Podcasts about civil rights division

In this episode of Stanford Legal, the tables are turned as Professor Diego Zambrano interviews the show's usual host, Professor Pam Karlan, about the growing politicization of the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. Drawing on her experience in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division during both the Obama and Biden administrations, Karlan describes how recent loyalty tests, internal purges, and retaliatory transfers have hollowed out one of the nation's most critical legal institutions. Karlan and Zambrano explore how the DOJ has historically relied on a “thin layer” of political leadership atop a deep bench of expert, nonpartisan career lawyers—and why that structure is now under threat. They discuss the DOJ's broad civil rights mandate, the challenges of a politicized environment, and the legal and moral consequences of eroding prosecutorial independence. The conversation makes the case that what's happening now is not just a policy shift—it's an institutional crisis that threatens the rule of law and the very idea of justice in America. Links:Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law pageNeukom Center for the Rule of Law >>> Stanford Law pageConnect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X(00:00:00) Introduction and Constraints Under Civil Service Reform Act(00:05:01) The Impact of Political Agenda on DOJ's Functioning(00:08:31) Challenges Faced by Career Lawyers(00:14:16) Interaction Between Political Appointees and Career Lawyers(00:17:46) Meritocracy and Recruitment in the DOJ(00:20:01) comparative perspective in understanding the DOJ's special role

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

There are now 364 days to go until the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a historic document that remains relevant as we approach the semiquincentennial. Eight days have passed since the executive branch of the federal government demanded the resignation of University of Virginia President Jim Ryan. There's a lot happening, and Charlottesville Community Engagement is intended to document as much as possible. I'm Sean Tubbs.In this edition:* Five people were shot in the city's Fifeville neighborhood late Friday night including two children* A Charlottesville Circuit Court judge has thrown the city's zoning ordinance out after a legal deadline was not met (learn more) (learn even more)* President Jim Ryan has resigned from the University of Virginia and the path is known for his replacement (learn more) (learn even more)* Former Attorney Ken Cuccinelli continues to serve on the UVA Board of Visitors despite his confirmation being rejected by a Virginia Senate committee, prompting a legal case* Seventy-four new Americans were sworn in as citizens on the morning of July 4 at Monticello (not yet in print)* Hundreds of people were on hand for a protest at UVA just a few hours later to demand steps to prevent the public institution from more federal interference (not yet in print)* Greene Supervisors vote to move forward with smaller water supply (learn more)Thanks for reading Charlottesville Community Engagement ! This post is public so feel free to share it.A note before we beginThis edition should have gone out yesterday as soon as I finished the version for WTJU, but I chose to attend a social event instead. I'm glad I went but do wish I had stayed to complete the work.You will also note that this edition has written versions for three stories including the one about the shooting. I didn't have a lot of audio to work with this week, and I wanted to document in audio the zoning code and the Ryan resignation. The headlines are sparse because those are slugs. The protest story and the naturalization story will be posted to Information Charlottesville before going out in Monday's newsletter.No written shout-outs in this one because I want to get this posted, but I'm going to be experimenting as I go.Five people shot in Fifeville Friday nightAn Independence Day celebration in Fifeville turned tragic late Friday night when gunfire erupted, sending five people to the hospital including three children.A series of firework displays had begun after dark across the neighborhood causing many people to be outside to see and hear the explosions.According to an information release from Charlottesville Police Department, officers responded to multiple calls of a shooting on Orangedale around 11:23 p.m. The first officers arrived a couple of minutes later and found five people who had been shot.The victims were a 10-year-old girl, an 11-year-old boy, a 17-year-old male, an 18-year-old female, and a 52-year-old male.“Due to heavy foot and vehicle traffic, emergency medical units were initially unable to access the scene,” reads the release. “Officers and medics worked together to transport the victims on foot and in patrol vehicles, applying pressure to their wounds until additional EMS personnel arrived.”Everyone shot was reported to be in stable condition as of the release sent out at 11:13 a.m. this morning. The Criminal Investigations Division and Forensics Unit are investigating and police want to see video footage.The Fifeville Neighborhood Association is holding a community gathering at 6 p.m. at Abundant Life at 782 Prospect Avenue.Copy for UVA RYAN:Facing pressure from the United States Department of Justice, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan resigned from his position on June 27.The Cavalier Daily reports that the Civil Rights Division under the control of President Donald Trump sent seven letters to UVA between April 11 and June 17 insisting that not enough had been done to demonstrate that programs to encourage and promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion had not been sufficiently dismantled.In a statement, Ryan said he did not want to put federal grant funding at risk to save his job, a job he planned to leave in 2026. So he resigned and Executive Vice President J.J. Davis will serve as acting president.Many groups have condemned the pressure from the federal government including the Faculty Senate. The Virginia Conference of the American Association of University Professors sent a letter on June 30.Later on in the program we'll have audio from a protest held at the University Avenue side of the Rotunda on July 4.The Board of Visitors had been scheduled to meet on July 1 for a personnel matter but canceled the virtual event before it began. The claim is that the meeting wasn't needed, but on that same day former Rector Robert Hardie was served with a lawsuit arguing that one of the members of the Board of Visitors continued to sit in the position unlawfully.On June 9, the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee failed to confirm Ken Cuccinelli for the seat. Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares advised Hardie and others to ignore that out of a claim that the entire General Assembly had not taken a vote. Members of the committee have sued in Fairfax County Court and are seeking an injunction.More from that protest in a moment.DEVELOPMENT CODE copyNearly five years ago, the City of Charlottesville embarked on a process called Cville Plans Together which sought to update the city's housing policies, the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning code. The general idea was to increase development rights across the entire city and to remove City Council from many of the decisions about density and height.City Council voted unanimously on December 18, 2023 to enact the code, and a group of property owners who disagreed with the blanket approach filed suit in Charlottesville Circuit Court asking for the new rules to be declared voided ab initio, a Latin term meaning “from the beginning.”The plaintiffs in White v. Charlottesville survived an attempt by the city to have Circuit Court Claude Worrell dismiss the case. In April of this year, Judge Worrell ruled that the case would proceed to trial and a date was set for June 2026.However, attorneys for the plaintiffs noticed that the outside counsel for the city, Gentry Locke, failed to respond to a directive to submit a particular document. On June 2, they filed for default judgement and the next day the city's attorneys filed for permission to file late.In a hearing in Charlottesville Circuit Court on June 30, Judge Worrell sided with the plaintiffs and expressed lament that the case would not go to trial.“There are things in this case I thought might be useful about what zoning is and what zoning isn't,” Worrell said. “It would have been interesting.”The next day, the city's Department of Neighborhood Development Services sent a note to the development community.“Pursuant to the order issued by the Honorable Judge Worrell of the Charlottesville Circuit Court on June 30, 2025, the City of Charlottesville is currently reviewing all zoning and development applications on file to assess appropriate next steps,” reads the email.The next day, Charlottesville City Manager Sam Sanders called the default judgement “terribly disappointing.” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit communityengagement.substack.com/subscribe

