live in Alvin.” Imagine reading that sentence in a newspaper today. Not whispered privately. Printed openly. As if exclusion itself were ordinary. Because at the time, in many places, it was. And perhaps one of the starkest examples comes from De Leon in Comanche County. In the late 1800s, Black residents were driven out after racial violence and lynchings. According to historical accounts, signs reportedly warned Black people not to let the sun set on them in town. And over time, the absence of Black residents became normalized. One Black resident interviewed decades later described growing up isolated… excluded from parties… unable to find anyone who understood her experience. That's one of the hidden costs of segregation people often forget. Not just physical danger. Isolation. Loneliness. The quiet message that you are permanently outside the community around you. But history is complicated. And not every Texas town stayed frozen in that past. Consider Killeen. In 1950, Killeen reportedly had no Black residents. But the growth of nearby Fort Hood, now known as Fort Cavazos and now back to Fort Hood, slowly changed the city's demographics. Black soldiers stationed there challenged old barriers simply by existing in large numbers. And by the 1960s, those barriers began to crack. Today, Killeen is one of the most diverse cities in Texas. That transformation reminds us something important: History is not destiny. Communities can change. But only when people are willing to confront the truth about where they've been. And then there's perhaps the most infamous modern example in Texas: Vidor. For decades, Vidor became nationally known for Ku Klux Klan activity and racial intimidation. Cross burnings.Marches.Threats. Even in the 1990s, not the 1890s but the 1990s, Black families moving into public housing faced bomb threats and harassment so severe some fled for their safety. Now it's important to say this carefully. A town is not permanently defined by its worst history. And many residents today reject those beliefs entirely. But understanding that this happened within living memory matters. Because sometimes Americans talk about segregation and racial terror as though it belongs to some ancient, distant era. It doesn't. Some of this history is only a generation or two behind us. Now there's another piece of this story we have to understand. The Green Book wasn't just about avoiding danger. It was also about building community. Inside its pages were Black-owned businesses…restaurants…tourist homes…beauty shops…service stations. It represented an entire parallel economy created because segregation left Black Americans excluded from so much of mainstream society. And in many ways, those businesses became lifelines. Places where travelers could finally exhale. Places where they didn't have to wonder whether they'd be humiliated… denied service… or attacked. The Green Book stopped publication in 1966, two years after the Civil Rights Act outlawed segregation in public accommodations. Legally, the world had changed. But culturally… well, culture often changes slower than laws. And some roads remained dangerous long after the signs came down. One of the challenges of studying this history is that many Sundown Towns never officially documented their policies. No ordinance.No paperwork.No public declaration. Just memory. Warnings passed from parent to child. Stories told quietly at kitchen tables. “Don't stop there.”“Keep driving.”“Make sure you have enough gas.” That hidden geography shaped how people traveled through Texas for generations. And unless you experienced it yourself, you may never have realized it existed. History often remembers the grand moments. The battles.The presidents.The famous speeches. But sometimes the most revealing truths are found in ordinary things. Like a family trying to find a motel before dark. Or a child asking why they can't stop in a certain town. Or a worn little green book folded into a glove compartment. Those quiet details tell us just as much about America as monuments and battlefields ever could. And maybe that's the real purpose of hidden history. Not to make people ashamed of the past. But to understand it honestly. Because history that remains buried has a strange way of repeating itself. But history that is remembered…examined…and understood… can become something else entirely. A warning. A lesson. And hopefully… a path forward. I'm Hank Wilson, and this has been Episode 89 of The Hidden History of Texas. Until next time…keep asking questions…keep digging deeper…and never stop looking beneath the surface of the stories we think we already know.

The EEOC is suing the New York Times, alleging the paper violated the Civil Rights Act by passing over a white male employee for a promotion because of his race and sex - employment attorney James Fett weighs in. President Trump's endorsed candidates scored major wins in Indiana, defeating several Republican state senators who opposed his redistricting push. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick faced closed-door questioning on Capitol Hill over newly released Epstein files that appear to contradict his past claims about when he last had contact with Jeffrey Epstein. Ted Turner, the billionaire media pioneer who founded CNN and helped reshape cable television, has died at 87 after a years-long battle with Lewy body dementia.   Pure Talk: Dial #250 and say keyword MEGYN KELLY to switch to Pure Talk and get unlimited data for just $34.99 a month!   Done with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.com & tell them Megyn Kelly sent you! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, passed in 1964 and 1965 respectively, marked the beginning of multi-racial democracy in the United States. But in the decades since, those achievements have been steadily contested. Just days ago, The U.S. Supreme Court dealt yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act with a decision regarding the Louisiana congressional map. Many experts say the Voting Rights Act is facing an existential moment where it stands to be narrowed, marginalized, and legislated out of relevancy, or even existence. Ari Berman is the voting rights correspondent at Mother Jones and the author of a number of books on the history of the subject, most recently Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People―and the Fight to Resist It.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, two of the nation's leading election law scholars dissect a ruling that could soon reverberate through elections at every level of government. Nathaniel Persily joins Pam Karlan for a discussion about the Callais decision—what it means for racial representation, partisan gerrymandering, and anti-discrimination law. Karlan and Persily are longtime collaborators, including as co-authors of The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process. Their conversation traces the Voting Rights Act's evolution from the landmark Thornburg v. Gingles decision to the Court's latest narrowing of Section 2, and examines how the ruling could affect congressional maps in 2026, minority representation at every level of government, and the broader future of disparate impact protections. As Persily explains, the Court has moved from treating partisan gerrymandering as constitutionally suspect to a place where it is now “a legitimate state practice, a legitimate interest that's almost being celebrated.”   Links: Nate Persily >>> Stanford Law School Page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X [00:00:30] Introduction: The Voting Rights Act Under Siege [00:02:18] Section 2's Original Promise: Results Over Intent [00:11:06] Louisiana v. Cali: Dismantling the Gingles Framework [00:23:17] From Unconstitutional to Celebrated: The Partisan Gerrymandering Evolution [00:28:14] Future Implications: Elections and Civil Rights Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Encore six mois jusqu'aux midterms. Les Américains voteront alors pour renouveler la Chambre des représentants et un tiers du Sénat. Au centre du débat actuellement, le découpage électoral avec une récente décision de la Cour Suprême qui pourrait changer la donne. Nous en parlons avec la spécialiste des États-Unis, Ludovine Gilli. Il y a quelques jours, la Cour suprême américaine est revenue sur l'une des lois du Civil Rights Act de 1965, issu du mouvement pour les droits civiques, un texte qui visait à réduire la discrimination durant les élections. Avec Ludivine Gilli, nous évoquons les conséquences de cette décision. Et nous parlons aussi du revers subi par des candidats républicains lors des primaires à l'élection du Sénat de l'Indiana. Ils étaient opposés à un projet de découpage électoral et ont battu par des candidats conservateurs favorisés par le président Donald Trump.   Procès de l'assassinat de Jovenel Moïse : « Il ne faut pas s'attendre à connaître toute la vérité » C'est ce qu'a déclaré le politologue et spécialiste d'Haïti Jake Johnston avec lequel nous avons dressé le bilan du procès américain à Miami qui est en train de s'achever. Après plus de deux mois d'audiences, le constat est mitigé : le procès n'a pas permis d'apporter de réponses claires sur l'identité du ou des commanditaires, ni sur les motivations profondes derrière l'opération. À lire aussiHaïti: ce qu'il faut savoir du procès sur l'assassinat de l'ancien président Jovenel Moïse   Au Chili, une loi pour étendre l'accès aux crèches d'entreprise Au Chili, les entreprises qui comptent au moins 20 femmes salariées doivent garantir un accès à une crèche pour leurs enfants jusqu'à l'âge de deux ans. Il peut s'agir d'une structure gérée par l'entreprise elle-même, d'une crèche externe financée par l'employeur, ou encore du versement d'une allocation aux mères pour faire garder leur bébé. Depuis douze ans, le pays tente d'élargir ce dispositif afin que davantage de femmes puissent en bénéficier, sans succès jusqu'à présent. À Santiago, reportage de notre correspondante Naïla Derroisné. Journal de la 1ère Réparations de l'esclavage : une lettre ouverte aux descendants d'esclavagistes. À lire aussiL'Assemblée générale de l'ONU proclame la traite des esclaves africains «plus grave crime contre l'humanité»

Olivia Troye spent almost 20 years in national security, working at the Pentagon, the National Counterterrorism Center under President Obama, and the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump term as Counterterrorism advisor to Vice President Mike Pence. She resigned from the White House in August 2020, and went on to play a pivotal role in the election that year. Over the past decade she's been an outspoken Trump critic, and spoke at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. She is now running as a democrat for the House in Virginia's 7th Congressional district. Olivia and I discuss the Iran war and Sec Def Pete Hegseth's testimony before Congress this week; the cost and impact of the war on the American people and homeland security; her campaign for the open House seat in Virginia's 7th Congressional district; the economy and the midterms; and more. But first, The Back Room crew discusses Hegseth's "full Bondi" performance on the Hill, the new indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, and the shameful gutting of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court in its Louisiana redistricting ruling. Plus, don't miss our winners and losers, and Andy's rant on the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Do you know all five rights in the First Amendment? Most Americans don't — and that's exactly the problem. In this eye-opening episode, Donny sits down with Ben Sheehan, host of Civics Made Easy on PBS, bestselling author of What Does the Constitution Actually Say?, and Substack writer at Politics Made Easy, for an urgent, accessible civics lesson every American needs right now. Ben breaks down the Bill of Rights amendment by amendment, explains the difference between originalism and textualism on the Supreme Court, and reveals exactly how the Trump administration may be violating the Constitution — from the Emoluments Clause to executive overreach on voting rights and mail-in ballots. In this episode, you'll learn: The five rights in the First Amendment (and why most Americans can't name them) What each of the 10 Bill of Rights amendments actually protects How originalism vs. textualism shapes Supreme Court rulings today Which constitutional clauses Trump may be violating — and why Congress isn't stopping it How ICE, executive orders, and election interference could impact the 2026 midterms Why the Constitution has no explicit right to vote — and why that matters How No Child Left Behind gutted civics education in American schools Why a more informed public in the 1960s led to the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and four constitutional amendments in one decade What Ben would add to the Constitution today Whether you're a political junkie, a first-time voter, a student, or just a concerned citizen trying to understand American democracy, constitutional law, and the future of free elections — this conversation will educate, inform, and maybe even inspire you to get more civically engaged.