On June 20, 2025, the Fifth Circuit returned its decision in the Louisiana Ten Commandments case (here), upholding the District Courts order blocking the law from going into effect. This was followed by a petition on June 26 for a rehearing en banc by the State (here). At the same time, Texas passed its on bill (here) requiring displays of the Ten Commandments in classrooms. On June 24, that law was challenged in the Northern District of Texas (here) by a group of parents seeking to stop the bill from going into effect. Needless to say, our topic today is very timely, discussing the history of public displays of the Ten Commandments in public schools. My guests are Mark David Hall and Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, who wrote an article on the topic pending publication in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal entitled Ten Commandments in the Public Square and Public Schools (draft here). Mark David Hall (bio) joined the faculty of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University in 2023. He is one of the most outstanding scholars of early America, whose many distinguished publications have argued persuasively for the crucial importance of Christianity in the flourishing of America's experiment in ordered liberty. Andrea Picciotti-Bayer (bio) is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy. She got her start as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases. Resources noted by the guests: RFI, John Witte's book, and The Sacred Rights of Conscience (Liberty Fund) book. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon joins Mary Margaret Olohan to discuss her civil rights agenda at the DOJ, including rebalancing FACE Act enforcement, addressing gender ideology in medicine, and confronting internal resistance to restoring equal protection under the law. Get the facts first on Morning Wire. - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – In Oregon, State House Republicans challenged Democrats' rejection of a bill requiring school sports be designated by biological sex, citing President Trump's executive order. After hearing testimonies from displaced female athletes upset by a male competitor's podium finish, they've urged DOJ's Civil Rights Division to investigate civil rights violations and restore fairness in women's athletics...

Active duty servicemembers and reservists and national guard troops called to active duty have particular rights and protections under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The Department of Justice wants to remind them, and the organizations with which they do business, about these protections. Here with more on DOJ's two new SCRA fact sheets is the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Mac Warner.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

For nearly 70 years, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division led efforts to protect voting rights and fight racial discrimination at the polls. But in January 2025, DOJ political appointees froze all new civil rights cases and dismissed every major pending voting rights lawsuit—prompting most career attorneys to leave the Division. With federal challenges to restrictive voting laws now dropped in several states, the fight for voting rights falls to individual voters and advocacy groups, raising urgent questions about the future of enforcement.In this episode Dani Schulkin, Director of Democracy Initiatives at Just Security, is joined by Chiraag Bains. Chiraag is a senior fellow at Democracy Fund, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and former Deputy Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council for Racial Justice & Equity. He also previously served in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.  Show Notes:  Chiraag Bains, “What Just Happened: The Trump Administration's Dismissal of Voting Rights Lawsuits.” Collection: Just Security's Coverage of Trump Administration Executive Actions  Just Security's DOJ Archives Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Joe Piscopo's guest host this morning is Col. Kurt Schlichter, Attorney, Retired Army Infantry Colonel with a Master's in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College, Senior Columnist at Town Hall, and the author of "Lost Angeles: Silver Bullets on the Sunset Strip." 51:13- Josh Hammer, Author of "Israel and Civilization," host of "The Josh Hammer Show" podcast, syndicated columnist, senior editor-at-large for Newsweek, and senior counsel for the Article III Project Topic: Israel accepts US proposal for a ceasefire with Hamas 1:01:50- Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss his role in combating terrorism in the U.S. and working with the intelligence community. Topic: Combating terrorism in the U.S. 1:12:45- Kevin McCullough, host of "Radio Night Live," heard Tuesday-Friday at 7 PM on AM 970 The Answer, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schliter on remembering Bernard Kerik, who was the commissioner of the NYPD during 9/11 and former Acting Interior Minister in Iraq. Topic: Remembering Bernard Kerik 1:26:24- Jennifer Van Laar, Managing Editor of RedState, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter on the resurgence of the Police Institution post 9/11 and how it can get back to the way it was under the Trump Administration. Topic: Bernie Kerik's passing, other news of the day 1:37:48- Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss how idealism caused a spread of movements in colleges and how the Civil Rights Division has helped stop movements like anti-semitism on college campuses. Topic: Lawsuits against colleges like Harvard, the new direction of the Civil Rights division 1:49:32- Commissioner Ray Kelly, the longest-serving Commissioner of the NYPD in history, who was in charge of the Secret Service during his tenure as Deputy Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, joins Joe Piscopo to reminisce the late Bernard Kerik and his effect on New York City during his time as the commissioner of the NYPD. Topic: Remembering Bernard Kerik, the legacy of Bernard Kerik in the NYPD 2:04:30- Liz Shield, Senior Editor of American Greatness, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss how Trump has successfully taken away the issues that the Democrats have imposed, especially helping out the working class. Topic: Latest from the Trump administration 2:15:06- Tim Young, comedian, CEO of the Veebs app, and Heritage Media Fellow for Strategic Communication, joins Guest Host Col. Kurt Schlichter to discuss the media surrounding the Trump Administration and the media surrounding the Democratic Party and its supporters as well. Topic: Media in the second Trump administration See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Today's episode we discuss Elon Musk's exit from the Trump Admin while DOGE work continues. He played a very real, very critical role in the future. We talk about my run for Governor and the future of farming in California. I meet with Jennifer Horn to discuss Karen Bass's silence over the massive LA riot that took place this past week. I'm then joined by Harmeet Dhillon, the US Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, to discuss their lawsuit against California's laws for men in women's sports. This is an episode you don't want to miss!