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and ReconstructionCharles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of The Long Path Podcast, we sit down with Adela Cojab to discuss one of the most consequential civil rights battles affecting Jewish students in the United States today. Adela shares the story behind her landmark lawsuit against New York University (NYU) and explains how it became a pivotal case in the fight to apply Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students facing discrimination and harassment on campus.Adela walks us through what led her to take legal action while she was a student at NYU, the challenges of pursuing a case against a major university, and why the outcome matters far beyond a single campus. The conversation explores how existing anti-discrimination laws apply to Jews, why enforcement has historically been inconsistent, and how legal strategies are evolving to ensure Jewish students receive the same protections afforded to other minority groups.Following the events of October 7th, Adela has been deeply involved in advocacy and legal efforts aimed at strengthening civil rights protections for Jewish communities across American universities. We discuss the surge in antisemitism on campuses, the role of federal law, and how activists, lawyers, and policymakers are working to rebuild and reinforce a justice framework that properly protects Jewish students.This episode also examines the broader implications of Title VI enforcement, the responsibility of universities to maintain safe environments for all students, and what meaningful accountability could look like moving forward.Topics in this episode include:• Adela Cojab's lawsuit against NYU• How Title VI applies to Jewish students• Legal strategies for fighting campus antisemitism• The impact of October 7th on American universities• Rebuilding civil rights protections for Jews in the U.S.• What accountability for universities should look likeAdela Cojab is a civil rights advocate and legal activist who became nationally known for challenging how universities respond to antisemitism. Her case against NYU helped bring renewed attention to the application of Title VI protections for Jewish students, shaping ongoing legal and policy debates across the United States.Follow Adela Cojab:X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/adelacojabInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/adelacojabFollow The Long Path Podcast:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thelongpathpodcastTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thelongpathpodcast#AdelaCojab #TitleVI #CampusAntisemitism #NYU #JewishCivilRights

Ep 059 – Nonfiction. Author Zaakir Tameez discusses his book, “Charles Sumner: Conscience of a Nation.”‘A landmark biography of Charles Sumner, the unsung hero of the American Civil War and Reconstruction.Charles Sumner is mainly known as the abolitionist statesman who suffered a brutal caning on the Senate floor by the proslavery congressman Preston Brooks in 1856. This violent episode has obscured Sumner's status as the most passionate champion of equal rights and multiracial democracy of his time. A friend of Alexis de Tocqueville, an ally of Frederick Douglass, and an adviser to Abraham Lincoln, Sumner helped the Union win the Civil War and ordain the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.In a comprehensive but fast-paced narrative, Zaakir Tameez presents Sumner as one of America's forgotten founding fathers, a constitutional visionary who helped to rewrite the post–Civil War Constitution and give birth to modern civil rights law. He argues that Sumner was a gay man who battled with love and heartbreak at a time when homosexuality wasn't well understood or accepted. And he explores Sumner's critical partnerships with the nation's first generation of Black lawyers and civil rights leaders, whose legal contributions to Reconstruction have been overlooked for far too long.An extraordinary achievement of historical and constitutional scholarship, Charles Sumner brings back to life one of America's most inspiring statesmen, whose formidable ideas remain relevant to a nation still divided over questions of race, democracy, and constitutional law.'Subscribe to the War Books podcast here:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@warbookspodcastApple: https://apple.co/3FP4ULbSpotify: https://spoti.fi/3kP9scZFollow the show here:Twitter: https://twitter.com/warbookspodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/warbookspodcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/warbookspodcast/

Lady Bird Johnson's daring 1964 whistle-stop campaign and the publication of You Can't Catch Us: Lady Bird Johnson's Trailblazing 1964 Campaign Train and the Women Who Rode with Her (Sourcebooks, March 3, 2026). You Can't Catch Us is more than political history—it's a powerful testament to women-led leadership, resilience, and the pursuit of civility during turbulent times. As Schmidt deftly illustrates, this journey—"the four most dramatic days in my political life," as Lady Bird herself called it—helped redefine the role of presidential spouses and advanced the cause of women in politics. In October 1964, as the South simmered under the tensions following the signing of the Civil Rights Act three months earlier, First Lady Lady Bird Johnson boarded a specially outfitted nineteen-car train—the “Lady Bird Special”— and traversed eight Southern states. With forty-seven stops over four electrifying days and 1,682 miles behind her, she shattered the expectations of a presidential spouse with speeches, diplomacy, and palpable compassion. Shannon McKenna Schmidt shines a spotlight not just on Lady Bird's trailblazing role, but on the pioneering women who stood by her: Liz Carpenter, a trailblazing press secretary and the first East Wing staff director; Dr. Janet Travell, the first female White House physician; and legendary journalist Helen Thomas. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-like-it-s-live--4113802/support.

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

This Day in Legal History: Jackie Robinson Signs with DodgersOn April 10, 1947, Jackie Robinson signed his contract with the Brooklyn Dodgers, marking a pivotal moment in both sports and legal history. At the time, racial segregation was deeply entrenched in American society, including in professional athletics, where informal but rigid “color lines” excluded Black players. Robinson's signing, orchestrated by Dodgers executive Branch Rickey, directly challenged this exclusionary system. Although no court decision mandated integration in baseball, the move carried significant legal implications by undermining accepted norms of segregation.Robinson's entry into Major League Baseball occurred just years before landmark civil rights rulings, including Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. His success on the field helped shift public opinion, demonstrating that integration was both possible and beneficial. This cultural shift played an indirect but meaningful role in supporting broader legal challenges to segregation. At the same time, Robinson faced hostility, threats, and discriminatory treatment, highlighting the gap between evolving social practices and existing legal protections.The federal legal framework addressing discrimination was still underdeveloped in 1947, with major statutes like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 nearly two decades away. Robinson's breakthrough contributed to the growing momentum for such legislation by exposing the injustice and inefficiency of segregated systems. His experience also illustrated the limits of private action in achieving equality without formal legal enforcement mechanisms. Over time, his role became part of a larger narrative demonstrating how social change can precede and influence legal reform.Robinson's signing stands as an example of how non-judicial actions can shape the development of law by altering public attitudes and expectations. It underscores the interplay between private institutions and constitutional principles, particularly in the realm of equal protection. The event remains a key reference point in discussions about the relationship between cultural progress and legal change in the United States.A California federal judge has ordered another evidentiary hearing in the ongoing dispute between Epic Games and Google over proposed changes to an antitrust injunction governing Android app distribution. U.S. District Judge James Donato expressed frustration that each revised proposal introduces new elements, warning the parties that the court will not continue reviewing endless iterations. The latest proposal follows Epic's earlier trial victory, where a jury found Google had monopolized the Android app marketplace.Although the companies claim their revised plan better aligns with the original injunction, the judge raised concerns about potential anticompetitive effects. In particular, he questioned Google's idea of a “registered app store” program, suggesting it might create barriers for rival app stores. He also flagged possible issues with fees that could undermine competition. As a result, the court will require more detailed explanations before deciding whether to approve the changes.The dispute stems from litigation filed in 2020 challenging restrictions that limited alternative app stores and required developers to use Google's billing system. After Epic's win, the court imposed an injunction requiring Google to open its platform to competitors. While the revised proposal keeps some pro-competition measures—such as allowing alternative billing and preventing exclusionary deals—it has drawn mixed reactions.Supporters argue the new terms still promote competition, but critics, including Microsoft and advocacy groups, say the changes weaken the original order. They highlight concerns about new fees and provisions that could make it harder for competitors to enter the market. Some also argue that shifting key terms into private agreements reduces judicial oversight. Judge Donato indicated this upcoming hearing will likely be the final step before a decision, emphasizing the need to resolve the matter without further revisions.‘Not Going To Keep Doing This,' Judge Warns Epic, Google - Law360The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the National Football League is engaging in anticompetitive practices that could harm consumers. While the exact scope of the probe is unclear, it appears to focus on how the league distributes broadcasting rights for its games. Concerns have grown among regulators, lawmakers, and broadcasters about the increasing shift of sports content from free television to paid streaming platforms.Critics argue that this trend makes it harder and more expensive for fans to watch games, with some estimates suggesting it could cost over $1,500 annually to access all NFL broadcasts across multiple services. The NFL has defended itself by noting that most of its games are still available on free broadcast television, particularly in local markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission has also begun reviewing the broader migration of live sports to subscription-based platforms.The issue has drawn political attention, including a request from Senator Mike Lee for federal agencies to examine whether the NFL's longstanding antitrust exemption should still apply. That exemption, established by a 1961 law, allows leagues to bundle and sell broadcasting rights collectively.US Justice Department opens probe into NFL over anticompetitive practices, source says | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to comply with a prior court order protecting journalists' access and reporting rights at the Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the department's revised media policy effectively recreated the same unconstitutional restrictions it had already been ordered to remove. The dispute arose after The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes challenged rules limiting journalists' ability to seek information from government sources.Although the Pentagon changed the wording of its policy, the judge said the new language still prohibited routine journalistic practices, such as requesting non-public information. He rejected the government's argument that the revisions fixed the issue, calling them a clear attempt to sidestep the court's ruling. The opinion also criticized a provision that presumed journalists acted improperly if they offered anonymity to sources, noting that this is a standard practice in reporting.The judge further found that the Pentagon undermined the order by restricting reporters' physical access, including closing a designated workspace and requiring constant escorts inside the building. He dismissed the government's security justification, stating that existing screening procedures were never removed and that the new limitations appeared designed to weaken press access.Ultimately, the court ordered the government to restore prior conditions and comply fully with its ruling. Judge Friedman emphasized that the policy violated First Amendment protections by chilling press freedom and limiting the flow of information to the public. He warned that suppressing political speech and controlling media access are hallmarks of authoritarian systems, underscoring the constitutional importance of an independent press.‘Mark Of Autocracy': Court Says Pentagon Defied Press Order - Law360US judge says Pentagon violated court order to restore press access | ReutersA U.S. trade court is considering whether President Donald Trump's 10% global tariff on imports is lawful. The tariffs, introduced in February, are being challenged by a coalition of 24 states and small businesses, who argue that the policy exceeds presidential authority and improperly bypasses Congress. The case is being heard by a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade.The Trump administration defends the tariffs as a valid response to ongoing trade deficits, relying on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This provision allows temporary tariffs during serious balance-of-payments issues. However, the challengers argue that the law was intended for short-term economic emergencies, not persistent trade imbalances, and that the administration is stretching its meaning.The dispute comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down many of Trump's earlier tariffs imposed under a different statute, ruling he had overstepped his authority. Plaintiffs claim the new tariffs are an attempt to work around that decision using a different legal justification.US trade court weighs legality of Trump 10% global tariff | 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