(AURN News) — The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into whether the city of Chicago is making race-based hiring decisions — specifically, whether it has hired ‘too many Black people' — according to a letter sent to Mayor Brandon Johnson. The probe follows comments Johnson made during a recent visit to the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn, where he praised the racial diversity within his administration. In remarks cited by the DOJ, Johnson listed several senior-level city officials and highlighted their race. According to a letter from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division, the department's investigation is “based on information suggesting that you have made hiring decisions solely on the basis of race.” The letter quotes Johnson as saying: “Business and economic neighborhood development, the deputy mayor is a Black woman.” “Department of planning and development is a Black woman.” “Infrastructure, deputy mayor is a Black woman.” “Chief operations officer is a Black man.” “Budget director is a Black woman.” “Senior advisor is a Black man.” According to the letter, Johnson reportedly concluded that list by saying he was “laying” these positions “out” to “ensure that our people get a chance to grow their business.” In response, the DOJ says it is examining whether such decisions reflect a broader “pattern or practice of discrimination” in city hiring. “If these kind of hiring decisions are being made for top-level positions in your administration, then it begs the question whether such decisions are also being made for lower-level positions,” Dhillon wrote. The letter also states that no conclusions have been reached and invites Johnson's cooperation in the ongoing investigation. This marks the latest move by the Trump administration in what it has described as a fight against ‘woke DEI.' Officials have made rolling back diversity-focused hiring initiatives a key policy goal. One lingering question: How does this benefit Black America? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andrew Walworth, Tom Bevan and Carl Cannon discuss today's Oval Office meeting between President Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. They also discuss Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio's second day of Senate hearings on U.S. foreign policy. Then, they talk about Maryland Governor Wes Moore's decision to veto a bill that would have set up a state commission on slavery reparations. Plus, the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson after public statements about his hiring practices. Next, Tom talks to RCP White House reporter Phil Wegmann about the status of the budget bill and the behind-the-scenes negotiations within the Republican House caucus. And finally, Carl talks to Democratic strategist Dan Strother about the current state of the Democratic Party and the impact of recent revelations concerning Joe Biden's health and acuity during his presidency.

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, River City Hash Mondays is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the Supreme court ripped Trump and his cabinet to shreds.Then, on the rest of the menu, nearly three-quarters of the attorneys working for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division have resigned in protest of Trump's “perversion” of the department's mission; libraries across the country are cutting back on staff and services after Trump's order to dismantle the small Institute of Museum and Library Services; and, Trump set up a tip line for federal employees to snitch on colleagues working on DEI initiatives, and not one of the fifteen thousand employees at the EPA used it.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where a pro-European Union centrist pulled off an upset in Romania's presidential election; and, Putin outlawed Amnesty International in his latest crackdown on dissent and activists.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!"I was never a spy. I was with the OSS organization. We had a number of women, but we were all office help." -- Julia ChildBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we examine sweeping changes in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration. Reporter Sam Levine joins host Jessica Levinson to discuss how the division, long tasked with enforcing voting rights and other protections, has seen over 70% of its attorneys depart amid a shift in priorities toward the president's agenda. The episode explores what this means for civil rights enforcement, voter protections, and whether former DOJ lawyers can fill the gap by taking their expertise into private practice.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:The Role and Function of the DOJ Civil Rights Division and Voting Section: The conversation starts with an explanation of what the Civil Rights Division within the Department of Justice (DOJ) does. It is tasked with enforcing America's civil rights laws—including the Voting Rights Act—and consists of 11 sections dealing with various aspects of civil rights (voting, housing, education, anti-discrimination). Impact of Administrative Changes on DOJ Priorities: A significant theme is how changes in presidential administrations can redirect the focus and priorities of the DOJ and its sections—especially the Voting Section. While career attorneys (not political appointees) do most of the day-to-day work, political appointees set overarching priorities. Normally, shifts happen between administrations, but under the Trump administration, changes were described as “radical departures,” shifting focus to investigate noncitizen voting and prioritizing policies aligned with the president rather than traditional civil rights enforcement.Dismissal of Civil Servants and Dismantling of the Voting Section: The episode highlights the mass removal of senior civil servants in the Voting Section under Trump's administration, replacing experienced managers and ordering the dismissal of all active cases. This unprecedented action is portrayed as a clear signal of political influence overriding apolitical legal work—and is said to undermine the department's ability to fulfill its civil rights mandate.Follow Our Host and Guest: @LevinsonJessica@srl

Harmeet K. Dhillon is a nationally recognized civil rights and constitutional law attorney, founder of the Dhillon Law Group, and founder of the Center for American Liberty. Born in Chandigarh, India in 1969, she moved to the U.S. as a child and has become a prominent Republican Party official and legal commentator. From 2016 until April 2025, she served as a Republican National Committee official, where she championed election integrity and the rights of parents and religious minorities. She was nominated by President Trump in December 2024, and confirmed by the Senate in April 2025, to be the next United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division.