Lady Bird Johnson's daring 1964 whistle-stop campaign and the publication of You Can't Catch Us: Lady Bird Johnson's Trailblazing 1964 Campaign Train and the Women Who Rode with Her (Sourcebooks, March 3, 2026). You Can't Catch Us is more than political history—it's a powerful testament to women-led leadership, resilience, and the pursuit of civility during turbulent times. As Schmidt deftly illustrates, this journey—"the four most dramatic days in my political life," as Lady Bird herself called it—helped redefine the role of presidential spouses and advanced the cause of women in politics. In October 1964, as the South simmered under the tensions following the signing of the Civil Rights Act three months earlier, First Lady Lady Bird Johnson boarded a specially outfitted nineteen-car train—the “Lady Bird Special”— and traversed eight Southern states. With forty-seven stops over four electrifying days and 1,682 miles behind her, she shattered the expectations of a presidential spouse with speeches, diplomacy, and palpable compassion. Shannon McKenna Schmidt shines a spotlight not just on Lady Bird's trailblazing role, but on the pioneering women who stood by her: Liz Carpenter, a trailblazing press secretary and the first East Wing staff director; Dr. Janet Travell, the first female White House physician; and legendary journalist Helen Thomas. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1866On April 9, 1866, the United States Congress took a decisive step in shaping post-Civil War legal order by overriding President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This marked the first time in American history that a major piece of civil rights legislation became law over a presidential veto. The Act established that all persons born in the United States were citizens, directly challenging the legacy of Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. By affirming equal protection under the law, Congress sought to secure basic civil rights for newly freed individuals in the aftermath of the Civil War. The override demonstrated a powerful assertion of legislative authority during the Reconstruction era.The law also reflected growing tensions between Congress and the executive branch over how to rebuild the nation. Johnson had argued that the Act overstepped federal authority, but Congress rejected that view, signaling a shift toward stronger federal protection of individual rights. This moment helped redefine the balance of power within the federal government. It also underscored the role of Congress in enforcing civil rights when the executive resisted such measures. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 would later serve as a foundation for the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which constitutionalized its key principles.In practical terms, the Act granted citizens the right to make contracts, sue in court, and own property regardless of race. Although enforcement remained uneven, the statute represented a critical legal milestone in the transition from slavery to citizenship. It also set an enduring precedent for future civil rights legislation. The events of April 9, 1866, illustrate how constitutional mechanisms like veto overrides can shape the trajectory of American law.A former DLA Piper associate, Anisha Mehta, testified in federal court that she was unexpectedly fired shortly after announcing her pregnancy, despite receiving positive feedback on her work. She told the jury she handled significant responsibilities, including managing trademark portfolios for major corporate clients, and believed her performance was strong. Mehta said her supervisor initially reacted supportively to her pregnancy but soon raised vague performance concerns that she had not previously encountered. She described feeling shocked and distressed when she was terminated during a call with her supervisor and an HR representative in August 2022.Mehta claims the firm violated federal and New York City laws by discriminating against her based on pregnancy, while DLA Piper maintains she was dismissed for poor performance. She testified that she attempted to challenge the termination and requested to go through a formal evaluation process, but was denied. After her firing, she continued working briefly until her system access was cut off when she declined a severance agreement.Following her termination, Mehta applied to hundreds of jobs while pregnant but struggled to find employment. She eventually secured a position at eBay in 2024, earning significantly less than her prior salary. During cross-examination, the defense highlighted several alleged mistakes, including minor errors in client communications and administrative oversights, to support its claim of poor performance. Mehta acknowledged some errors but characterized them as minor and not indicative of overall poor work.At the center of the case is whether Mehta's termination was motivated by unlawful pregnancy discrimination or legitimate performance concerns. The legal issue involves employment protections under anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit adverse actions based on pregnancy while still allowing employers to terminate at-will employees for lawful reasons.Pregnant DLA Piper Atty Recounts Firing: ‘This Feels Wrong' - Law360A federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that a coalition of states can proceed with their lawsuit challenging a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose denied the federal government's motion to dismiss, finding that the states presented plausible claims under both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. She also criticized the government for repeating jurisdictional arguments that had already been rejected earlier in the case and by the appellate court.The lawsuit, brought by 19 states and Washington, D.C., challenges a sweeping overhaul that aimed to significantly reduce the agency's workforce and restructure key programs. The states argue that the changes disrupted essential public health services, including disease detection, tobacco control efforts, and lead poisoning prevention. They also claim the restructuring caused missed regulatory deadlines, canceled health initiatives, and confusion around federal grants.Judge DuBose had previously issued a preliminary injunction blocking layoffs, noting that the states demonstrated real and ongoing harm. In this latest ruling, she emphasized that courts have the authority to review and stop government actions that may violate constitutional principles, including separation of powers. The states allege the overhaul exceeded executive authority and violated both statutory requirements and constitutional limits on government power.The federal government argued that the states lacked standing, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that the agency's actions were lawful internal management decisions. However, the judge rejected these arguments, stating they had already been considered and did not undermine the plausibility of the claims. As a result, the case will move forward, allowing the states to continue challenging the legality of the HHS restructuring.HHS Must Face States' Suit Over RFK's ‘Dramatic Overhaul' - Law360John Deere has agreed to a $99 million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit brought by farmers who accused the company of restricting competition in the repair market for its equipment. The farmers alleged that John Deere limited access to necessary diagnostic tools and software, effectively forcing customers to rely on authorized dealers for repairs at higher costs. The company denied wrongdoing but said the agreement resolves the dispute and allows it to move forward.The settlement includes both monetary compensation and significant changes to repair access. Farmers who paid for repairs through authorized dealers since 2018 will be eligible for compensation, with total payouts expected to exceed $100 million with interest. Experts estimated that the alleged overcharges ranged much higher, making the recovery a relatively strong percentage compared to typical antitrust settlements.In addition to financial relief, John Deere agreed to provide independent repair shops and equipment owners with access to diagnostic tools and software over a 10-year period. This change is intended to allow farmers to repair their own equipment or use third-party providers, addressing concerns about restricted competition. Plaintiffs described this as a major shift that breaks down the company's control over the repair market.The lawsuit, filed in 2022, claimed that John Deere monopolized the aftermarket for repairs by designing equipment that required proprietary tools. A federal judge previously allowed the case to proceed, finding sufficient evidence of potential market power. While this settlement resolves the private lawsuit, similar claims brought by the Federal Trade Commission remain ongoing.John Deere Inks $99M Deal In Farmers' Right-To-Repair Suit - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Civil Rights Act of 1968On April 6, 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 into law, marking a major expansion of federal civil rights protections. Commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, the legislation aimed to eliminate discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing. It prohibited unequal treatment based on race, religion, and national origin, later expanding to include sex and other protected characteristics. The law emerged during a period of national unrest, passed just days after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. King had long advocated for fair housing as a central component of racial equality, particularly in Northern cities.The Act addressed systemic practices such as redlining, steering, and discriminatory lending that had historically segregated communities. It gave the federal government authority to enforce fair housing standards, though early enforcement mechanisms were relatively weak. Over time, amendments strengthened the law, adding protections for people with disabilities and families with children. The statute also allowed individuals to file complaints with the Department of Housing and Urban Development or pursue private lawsuits. Courts have since played a key role in interpreting the scope of the Act, especially in recognizing claims based on disparate impact.A central legal concept tied to the Fair Housing Act is disparate impact, which refers to policies that appear neutral but disproportionately harm protected groups. Unlike intentional discrimination, disparate impact does not require proof of discriminatory intent, only that a practice has an unequal effect. This theory became firmly established in housing law through later litigation and was upheld by the Supreme Court in cases interpreting the Act. It remains a critical tool for challenging structural inequality in housing markets.The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 represented both a response to national tragedy and a continuation of the broader civil rights movement's legislative achievements.A federal judge refused to reverse his earlier decision blocking subpoenas targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, effectively pausing a criminal investigation and setting up a likely appeal. Chief Judge James Boasberg ruled that prosecutors failed to show any valid basis for suspecting wrongdoing and criticized the lack of evidence supporting fraud allegations. He had previously found that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose, suggesting they were meant to pressure Powell to lower interest rates or step down.The subpoenas, issued by prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, sought information about cost overruns at the Federal Reserve's headquarters and Powell's prior congressional testimony. However, the court found no good-faith basis for believing a crime had occurred. Prosecutors argued the judge applied too strict a standard and misread the timeline of the investigation, but the court rejected those claims. Pirro's office has said it will appeal the ruling, a move supported by Justice Department leadership.The dispute reflects broader tensions between Powell and allies of President Donald Trump, with Powell arguing the investigation is an attempt to influence Federal Reserve policy. The appeal could delay efforts to confirm Kevin Warsh as a replacement for Powell, as some lawmakers have pledged to block the nomination while the case continues. Powell has said he will remain in his role until the legal challenge is resolved.US judge upholds block on subpoenas to Fed's Powell, teeing up likely appeal | ReutersA federal judge blocked the Trump administration from requiring public universities in 17 states to provide extensive admissions data related to race and sex. Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued a preliminary injunction after state attorneys general challenged the policy, arguing it was imposed too quickly and created legal risks for schools. The data request came from the Department of Education, which sought seven years of information to evaluate whether colleges were complying with the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that ended affirmative action in higher education.The states argued that the reporting requirement was confusing and could expose universities to penalties for accidental errors. The court agreed that the rollout was “rushed and chaotic,” noting that officials failed to properly consider concerns raised by universities. At the same time, the judge acknowledged that the Department of Education does have legal authority to collect such data in general. The issue, he emphasized, was how the policy was implemented, not necessarily the underlying power itself.The ruling also pointed to practical problems, including staffing shortages within the agency after workforce reductions, which made it harder to manage the data collection process. Officials in states like New York and California supported the decision, saying schools should not be forced to produce large amounts of sensitive information under unclear requirements.Trump administration can't make colleges provide race-related data, judge rules | ReutersThe Trump administration filed an emergency motion asking an appeals court to allow construction to resume on a planned White House ballroom after a judge ordered the project paused. The administration argued that stopping the work creates serious security risks, claiming the site has been left vulnerable and could endanger the president, staff, and the building itself. The pause was ordered by Judge Richard Leon, who halted construction while a legal challenge moves forward.The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argues that President Donald Trumpexceeded his authority by demolishing the historic East Wing and beginning a $400 million replacement project without congressional approval. In response, the administration claims the lawsuit is legally flawed and that the president has full authority to renovate the White House. It also argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, meaning they do not have a sufficient legal stake to bring the case.Judge Leon temporarily paused his own order for 14 days to give the administration time to appeal, and the new emergency motion asks the appellate court to lift the construction halt entirely. The administration further contends that the lower court should not have heard the case at all, characterizing the claims as based on subjective concerns rather than legal injury.Trump administration files emergency motion to resume ballroom work, citing security issues | 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 meeting covered a wide range of current events and policy debates starting with a detailed exchange about socialism, communism, and related legal history including the Civil Rights Act exception for communism. Participants then reviewed local news about the Virginia Zoo cheetah death and debated likely public responses and PR options. Immigration topics followed, focusing on legal questions about a Biden-era migrant app and the concept of stopping at the first safe nation. The conversation shifted to preserving veteran oral histories with a concrete suggestion to audio-record veterans' stories to prevent generational memory loss. Federal court and political items were discussed next, including a judge blocking an executive order affecting NPR/PBS and broader debates about judicial authority and court-packing history. The group spent substantial time on personnel scandals and resignations in politics and sports, recent drug classification and health research related to marijuana, and geopolitics including a Russian tanker docking in Cuba. The meeting closed with operational topics: naval and aviation readiness and incidents, a change allowing troops to keep personal firearms on base with attendant rules and safety concerns, and detailed production decisions about maintaining a consistent three-person show format, thumbnail design, AI image generation, and asset storage.

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Annie Lee moderates a panel with African and Asian Americans about the impacts of Birthright Citizenship and the need for Surviving Through Solidarity. Guests include: Lisa Holder, Ming Hsu Chen, Don Tamaki and Michael Harris.   Link to an APEX Episode on Wong Kim Ark from March 20, 2025 Show Transcript [00:00:00] Opening Music: Apex Express Asian Pacific expression. Community and cultural coverage, music and calendar, new visions and voices, coming to you with an Asian Pacific Islander point of view. It's time to get on board the Apex Express.   [00:00:40] Miko Lee: Welcome to Apex Express. I'm your host, Miko Lee, and tonight we will listen to a recent event, Birthright Citizenship, Surviving Through Solidarity that took place at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Just yesterday, on April 1st, the Supreme Court heard the case around birthright citizenship. This event that you're gonna listen to was highlighting Asian and African American solidarity. As you might know, the cases of dread Scott in 1857 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 are linked as landmark Supreme Court cases that directly defined and redefined American citizenship specifically about race and birthright. While Dred Scott denied citizenship to people of African descent, Wong Kim Ark's case utilized the subsequent 14th Amendment to solidify birthright citizenship for children born to foreign nationals. I'm just noting that in this conversation, because it was a panel discussion that was live, there was some irregular use of microphones, so sometimes the audio can be a bit spotty. Please bear with us, and if you want to review the transcript, check out our website, kpfa.org, apex Express. And last year we also covered the story of Wong Kim Ark and have included this past show in our show notes. Now let's listen in to moderator Annie Lee, Lawyers Michael Harris and Don Tamaki, Lisa Holder of Equal Justice Society and Ming Chen of UC Law.   [00:02:20] Annie Lee: Everyone. My name is Annie Lee and I am the managing director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action. Welcome to CAA's office here in San Francisco, Chinatown. And thank you all for being here today for our discussion: Birthright Citizenship Surviving through Solidarity. CAA and Stop AAPI Hate are proud to co-sponsor this event because it matters to us. CAA has been around since 1969 and we are a community based organization that provides direct services to lingual working class Chinese immigrants. And we also try to improve their lives through policy and advocacy. And in 2020, we co-founded Stop AAPI Hate, which is the national leading aggregator of anti-Asian hate incidents. And we know at Stop AAPI Hate that anti-immigrant policies are anti-Asian hate. So why are we here right now? March marks two anniversaries of two Supreme Court cases. One is Dred Scott and the other is Wong Kim Ark. These are two seminal cases in US history. And next week on April 1st, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. So we are here to talk about birthright citizenship because it's an issue that is near and dear to both the Black and Asian communities.   [00:03:46] Without further ado, I am so thrilled to welcome this panel of amazing folks. Let's start with Michael Harris. Michael Harris here on my right is a retired attorney. He, for many, many years led the juvenile justice division at the National Center for Youth Law, an incredible litigator and advocates, and I'm so proud that he's here. He's also on the Equal Justice Society Board. Next to Michael is Don Tamaki. Don is a lawyer at the firm Minami Tamaki, and you might know him because he was part of the legal team that successfully got reparations for Japanese Americans after decades of fighting that injustice. So thank you Don. Don and Lisa, actually, spend time together on the California Reparations Task Force. And so this is Lisa Holder next to Don. Lisa is the president of the Equal Justice Society, which is based in Oakland, an incredible legal organization that has been in many, many fights, including, they filed an amicus brief in support of birthright citizenship, and that brief discusses why this is an issue for the Black community. And last but not least, we have Professor Ming Chen, who is a law professor at UC Law, and she's also the faculty director of the RICE Program, which is Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality. So thank you so much to my panel and let's dive in. So some of you know, but I am a former US history teacher, so I often worry that people don't adequately understand American history and I fear that people don't understand reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. So let's start with the origin of birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship and where did it come from and why does its origin matter for understanding what's happening today? So Ming, I'm gonna start with you because you're a law professor and then others chime in. Lisa, Michael, Don. 'cause I think you'll have more to add.   [00:05:45] Ming Chen: Great. Thank you so much Annie, and thank you to CAA for having us all. I'm really excited to be part of this conversation, which I think is going to be really the beginning of a series of conversations over the next few months. So you're starting in the right place, Annie, in asking us what birthright citizenship is, because that is the heart of what the common lawsuit will be about: who gets to be a citizen in the United States. And that's actually why I named my organization RICE. I think the emphasis is on the “C” [citizenship], because I do think it is something that brings together immigrant communities, as well as all of the different communities within the United States that have been expanding, over time. Getting to the, legal text I, I think it's important to remember first that birthright citizenship is bigger than the United States. Worldwide there are at least two ways of becoming a citizen. One is by birthright and the other is by naturalized citizenship. So we're talking about the birthright half. And the United States is not alone. It's among countries mostly in the Western hemisphere that have chosen to focus on the “jus soli” version of birthright citizenship, which is “soli” is soil. So it's birth by touching US soil. And the idea behind that theory was always meant to be an egalitarian one. It's one that is about the idea that anyone can become a citizen, right? In contrast to the older system that Europe and other countries use, “jus sanguinis,” which is to say that citizenship could only be inherited by blood and heritage. Right? So I think right from the very beginning, it tells us what the text and the history of our 14th amendment citizenship clause intended to accomplish, which was to have an egalitarian spirit, a fresh start, and a continual renewal of what it means to be an American.   [00:07:33] Lisa Holder: Just sort of continuing on the path that Ming just opened up for us, birthright citizenship is very much connected to the African American experience. Particularly because the genesis of that right, really was a reversal of the construct and the regime of the enslavement era, right? Everyone's aware that during that era, descendants of Africa were not considered humans, much less citizens. And the legal cases that were brought where people try to have their citizenship, and their humanity acknowledged, the courts universally said, no, you are not citizens and Black people have no rights that white people need to respect. Right. And so that was the case, law of the land until, after the Civil War, when we had the 13th, 14th, and 15th, amendments were lifted up and embedded into our laws. You also had the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where that body of law was overturned and enshrined into our constitution was a new law that said that freed people are citizens and they do have rights that everyone needs to respect and rights to equality. You know, we know that there have been problems executing that [laughs] but at least enshrined in our laws and enshrined in our constitution that is where the birthright citizenship, constitutional law came from. It came out of that experience.    [00:09:21] Michael Harris: I just want to add a couple things to that. I mean, it's very distinguished scholars, they're hitting it really hard. Two things, universality and so I wanna talk about that first. I got one more coming forward. It's universal. Birthright citizenship is universal. And what I mean by that is everybody gets to be a citizen who's born here in the United States. Period. It's universal, applies to everybody. It doesn't matter if you're Black or white or Asian, none of that matters. That's really important. The other thing is it's that this criteria is not something that's subjective, nobody gets to decide. It's automatic. If you're born here, you automatically have citizenship. Those two things being automatic and being universal I think are really important. And this, we'll talk about this more as we go through the conversation, but those two things are what makes birthright citizenship so powerful and why they keep coming to try and take it down because it's universal so everybody gets it and it's automatic. Nobody can take it away. So let's, we'll I'll just leave it there for now, but we'll come back to that.   [00:10:33] Annie Lee: Don, this one's for you. So the 14th Amendment passes in 1868. Like Lisa said, it's to reverse Dred Scott, where the Justice Taney wrote that Black people had no rights, which the white man was bound to respect. And so they had to repudiate that through the 14th amendments, they have universal and automatic birthright citizenship with very, very few exceptions for like diplomats kids. Okay, that's like so, so narrow. So 14th Amendment passes in 1868, but it takes another 30 years for a Chinese American man named Wong Kim Ark to establish that birthright citizenship actually applied to the children of immigrants. So Don, can you tell us Wong Kim Ark's story, who was he, what happened to him and why did the federal rural government make him this test case?   [00:11:22] Don Tamaki: Just a couple words about context. I mean, one of the remarkable things about the case is it occurred during especially California's ultra racist, ultra virulent racist period. It's a contradiction in that regard. So just taking you back to the origins of where this racial pathology comes from, of course we focus, tend to focus on Asian American history, but actually you have to begin with Black history and indigenous history in the country. So in 1619, the first enslaved people were brought to America. And you know, 12 million people were kidnapped off the west coast of Africa. 2 million died during the middle passage. 400,000 were dropped off in America, and the million other millions ended up in the Caribbean, in the Brazil in Haiti, Jamaica, et cetera. And from there, slavery in America continued for 246 years. Two and a half centuries. Civil war happened in 1865. It concluded, and for another 100 years, Jim Crow exclusion infected America. And San Francisco, by the way, was heavily Jim Crow until the 1960s and into the 1970s. The vestiges of that exclusion and discrimination directly are rooted in the Black American experience.   [00:12:52] Michael Harris: And it's still present here today. That's why we have a Chinatown. That's why we have a Japantown in San Francisco because of what Don just did.    [00:13:00] Don Tamaki: Redlining and racial covenants.    [00:13:02] Michael Harris: That's right.    [00:13:03] Don Tamaki: Exclusions, redevelopment, and so on. So people think of California as being like a enlightened state. Well, California did enter the union in 1850 before the Civil War. 1849 enslavers came to California and they brought their human property with them. So there were probably at least 1500 enslaved people in California. 1865 Civil War ended, but Democrats in 1868 rose to power saying they would vote against any law that would have any equality between , Black Californians, indigenous people, and Chinese folks. And beginning toward late 1800s, that's when the bulk of Asian American immigration began. First Chinese American coming during the gold rush, and then Japanese Americans have followed and so on. And so, Jim Crow seeped into all that. Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. California was known as a strong Klan state by the end of the 1800s with strong Ku Klux Klan chapters in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, San Jose, Anaheim and so on. And so this was a toxic stew that Chinese immigrated into and other groups too. So unsurprisingly, tons of anti-Asian legislation policies, exclusion, follow. So Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who lived and operated a business here. His parents continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, and then they departed for China. Probably no doubt because of the inhospitable conditions here. And racial terror was part of that, including the race riots here in Chinatown. And now that I mention it between 1865 to 1935, 352 people were lynched in California. Eight of those were Black Californians, but the rest were indigenous, Chinese, and persons of Mexican descent.   [00:15:18] So that was the environment. Wong Kim Ark continued to live in California into his twenties, reportedly working as a cook in San Francisco. And at the age of 21 he actually made two trips to China. He made a trip to China when he was 17 to visit his parents. Stayed there a year, came back without incident worked, came back here, worked till he was 21, then went back to China to visit his parents at that point. And when he attempted to reenter the United States, he was denied entry and detained with a threat of deportation upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States. Of course he was born here. So the issue was you know, birthright citizenship was the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment did it apply to Wong Kim Ark. And the interesting thing is about the case is that the court ruled in his favor. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And those words are now, today becomes crucial. And people, I think we on the panel will talk about the implications of that language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And it established this principle that basically was reaffirmed repeatedly throughout our history for this 100 year plus period. To get to your last question, why did the court do this? I think scholars smarter than me can explain this, but I'll give you some clues. The court ruled in Wong Kim Ark's favor despite the virulent context of the era, because that's what the plain and expansive language of the 14th Amendment says.   [00:17:02] All persons didn't say formally enslaved, didn't say Black Americans. It said all persons. That's what the plain expensive language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 says: all persons and as Lisa referred to. And the congressional record of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1862, where legislators are debating these issues they clearly understood, and the record shows that if you include this expansive language, it will apply to groups like Chinese and Asians. And so with that understood it was adopted and ratified in 1868, 14th Amendment, and it was reaffirmed in other legislation like the Immigration Act of 1940. They just assumed that if you're born in this country, you're an American citizen. It was applied throughout the turbulent history involving my community, Japanese Americans. As you recall, 1942, 125,000 people were rounded up and put in concentration camps and the first generation were ineligible to become citizens. They were given identity cards marking them as enemy aliens. 2000 people died in those camps, but people were born in those camps. And the government, despite the fact that we were at war with Japan, understood that if you're born in this country. And even if your parents were quote, “enemy aliens,” you're gonna be classified as American citizens. And maybe lastly, the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark because the 14th Amendment was trying to repair the harm done by Dred Scott v. Sandford, which was to provide human beings who've been here for two and a half centuries, the right to become an American citizen with all the benefits that go with that, like voting for instance. And recognizing that if you don't have those rights, you don't have anything, you are you, you're nothing. And for Japanese Americans, for instance, who are born in those camps, can you imagine if they didn't have birthright citizenship? They're not part of Japan. They're not part of America. Where are they? They're stateless. They have no home. They have no rights. And so it would create another underclass of people who have no rights for, and for which the 14th Amendment was trying to remedy which was you know, to provide a pathway. And so I guess you could say that's why, that's the incongruity of why Wong Kim Ark came out that way. In my opinion.   [00:19:59] Ming Chen: Maybe what I could add to the conversation is not just sort of who is included but who is not included. Because I think that's actually a much more small and specific group than the current dialogue would have you believe. So in the very language of the 14th Amendment, this idea of subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It refers to three exceptions and only three exceptions. One is for Native Americans, and that is because as of 1924 there wasn't a need to grant citizenship through the 14th Amendment because there were other provisions to grant citizenship to Native Americans. The second exception is for those who are children of diplomats. And the reason for that is because they have citizenship in their home country and their parents are only on a temporary post to the United States with the understanding that they're here in the United States in service to their home country. And I think that actually points to the limited meaning of the third exception, which is the one that I have to say, I have a really hard time understanding is part of the debate now. Because I think up until now, you know, this debate renews itself a couple times every year. Every time there's a new census, every time there's redistricting on all of the anniversaries, and usually the fight is about subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the third exception, which has come into the dialogue, is about the language of accepting children of invading armies. And that is one that I have not thought we needed to argue about. It really becomes a touch point as Don mentions this history with internment and the children of a group of enemy aliens. I think that gives it a whole new historical read.   [00:21:48] But one of the reasons that this argument, I guess I should first explain the argument because it may not be obvious to you as it was not obvious to me the first time I heard it, which was about 18 months ago. And so the argument is that the children of invading armies referring mostly to the children of immigrants coming across the US Mexico border should not be considered birthright citizens. So that's kind of what the public debate, what the insinuation is behind some of the current effort to chip away at Wong Kim Ark through the executive order. There have been many efforts to chip away through legislation. I don't know how frequently it's been attempted through constitutional amendment, which is what it would actually require. That's a very, very high bar that's almost never met. I think most people haven't really made a serious, serious effort there. But what I think is kind of stunning to me in the sort of momentum behind the current moment is that Judge Ho who himself is a birthright citizen. Took up this language and this argument about the children of invading armies after previously saying that he agreed with this interpretation that children of undocumented immigrants, children of temporary visas all of these different legal statuses in addition to all of these racial groups, would immediately be citizens. And the argument he tried to make is that it wouldn't include the group at the border because historically it wouldn't have included enemy aliens or invading aliens either. And I think that what is so surprising to me is that a) that there is meant to be this historical analog between what would've been happening at the time of the Civil War and what is happening now at the US Mexico border. We are not having a civil war. We are not in active military conflict at the US Mexico border. I'll set aside other US military conflicts and how we wanna use that terminology. But I think that's really important because I, I feel like it's almost a trick, you know, to turn what is a media frame that's meant to be like clickbait, right? The idea that there is an invasion at the border, right. That we're being flooded with people who don't belong here. And to try to turn that into a legal argument saying this is actually an invading army and that takes this group outside of the 14th Amendment.    [00:24:19] Michael Harris: That's, I was gonna ask you a follow up question because we haven't been invaded that many times by armies I mean, maybe the War for Independence when the British sent ships over and took over Boston for a while. I could see how if they had kids, I mean, that's a stretch, that might apply to this. But I think the rhetorical device, they're touching on where they speak of people who come into the United States without proper documentation as an invading army or an invading whatever. They use that terminology quite often. Is that enough to bootstrap into this exception?    [00:24:59] Ming Chen: I, not to me, [audience and panel laughter] I think not to serious legal scholars and jurists. I mean, and you know, I'm not trying to be inflammatory by saying that. I think there are a lot of people who are pretty far away from me on a legal and political spectrum who would also say that this argument is pretty unprecedented. To try to say that that would be enough to bootstrap it into the actual text of the constitution or the spirit of Wong Kim Ark. So I think it's going really, really far. And I think too far, and I hope that if that becomes a line of discussion during the oral argument, that it would be cut off pretty quickly.   [00:25:38] Annie Lee: Well, let me punt it to Lisa then. If it's pretty clear based on the text, based on the legislative history, based on, just everything in the last 125 years that has said very clearly that birthright citizenship is universal and automatic. Why is Trump doing this? Like, what is being attempted legally, but also politically? And Lisa, you take a stab at this first and then others can chime in.    [00:26:04] Lisa Holder: Yeah. You know, why is Trump doing this? [audience and panel laughter] There's many layers, you know? And it, this is a strategic play and you have to sort of think about this in a layered way. Like there's a long term strategic play. There's a short term strategic play, there's a procedural strategic play, but that sort of bootstraps and brings in a much more moral and narrative rhetorical play. Procedural play. The short term strategic play has a lot to do with the midterm elections. Right, right. And also limiting people of color's ability to pick people who look like them as their representatives. Right. Because all of a sudden you're not only putting into question people's citizenship based on birth and turning this into a lineage thing where you have to bring me proof that your parents or their parents were born here or something like that, or were naturalized. So you're starting to put into question in a practical measure, people's access to the franchise, people's access to the voting booth. Right. And you're also starting to create a chain effect. So people are actually afraid to go to the voting booth. Right. And then you couple that with moving the migration of ICE. Now ICE is in the airports. Guaranteed by November, ICE will be in the voting booth, right? So you create this chilling effect. And then in terms of having representation that looks like you having people of color represent you in the US House of Representatives, your state representative. When you put birthright into question in this way, you're also gonna be able to challenge people who are running for office, people of color, running for office and say, well, you can't really run because you need to prove. And that is a rhetorical issue that we have seen being used already with both Harris and Obama, you know, because they were brown, Black people. Their birthright citizenship was, they were manipulating that rhetoric and that narrative.   [00:28:25] So this is not coming out of the outta left field. It's iterative and it's a it's rhetoric that has been, you know, percolating up for a long time. This is just a culminating moment. The long term strategy is really about white supremacy. We know that, you know, all of the social science shows that in 20 years this, the country will be a majority minority country, right? And people of color will have a huge amount of power in terms of, you know, in terms of the vote, right? Because of that, switch to majority minority and white people will be in the minority. And so, this is about, from a long term perspective, ensuring that certain people maintain their power as an electoral block. Right? So that's sort of like a long term electoral politics play. And then finally, the procedural issues are what's outstanding, okay? As Ming mentioned, if you are going to use procedure to overturn a constitutional amendment that is a, an astronomical feat to accomplish, right? Because you need two thirds of all of the representatives in Congress, and then on top of that, you need 75% of the states to ratify that process. So overturning a constitutional amendment is virtually impossible. But what we have here is trying to do the same thing. One person trying to do the same thing using the powers of the executive office. It is unprecedented. It is absurd. It has no legal viability, but it is a political moment where this man sees an opportunity because of the bias that we see in the judicial branch, in the court system. And that is being leveraged for the executive to to do something that is unprecedented and that is actually procedurally impossible, right? For one person by just signing a document all of a sudden disenfranchising 13 million people. That is not the democratic process. It's quite the opposite.   [00:30:38] Michael Harris: I just wanted to add to that. The Senate and the House of Representatives are both very narrowly controlled by the Republicans, and so it's really important to Trump to maintain that control. He'll only be able to continue doing these outrageous things by virtue of getting a rubber stamp from Congress. And so either house going the other way would put a stop sign in front of him and make it much more difficult for him to do all those things. All this money he's spending he would not be able to do that if Congress was actually active in doing it's job. Cause under the Constitution, spending is supposed to be controlled by the Congress, not by the Executive. So everything's upside down, but that's only working because Congress is allowing him to do that and not trying to stop him. If the Democrats are able to take over the Senate or the House where there's only a three or four seat margin right now that would make it much, much, much harder for him to pull these things off. And so anything he can do to get an advantage in that way I think is also part of what they're trying to do and trying to pull off.   [00:31:48] Ming Chen: One other thought, and you know, I'm trying very hard to not be professorly in the sense of using jargon or highfalutin terms, but I'm just curious, has anyone in this room heard the term perpetual foreigner before? A few of you have, I mean, I think it's really pertinent here. The first time I heard of this idea was when I started to learn from other Asian American law professors when I was still in college. I think that idea was that for certain groups of people, including Asian Americans, it doesn't matter whether you are actually a citizen by law or how many generations you've lived in the United States, right? So I'm a birthright citizen like Wong Kim Ark, but I think the first time I heard about it was, you know, this idea of Asian Americans not being able to be Americans socially in terms of belonging regardless of whether they are themselves, the child of citizens or immigrants and if they're the sixth generation children, right. I remember taking a Chinatown tour with David and is that where we are about six generations out for a lot of the descendants. So even if you were in the sixth generation that if you look Asian, that you will still be seen as being foreign. And so I think that idea has animated a lot of the work that I do. Like why it is that a lot of the work I do on race centers Asian Americans and then a lot of the work I do on immigrants centers, the naturalization process.   [00:33:16] But I think it's also important to recognize the breadth of that idea. Again, this idea of trying to blur the line between actuality, like what is real and what sounds like a fancy argument. Right. And I think what Lisa said, you know, her brief reference to the challenges against Barack Obama and Kamala Harris when they were running for a highest offices. You know, I think again, there's not, it's not a coincidence. I mean, to me that's the perpetual foreigner at work again. Because it's the idea that not only that Black people cannot possibly be the leader of this country, right? Sort of the, the figurehead of this country, but that for Barack Obama, the child of one international student on a lawful, probably f visa at the time, or that for Kamala Harris, the child of two lawful immigrants, that they cannot be birthright citizens that would be eligible for president. So there's a lot of commonality in that argument. And I think, you know, people forget, I think people assume that if you're talking about groups who are not Asian right, or who are not Latinx, that we're not talking about foreignness, we're only talking about race. And certainly we are talking about race, but we're not talking about it exclusively.   [00:34:33] Michael Harris: And then in addition to all of that is just the straight up racism of it. And that's supported by this notion of white supremacy. And what I mean when I say that, Lisa has touched on this already, is that there is a hierarchy of racial groups. And we're not all created equal. There's a hierarchy and the top group is, you already know, I don't have to say it, is the whites [laughter], and then below that are the other people like us who look different. And the reason there's, they're able to put these groups out there and get people to buy into that belief system is because we look different. And so this is why the perpetual thing is perpetual it's because we still look different. And that is a key part of the white supremacy. They still want to buy into this notion that white people are superior. And the only way they can make that work is by saying that people who look different are inferior.   [00:35:34] Annie Lee: I love this discussion because it's so real. And what you are saying essentially is you're talking about belonging and you're talking about power. Like who gets to belong in America? And then that is necessarily connected with who has power in America, who deserves to have power in America. But I know that we all belong in America and that we have power. So I wanna shift this conversation now to what can we do? And so beyond the courts everybody tune in next week. But beyond the courts, what is the role of community organizing, state and local policy advocacy? Public education in defending birthright citizenship and fighting against the attack on birthright citizenship is one sliver of everything that he has done. So many executive orders that came out on day one. So how, how do we, as everyday people fight white supremacy? What can we do when they are redistricting and trying to take away our franchise right before the midterm elections? What do we do when they're using courts that they've already packed with their federal society judges? And so what, what can an average regular person do? And Don I'm gonna go to you first.    [00:36:47] Don Tamaki: Let me say something in a very far less intellectual way than my colleagues here. This is a very old playbook. The playbook of demagoguery is very old. He said the old is humanity. And there are three elements to that playbook. One, appeal to prejudice, however, that is, race, skin, color, religion, whatever. Secondly, fear monger and scapegoat. And thirdly trafficking, conspiracy theories, fake news, false information, erasure of history. That's how you control the culture. And it worked in 1619. It worked in 1882. It worked in Germany in 1933. And it works today, you know, 2016, 2020. You know, when Chinese were blamed as spreaders of the Chinese virus. Asian Americans, when Mexicans were characterized as drug dealers and rapists when Jews and immigrants were portrayed as replacing good white people. This dehumanizing [of] people where one more Black man killed during an encounter with law enforcement barely evokes a shrug because it is so normal. It is so normal, folks, and so it works. And so, you have the candidate Trump running for office and say to a national audience that, to the people of Springfield, Ohio, that Haitian immigrants are eating your dogs and cats and getting away with it. Or the images of the Obamas transposed on cartoon apes. And this is really Jim Crow stuff. This is Antebellum stuff. And it's a recycling of the same playbook. And so the first part of organizing is being aware of what's going on. This is not a new thing. Okay, it's just a racial pathology that churns in one form or another, and it has an origin. It predates us. And so I, I think part of that is educating ourselves how everything is interconnected.   [00:38:58] And since we're talking about Black Asian solidarity, I'll just say a couple things. I mean, the civil rights movement had three triumphs that we all should remember. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of '65 began the dismantling of Jim Crow, which I, as I said, was a hundred year phenomenon following the end of the Civil War and the Immigration of Act of 1965. The third act. It ended as, you know, racist quotas. It prioritized family ties and skills and it greatly increased Asian immigration. As a result, the majority of AAPIs today are post 1965 Americans whose very presence here was made possible by the Black Civil Rights Movement. How many of us know that, you know? I mean, everybody focuses not everybody, but people tend to focus on their own peculiar predicament as if it's unique to our own situation. And in fact, it's all, quite connected. So I think part of this organizing process is realizing, you know, it's Martin Luther King, the oft quoted statement where he says we may have come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now. And especially in connection with what's happening and, and you're seeing it in different parts of the country where sure, immigrants are being targeted in Minneapolis, but then you have thousands of Minneapolitans that, you know, ordinary people, business folks, teachers, laborers, protesting in Sub-Zero weather against what, what happened? And, and yeah. You know what, can we do protest work? I hope everybody's out there on March 28th, you know, this Saturday on the No Kings March.    [00:40:51] Michael Harris: Not just protesting, running them out of town.    [00:40:55] Don Tamaki: Well, [audience and panel laughter] Gregory Bovino, Gregory Bovino, who was the leading charge? Gone. Kristi Noem. Gone.    [00:41:03] Michael Harris: Yes, right.    [00:41:05] Don Tamaki: 2000 ICE agents in Minneapolis reduced to much smaller numbers. That's right. Their plans then launching Ohio trashed. You know, so that's why you, so boycotts, boycotts work. Ask Elon Musk. Ask Target. Local elections, Michael mentioned the midterm elections. It is if we don't, if Democrats don't get back the House, the country's cooked. So, I mean, everybody should be involved one way or the other in that. Raising money, you know, we are part of a, a fundraising group called CAPA21, and there are other groups out there, but those are, those things are crucial to funnel money toward swing elections and critical races. The education part I think is essential. If you consider the velocity change in terms of the civil rights movement, Japanese American redress and reparations was a 20 year movement. And it was full of education of the public. Civil rights movement, same thing. The philosophy of change on marriage equality or LGBTQ rights and all those things happened because they became normal. They were, they started out as ideas that people thought were preposterous. You know, that'll never change.    [00:42:26] Michael Harris: Right.    [00:42:26] Don Tamaki: And Jim Crow will never end. And San Francisco can segregate Asian Americans within Japantown and Chinatown. It, it will never change. But that idea of change, which were thought preposterous happens. But it requires civic engagement. So just examples.   [00:42:46] Michael Harris: I want to amplify two things that Don said. One is there will be a march this Saturday a No Kings March, and it's really, really important for people to show up for that march. ‘Cause the one thing that's devastating to a government is to have its people out there visible on the streets saying what the government is doing is wrong. Because you can spin certain things, you can lie about certain things, but bodies in the streets you can't lie about. It's there and it's real. So that's one thing that's really important, really. But I would encourage all of you if you can, if you are able, please join us and come out on Saturday. The other thing I want to add to the Don's excellent list is there's a few groups in the Bay Area and in San Francisco that does postcards. And their strategy is they identify particular jurisdictions where it's a very close race and it'll be pivotal if a Democrat can win over a Republican, say in a House or maybe even like the Texas Senator race. That one's probably gonna be very close too. And they send postcards to people encouraging them to vote. Don't sit it out. And those extra votes can be the difference between winning and losing. And that might flip the House might flip the Senate. So those are some other additional items.    [00:44:11] Ming Chen: I think at a much more basic level, it's just like telling, telling your story, telling the story of America. Because, you know, when we talk about all these rhetorical tricks, I mean, I think what it means is that that narrative is gaining a lot of power. And so I think you have to reclaim the narrative, right? You have to tell the counter story which happens to be the real story of what's happening. This is something that I actually haven't talked about this publicly, but my daughter she's like on the brink of being 13, not yet a teenager. It made me really sad that she came back from her well-funded, pretty liberal public school about a month ago crying because she said that in her Mandarin Chinese class, there was a child who was saying that Asian people eat dogs. And then writing swastikas on the chalkboard and singing Nazi songs making fun of the women in the room, I guess they're girls in the room saying that they're all lesbian without knowing anything about them. And it just made me really profoundly sad because I'd like to think that a lot of ignorant narrative is because people don't know better, right? I mean, as an educator, I hope that education will simply solve it. And it made me really sad to hear that again. You know, I'm, I'm on the brink of Berkeley. I basically live in Berkeley, right? So one of the most densely populated PhD overeducated people in America. And to be three generations in and to still have this story being told in the classrooms was really distressing to me. And even more distressing that it isn't just the like Chinese people that eat dogs as being a stereotype from those who are not educated, but it's something she might have heard on TV from the highest offices in the land, right? Something she might've heard the vice president say, for example. And so I just think it's so important and doesn't take education, doesn't take a law degree, right? To be able to tell that story. And so I was really, really proud that my daughter you know, did file a complaint with the principal that she came home and told us about it. And you know, her two parents who are civil rights and immigration lawyers, [laughter] but also that she's been like talking to her classmates right, about the fact that that's not true. That's not right. She's been comforting the other kids in the classroom who don't share the same background that she does. And I feel like that kind of work is just as important.    [00:46:45] Michael Harris: I want to add something to that. We have to take note of the fact that a lot of these types of comments really vile, racist things and not just about Asians, it's also some of the things about Black people, young people are saying. Part of it is because it's very easy to say things like that online because you can do it anonymously and not have to, you know, stand up and back up your comments, so to speak. And another part of it is our culture. We gotta be real about this. When I was growing up, I'm sure you were told this too, as the country became more educated and got more exposed to people of color and more people got higher education, all this crazy stereotypical racist stuff would go away because people would know better. That's what they told me the whole time I was growing up and now we know that's not true [audience laughter] because the reverse is happening. It's growing because some people are making money by putting stuff like that online and selling t-shirts and hats and stuff like that. Or starting, you know, whatever they start. There's this guy, Alex Jones, who made millions of dollars doing that kind of stuff. So some people are making money off of it. Other people are just buying into that ideological tip and are using that to gain power and influence and clicks. So we just have to be aware that this is a current going on in our society right now. And it's happening and it's growing and we, we need to be aware of it and start thinking about ways how we can put it to rest. Cause it's, it's happening.    [00:48:30] Annie Lee: Thank you so much. I do wanna give our audience some time to ask any questions that you all might have. So if you have a burning question to ask our illustrious panel now is your opportunity.   [00:48:45] Audience member: I was wondering how does this with, with the rhetoric of, of Washington pushing for IDs for voting how will that impact on people's presence at the voting booths and validating their ability to vote?   [00:49:04] Michael Harris: I think what you're referring to is the Safeguard [SAVE America] Act is now in Congress, and if it's passed and signed by the president, then it'll become law. And what it will require is anyone who wants to vote will have to have a photo ID. And even if you registered, you have to prove you're a citizen. So those two steps are, I think, designed to suppress the vote of people of color. I mean, I think it's very straightforward. This has been what Republicans have been trying to do for ever since the case that Don just mentioned passed and they were able to start doing this stuff. And I agree. It goes back to the notion that in 20 years, America's going to be a majority minority country. There's gonna be more people of color than white people. And I think that I'm just gonna come out and say that freaks them out. It really freaks 'em out. I think a lot of them have lived their whole lifetime where only white people were in charge, running stuff, and they can envision a future not too far off where that might not be the case anymore. And that's scary. It shouldn't be. I mean, we're all the same. It's all gonna be, you know, and there's Black Republicans and Black Democrats and there's Asian Republican. I don't know why they're so freaked out about it, but but they are freaked out about it. And a lot of this is to suppress the vote so that they can continue to stay in power and will not have to give up the power that they would lose otherwise.   [00:50:35] Lisa Holder: Yeah, I mean, it's always been about limiting the franchise, right? And since the time that it expanded beyond white males with property, there's been a battle to keep it as limited as possible. You know? And when you think about what happened after the Civil War, after the 13th, 14th, and particularly the 15th Amendment were passed and African Americans were allowed to vote, you had a 100 year backlash. Where 10,000 African Americans were murdered and lynched. Most of those were people who were trying to mobilize their communities to enter into the franchise and exercise the right to vote. That's the retrenchment that we're seeing being reiterated right now. Right. And we know that during that period, there were all kinds of hoops that, for instance, Black people had to jump through because of those Black Codes where you had to, for instance, prove that you can read this particular statement. Right. Or, you know, just like all kinds of random hoops that you had to jump through. And so when we see these barriers, these gatekeepers, like, oh, you have to have an ID. If this birthright citizenship goes through, no, no, no you can't bring in your birth certificate. You know, we need some proof of your parent, of your lineage. Right. And it's really is combined with that narrative and that rhetorical aspect, that Ming was articulating because although in fact we are America. America looks like us, Americans look like us. The alternative narrative where white predominance is the point is always going to be pushed where no, no, no, we are different. We are not normal and we are not America. And so that's, that's the narrative piece that all of this leads to. And that's why this story of storytelling that Ming talked about is so important. And also it is so important to just constantly push back to resist, to vote. To run for office when you look like an American.   [00:52:45] Audience member: My question is, if the executive order passes, what can we do to resist? Because one of the things is it will also disenfranchise women because it's about proving your identity that matches your birth certificate. Right. And there are really so many people that will not have their names to match their identities. And so what can people do to, to, to counter if that should happen?   [00:53:11] Don Tamaki: The legislative answer? Well, there'll be court challenges, no doubt    [00:53:15] Audience member: but, but before, let's say the midterm election.   [00:53:18] Michael Harris: Call your representative, fax 'em, email 'em, get your friends to do that, because it's pending in Congress right now.   [00:53:25] Don Tamaki: But elections have consequences is the point. And it people who says, well my vote doesn't count, doesn't matter. Everybody, both parties the same. Elections have consequences. I, I guess the only other thing to remember, I keep, you know, repeating this, the solidarity and connectedness bears repeating because the story keeps recycling. It's very recycled story about voter suppression. You know, the Civil War ended in 1865, 12 years of reconstruction. Lincoln is assassinated shortly after during the beginning of reconstruction and thereafter, you know, a deal was struck in the contested election of 1876. Federal troops are withdrawn from the south and then the voter suppression comes in literacy tests, poll taxes.   [00:54:19] Annie Lee: Mm-hmm. Grandfather clauses.   [00:54:21] Don Tamaki: Yeah. I mean in Virginia. During reconstruction 140,000 formerly enslaved people registered to vote after the collapse of reconstruction it was reduced to 21,000. California had you know, poll taxes. Other states had literacy tests and whatever, and it's now repeating because folks don't like the results of an election. The answer is not to, you know, broaden your net and appeal to upfront (?) policy. The answer is to suppress voting, stop people from voting. And so again, it's a matter of awareness I think we have to realize the game plan. And it makes it so important about who is voted into the dials and levers of the controls that run the country. So that's critical.    [00:55:13] Ming Chen: I can jump onto that. go vote. But I think it's also, you know, it's early enough to say, get your documents in order. Right? Go and be ready to vote in a way that won't draw question, right? So you don't have to wait for the lawsuit. And I will say for that, as someone who spends most of my days working with 20 something year olds who move all over the country, a lot of it is about sort of get your ducks in order, right? So if you don't have a driver's license with the current address that matches your name, you can fix that now. So many people who don't have a normal ID because they never learn how to drive, right? So make sure you go get that document. You mentioned marriage, Anna, and I remember I moved to New York at the same time that I got married and trying to get my name on the document when I was it, you know, it's like this endless loop, right? Because you're getting a new ID because of your address. If you don't have that, you can't get your social security card, if you don't have that you can't validate the marriage certificate, right? There's just this endless loop. And you have to get all of that in order, right? So I think maybe there needs to be two parts to our voter mobilization this year, right? It's get yourself ready, sort of like arm up and then vote so that your vote will actually end up counting.    [00:56:33] Miko Lee: Please check out our website, kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about our show and our guests tonight. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world because your voices are important. Apex Express is produced by Ayame Keane-Lee, Anuj Vaidya, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Jalena Keane-Lee, Miko Lee, Miata Tan, Preti Mangala-Shekar and Swati Rayasam. Tonight's show was produced by me Miko Lee, and edited by Ayame Keane-Lee. Have a great night.   The post APEX Express – 4.2.26 – Surviving Through Solidarity. appeared first on KPFA.