How is the Trump administration transforming the Department of Justice's civil rights priorities?Joining us today for a deep dive is DOJ Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the civil rights division.Their jurisdiction includes a wide range of constitutional issues, from religious freedom to Title IX protections, race-based discrimination, and enforcing voting rights laws.The views expressed in this video are those of the host and the guest and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

White House Boys , Florida School For Boyshe Florida School for Boys, also known as the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys (AGDS), was a reform school operated by the state of Florida in the panhandle town of Marianna from January 1, 1900, to June 30, 2011.[1][2] A second campus was opened in the town of Okeechobee in 1955. For a time, it was the largest juvenile reform institution in the United States.[3]Throughout its 111-year history, the school gained a reputation for abuse, beatings, rapes, torture, and even murder of students by staff. Despite periodic investigations, changes of leadership, and promises to improve, the allegations of cruelty and abuse continued.After the school failed a state inspection in 2009, the governor ordered a full investigation. Many of the historic and recent allegations of abuse and violence were confirmed by separate investigations by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in 2010, and by the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice in 2011.[4] State authorities closed the school permanently in June 2011. At the time of its closure, it was a part of the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.[5]Because of questions about the number of deaths at the school and a high number of unmarked graves, the state authorized a forensic anthropology survey by University of South Florida in 2012. They identified 55 burials on the grounds, most outside the cemetery, and documented nearly 100 deaths at the school. The state said it did not have authority to allow exhumation of graves, which would permit determination of cause of death and identification of remains. (In addition it wanted to sell land on the property.) A family member of a student who died at the school in 1934, and who wanted to reinter his remains, filed suit and gained an injunction against the state's moving ahead with the sale before remains could be exhumed and identified. The state responded to the court injunction and authorized more work by a multi-disciplinary team from the University of South Florida, including exhumations. In January 2016, the USF team issued its final report, having made seven DNA matches and 14 presumptive identifications of remains. They will continue to work on identification.After passage of resolutions by both houses of the legislature, on April 26, 2017, the state held a formal ceremony to apologize personally to two dozen survivors of the school and to families of other victims. In 2018, bills were being considered to provide some compensation to victims and their descendants, possibly as scholarships for children.In 2019, during preliminary survey work for a pollution clean-up, a further 27 suspected graves were identified by ground penetrating radar. Many people, including former detainees, believe that over 100 bodies were buried on the schools grounds, and that further investigating should be done until all the remains have been identified and cared for. Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

Trump has so destroyed the DOJ's reputation for candor and integrity that federal judges won't handle their cases unless a court reporter takes down every word in a transcript to ensure that their words are not twisted out of all meaning. Michael Popok looks at new reporting that Trump's former criminal lawyer Emil Bove is running amok at the DOJ, destroying its Public Integrity Unit and its Civil Rights Division to use the DOJ to intimidate students on college campuses and threaten them with deportation or worse to chill their First Amendment expression. Allermi: For 60% off your order, head to https://Allermi.com and use code LEGALAF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press This week's show is sponsored by: EPIC-MRA Public Opinion Research MIRS News Fulton Fish Market

Thanks for listening to The Morning Five! Thanks for listening, rating/subscribing The Morning Five on your favorite podcast platform. Learn more about the work of CCPL at www.ccpubliclife.org. Michael's new book, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Spirit of Our Politics: Spiritual Formation and the Renovation of Public Life⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, is now available! You can order on Amazon, Bookshop.org, Barnes & Noble, or at your favorite local bookstore. Join the conversation and follow us at: Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@michaelwear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, @ccpubliclife Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@MichaelRWear⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, @ccpubliclifeAnd check out ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@tsfnetwork⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Music by: King Sis #politics #faith #prayer #education #technology #NewYork #DOJ #civilrights #Canada #MarkCarney #elections Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over 100 attorneys have left the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—not because they're soft, but because Trump's DOJ has flipped the script on civil rights. The division was created after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fight racism, protect voting rights, and confront police abuse. But under Trump's handpicked appointee, Harmeet Dhillon, the division's new priorities shifted to targeting transgender athletes, focusing on antisemitism, and dismantling diversity programs. Those who left said they refused to help dismantle the very laws they swore to uphold. Dhillon shrugged off the walkout, saying: “I don't want people in the federal government who feel like it's their pet project to go persecute police departments based on statistical evidence or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence. That's not the job here. The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.” With staff down from 380 to possibly 140, the question remains: Who will enforce civil rights now? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is there really a “bloodbath” in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ, joins Glenn to discuss firebombing at Christian churches, “violence” against free speech, and the fate of the innocent people persecuted under the Biden administration. Harmeet reveals how the FACE Act doesn't just protect abortion centers but pro-life pregnancy centers as well, says it's time for violent activists to be prosecuted, and explains why “you don't have to sue everybody.” Then, she and Glenn break down anti-Semitism on college campuses, her focus on the Second Amendment, and her advice to Congress to prevent a repeat of COVID-19 government tyranny.         GLENN'S SPONSOR      American Financing   American Financing can show you how to put your hard-earned equity to work and get you out of debt. Dial 800-906-2440, or visit https://www.americanfinancing.net.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Quang'sadvocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather th...

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Kwon's advocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather than a...

gun rights, Second Amendment, Arizona politics, Quang Nguyen, gun control, advocacy, political landscape, conservative voice, Armed American Radio, legislation, gun rights, Quang Nguyen, Colorado legislation, Cam Edwards, concealed carry, Trump administration, Second Amendment, gun control, advocacy, sheriffs, gun control, Second Amendment, veterans, legislation, political influence, Armed American Radio, gun rights, personal experiences, government, advocacy Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and the political landscape in Arizona with State Representative Quang Nguyen. The conversation covers the challenges faced by gun rights advocates, the ideological divide in politics regarding the Second Amendment, and the future of gun rights legislation. Nguyen shares insights from his experience in the Arizona legislature, including the number of anti-gun bills he has successfully killed and the ongoing fight for Second Amendment rights. The episode emphasizes the importance of activism and the need for continued vigilance in protecting gun rights. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights and legislation with guests including Arizona State Representative Quang Nguyen and Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms. The conversation covers Kwon's advocacy against anti-gun legislation in Arizona, the implications of Colorado's recent anti-gun bills, the responses from sheriffs in Colorado, updates on concealed carry reciprocity, and the actions taken by the Trump administration to support Second Amendment rights. The discussion emphasizes the ongoing fight for gun rights and the importance of community involvement in advocacy. In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the ongoing battle over gun rights and legislation with a panel of experts. The conversation covers various aspects of gun control, including the perspectives of veterans, the impact of personal experiences with gun violence, and the influence of money in politics. The panel emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and critiques the authoritarian tendencies of some lawmakers. They also explore the weaponization of government against law-abiding gun owners and the need for vigilance in protecting individual rights. Takeaways Mark Walters introduces the show and its guests. Quang Nguyen discusses the current political climate in Arizona. The importance of the Second Amendment is highlighted. Nguyen shares his experience in killing anti-gun bills. The conversation touches on the ideological divide in gun control politics. Nguyen emphasizes the need for continued advocacy for gun rights. The role of media and public perception in politics is discussed. The challenges of finding suitable candidates for gun rights advocacy are explored. The episode highlights the importance of grassroots activism. Future political landscapes and their impact on gun rights are considered. Kwon Nguyen is a strong advocate for gun rights in Arizona. Colorado's recent anti-gun legislation is unprecedented. Sheriffs in Colorado are beginning to push back against restrictive laws. The Supreme Court's decisions could impact state gun laws significantly. Community involvement is crucial in the fight for gun rights. The Trump administration is taking steps to protect Second Amendment rights. The Civil Rights Division is now investigating abuses of gun rights. Concealed carry reciprocity is gaining traction in Congress. Gun owners need to remain vigilant and active in elections. The fight for gun rights is ongoing and requires collective effort. Gun control advocates often misunderstand the nature of evil and criminal behavior. Veterans have unique insights into the debate over gun rights and responsibilities. Legislation often punishes law-abiding citizens rather th...