Hugh Hallman, Attorney, Educator, and former Mayor of Tempe, joins Seth in studio for the full hour to talk about the Supreme Court’s impending arguments over the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and whether it conveys citizenship to children born in the country of illegal parents. They delve into the history of the 14th Amendment and its interpretation, highlighting the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Hugh shares his expertise on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the original intent behind the amendment. The conversation provides a nuanced exploration of the complex issue of birthright citizenship and this case's potential implications for the country.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In March 2025, the U.S. Department of Education began investigating dozens of colleges - including Harvard and Columbia - for possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their alleged failure to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination on campus. The administration threatened to withhold federal funding and many colleges struck deals to preserve their funding. Critics charged the administration with heavy-handed enforcement tactics that burdened academic freedom and free speech on campus. Join our panel of experts as they explore how these enforcement efforts have played out after one year and what we may expect in the future. Featuring: Prof. David D. Cole, Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown Law SchoolErik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLPDr. Chris Schorr, Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative, America First Policy InstituteIlya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies, Manhattan Institute(Moderator) Andrew Grossman, Partner, BakerHostetler LLP

Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, joins the program to touch upon the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division filing a lawsuit against Harvard University for race and national origin discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea that white people — and white men in particular — face discrimination has become something of an obsession on the American right. It's a view that my guest this week shares. Jeremy Carl was nominated to a State Department post by the Trump administration, which sparked a lot of controversy. Carl is the author of “The Unprotected Class,” in which he makes the case that white Americans are in danger of becoming “second-class citizens.”  I wanted to know what he thinks constitutes anti-white discrimination and whether focusing on it inevitably leads to white nationalism. After we taped this interview, Carl withdrew his nomination, acknowledging that he lacked enough support to be confirmed. 0:00 - Intro 01:59 - Jeremy Carl's trajectory and State Department Nomination 05:24 - The Civil Rights Act and rise of anti-white Discrimination 12:20 - The impact of immigration on white Americans 24:53 - The "radicalization" of D.E.I. 37:37 - Carl's provocative language and controversial tweets 51:06 - “White culture” vs. “civic nationalism” 01:01:00 - The fours pillars of “Americanness” (A full transcript of this episode is available on the Times website.) Thoughts? Email us at interestingtimes@nytimes.com. Please subscribe to our YouTube Channel, Interesting Times with Ross Douthat. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