What would it look like for the Ten Commandments to make a comeback in public schools? In this episode of The Narrative, Andrea Piccotti-Bayer joins CCV President Aaron Baer, Policy Director David Mahan, and Communications Director Mike Andrews to discuss the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments and why public schools should return to the religious roots that our country was founded on. Andrea explains how these tenants have a rightful place in our classrooms and breaks down the historical and legal arguments for their proposed return to public education, such as would be allowed by Ohio Senate Bill 34. Before talking with Andrea, Aaron and Mike celebrate the recent Senate Bill 1 victory banning DEI at Ohio's state colleges and universities. They also discuss the proposed House budget and Senate Bill 156, which would require schools to teach the Success Sequence. More about Andrea Picciotti-Bayer Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of the Conscience Project. A Stanford-educated lawyer, she has dedicated her legal career to civil rights and appellate advocacy. Andrea started as a trial and appellate attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice. Before leading the Conscience Project, she served as the legal advisor for the Catholic Association, filing amicus briefs with federal courts of appeal and the US Supreme Court in key religious freedom and free speech cases. She frequently appears in the media to discuss religious freedom controversies and legal victories. In 2021, she received First Place for Best Coverage—Religious Liberty Issues from the Catholic Media Association. She is also a legal analyst for EWTN News and a regular columnist for the National Catholic Register. Her writing has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Fox News, Newsweek, CNN en Español, and other well-regarded publications. She has also joined Fox News, Newsmax, and various other shows to share expert commentary. Andrea has ten children and lives in the Washington, DC area. For more, check out the video put together by the Conscience Project: Louisiana Ten Commandments: When Does The Government Go Too Far In Promoting Religion?