What employers should know about key developments this week: •        National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Sets New Enforcement Priorities: NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey directed regional offices to prioritize the resolution of current cases over initiating new enforcement actions. •        Department of Labor (DOL) Targets Non-Union Workplaces: In an internal memo, DOL Solicitor of Labor Jonathan Berry emphasized that enforcement would focus on non-unionized environments, noting that unions were better equipped to address issues in unionized workplaces. •        Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Cracks Down on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Policies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a warning that preference-based diversity policies may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signaled a return to systemic investigations and large-scale litigation. Download our DEI Compliance Audit Checklist: Review DEI-related employment practices. Ensure compliance with applicable federal laws. Align organizational policies with established best practices. Download Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw426 Download our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app: https://www.ebglaw.com/wage-hour-guide-for-employers-app. Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm focused on health care and life sciences; employment, labor, and workforce management; and litigation and business disputes. Our attorneys advise clients at every stage of their business lifecycle, delivering practical, results-driven counsel that shapes strategy, accelerates growth, and safeguards what matters most. We serve organizations of every size, from emerging startups to Fortune 100 companies, across the health care, life sciences, financial services, retail, hospitality, and technology industries, with sound legal solutions they can depend on when it counts. www.ebglaw.com  This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship. EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) had killed General Gholam Reza Soleimani, the head of the Revolutionary Guard's all-volunteer Basij force. The defense minister also announced the killing of top Iranian security official Ali Larijani in an overnight strike. These recent killings strip Iran of more of its top leaders, following the death of Ali Khamenei in late February.President Donald Trump says he's looking to delay his long-awaited trip to Beijing by about a month. The president says he needs to stay in the United States because of the ongoing war in Iran. This is as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer held a new round of trade talks with their Chinese counterparts in Paris.Senators are expecting an unpredictable week ahead as they gear up to debate the SAVE America Act. Debate is expected to last for several days or more, some even pushing to match the two-month-long debate that passed the Civil Rights Act.

Best-Selling Author & Distinguished Carter G. Woodson book award presented to exemplary books written for children and young people each year at the NCSS Annual Conference.My Show looks to the reason for Jubilee Remembrances 61st Anniversary 2026 in the South this Week. I consider it a Privilege to cover the True Foot Soldiers who were physically THERE during the Events that Changed History in American Civil Rights to All.My Guest is author Robert H. Mayer author of the book "In the Name of Emmett Till"Children played a significant role in Birmingham's crucial civil rights struggle, and this stirring history of the movement, with many photos, news reports, and quotes from all sides, emphasizes the connections between the young people's power and that of the big leaders. Martin Luther King called Birmingham the most segregated city in America, and his Letter from Birmingham Jail is quoted at length. But when the adults' protest lost momentum, the leaders' decision to call on young people galvanized the movement--Hazel RochmanRobert H. Mayer is the award-winning author of When the Children Marched: The Birmingham Civil Rights Movement and the editor of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a teacher, Mayer's passion continues to be making history relevant and accessible to young people. His time spent in Jackson, Canton, and McComb, Mississippi, as well as meeting scholars and activists integral to the civil rights movement, fueled the desire to write In the Name of Emmett Till. He lives in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, with his wife Jan, where he writes, teaches, and tutors youth in a local middle school.The 1955 murder of Emmett Till in Mississippi is widely remembered as one of the most horrible lynching's in American history. African American children old enough that year to be aware personally felt the terror of Till's murder. These children, however, would rise up against the culture that made Till's death possible. Over the next decade, from the violent Woolworth's lunch-counter sit-ins in Jackson to the school walkouts of McComb, the young people of Mississippi picketed, boycotted, organized, spoke out, and marched, determined to reveal the vulnerability of black bodies and the ugly nature of the world they lived in. These children changed that world.Emmett Till Antilynching Act is a United States landmark federal law which makes lynching a federal hate crime and signed into law on March 29, 2022, by President Joe Biden. The bill was named after 14-year-old Emmett Till, who was lynched in Mississippi in 1955, sparking national and international outrage.© 2026 Building Abundant Success!!2026 All Rights ReservedJoin Me on ~ iHeart Media @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASSpot Me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon Music ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBASAudacy:  https://tinyurl.com/BASAud   

2 Hours and 27 MinutesPG-13This is a re-release of episodes:Episode 831: How the 'Civil Rights Regime' Was Enshrined w/ Ryan TurnipseedEpisode 905: The Civil Rights Act and Its Consequences w/ Gregory HoodEnshrining the Civil Rights RegimeRyan's Find My Frens PageGreg at American RenaissanceThe Age of Entitlement: America Since the SixtiesPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Jesse Jackson died yesterday, at the age of 84. He was hailed at his passing for being a civil rights icon, but this brings up a delicate issue. Jackson has now gone to meet his Maker, but the definition of “rights” that he fought so hard to establish——and in many ways successfully—was a truly destructive view of rights. One of the very best things we could possibly do for everyone—blacks especially—is repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act. For more from Doug, subscribe to Canon+: https://canonplus.com/

The Civil Rights Act, first passed in 1964, is falsely connected with freedom. In reality, this law severely restricts individual liberty and replaces it with coercive government acts.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-we-should-repeal-civil-rights-act

“Yes, that’s what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and President Trump want to know. The E.E.O.C chair took to social media to ask that very question, saying the commission - which was formed under the Civil Rights Act - wants to eliminate all forms of race discrimination, including against white male applicants and employees. President Trump went even further, telling the New York Times the Civil Rights Act resulted in the discrimination of white men.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“Yes, that’s what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and President Trump want to know. The E.E.O.C chair took to social media to ask that very question, saying the commission - which was formed under the Civil Rights Act - wants to eliminate all forms of race discrimination, including against white male applicants and employees. President Trump went even further, telling the New York Times the Civil Rights Act resulted in the discrimination of white men.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.