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the very fabric of American governance.At its core, Project 2025 aims to centralize power in the White House, leveraging the unitary executive theory to expand presidential control over the federal government. This vision is championed by conservative legal scholars and has been embraced by the Supreme Court in recent years. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president," reflecting a desire to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)[1].One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to reinstate Schedule F, an executive order issued by Trump in October 2020 that was later rescinded by President Biden. Schedule F would strip career government employees of their employment protections, allowing the president to fire and replace them with loyalists and ideologues. This move would fundamentally alter the civil service system, which has been merit-based since the Pendleton Act of 1883. As the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Public Policy Director Jacque Simon warned, "If all of their recommendations were implemented, it wouldn't just eviscerate our statutory collective bargaining rights and pay system but undo the basics of the apolitical, merit-based system we have today"[5].The implications of Schedule F are far-reaching. It would enable the president to reward cronies and punish enemies, creating an environment ripe for corruption and abuse of power. Independent agencies, which currently provide crucial oversight and accountability, would be rendered ineffective. This could lead to a chilling effect where government employees are discouraged from speaking out, and agencies might be incentivized to suppress the truth and spread misinformation[2].Project 2025 also outlines drastic changes to various federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move would revert the country to a pre-9/11 era, potentially compromising national security efforts and intelligence sharing. The Department of Education would be dismantled, with oversight and federal funding for education handed over to the states, a change that could severely impact Title I funding for high-poverty schools and exacerbate existing teacher shortages[5][3].The Department of Justice, under Project 2025, would undergo significant reforms. The DOJ would be tasked with combating "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and its Civil Rights Division would prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or affirmative action programs. Gene Hamilton, a former Trump DOJ official, argued that advancing the interests of certain segments of American society comes at the expense of others and violates federal law. This approach would fundamentally alter the DOJ's role in protecting civil rights, instead aligning it with a conservative agenda[1].In the realm of public education, Project 2025's proposals are equally alarming. The plan would eliminate Title I funding, which has been critical for high-poverty schools since 1965, and replace it with no-strings-attached block grants to states. This change could lead to significant budget strains for already underfunded schools, undermining academic outcomes for millions of vulnerable students. Additionally, the project advocates for weakening regulations on charter schools and promoting federal voucher laws, which could siphon funds from public schools and destabilize state budgets[3].The project's stance on healthcare is also contentious. It proposes cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and reversing many of the healthcare policies implemented by President Joe Biden. This would strip away healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions, a move that has been widely criticized by Democrats and healthcare advocates. Vice-President Kamala Harris has been vocal about these plans, stating that Project 2025 is a "plan to return America to a dark past"[3][4].Project 2025 also delves into environmental and social policies. It recommends reducing environmental regulations to favor fossil fuels and proposes making the National Institutes of Health (NIH) less independent, including defunding its stem cell research. The project suggests criminalizing pornography, removing legal protections against anti-LGBT discrimination, and ending DEI programs. It even proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right, such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications and eliminating coverage of emergency contraception[1].Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from Project 2025, the connections between the project and his administration are clear. Many of the project's architects and supporters are former Trump officials, and several Trump campaign officials have maintained contact with the project. After Trump's 2024 election victory, he nominated several of the plan's architects and supporters to positions in his second administration. An analysis by *Time* found that nearly two-thirds of Trump's executive actions in his second term "mirror or partially mirror" proposals from Project 2025[1].The public's reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative. Polls indicate that the more Americans learn about the project, the more they oppose it. A Navigator poll found that 53% of Americans, including 37% of non-MAGA Republicans, oppose the project, while only 12% support it. The opposition stems from concerns about the plan's impact on healthcare, education, and the overall erosion of democratic institutions[3].As I reflect on the breadth and depth of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government operates. The project's proponents see it as a last opportunity to "save our republic" by aligning it with a far-right agenda. However, critics argue that it would dismantle the administrative state, undermine national security, and strip away fundamental rights and freedoms.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and judicial oversight. As the country navigates these potential changes, it is crucial for Americans to remain informed and engaged. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for generations to come.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, a blueprint crafted by the Heritage Foundation for a potential second Donald Trump presidency, I was struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This 900-page document is more than just a policy guide; it is a comprehensive plan to reshape the federal government, consolidate executive power, and implement a far-right agenda that touches nearly every aspect of American life.At its core, Project 2025 is about centralizing power in the White House. The plan advocates for the elimination of the independence of key federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This aligns with the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. As Kevin Roberts, a key figure in the project, put it, "all federal employees should answer to the president"[1].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to federal staffing. The plan proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees, allowing for their replacement with individuals loyal to the president. This is not a new idea; during Trump's first term, he established the Schedule F job classification by executive order, which was later rescinded by President Biden. However, with Trump's return to office, this classification has been revived, paving the way for a significant purge of federal employees deemed disloyal[1].The project's impact on education is equally profound. It envisions a drastic reduction in the federal government's role in public education, advocating for the closure of the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. This would mean the end of federal funding for programs like Title I, which provides $18 billion annually to schools in low-income areas, and the Head Start program, which supports children from low-income families. Instead, public funds would be channeled into school vouchers that could be used for private or religious schools, a move that critics argue would exacerbate educational inequality[1][3].In the realm of healthcare, Project 2025 proposes significant cuts to social safety nets. It recommends reducing funding for Medicare and Medicaid, and ending programs aimed at forgiving student loans. The plan also targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), suggesting a reduction in its independence and the defunding of stem cell research. These changes are part of a broader agenda to align scientific research with conservative principles, with a particular emphasis on reducing funding for climatology research and reversing the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health[1].Environmental policies are another critical area where Project 2025 seeks to make its mark. The plan advocates for the relaxation of regulations on the fossil fuel industry, the expansion of oil and gas drilling, and the blocking of the transition to renewable energy. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, the Heritage Foundation's energy and climate director, has suggested that the EPA should support the consumption of more natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about the increased methane emissions. The project also proposes incentives for the public to challenge climatology research, further undermining efforts to address climate change[1].The project's stance on law enforcement and justice is equally contentious. It calls for the reform of the DOJ to combat what it terms "affirmative discrimination" or "anti-white racism," and proposes that the DOJ's Civil Rights Division should prosecute state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and private employers with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The plan also suggests curtailing legal settlements between the DOJ and local police departments and authorizing the Uniformed Division of the Secret Service to enforce the law in the District of Columbia, a move that critics argue would further militarize law enforcement[1].Project 2025's economic policies are designed to favor corporations and reduce regulatory oversight. It recommends the abolition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the shrinkage of the National Labor Relations Board, and the merger of several statistical agencies into a single organization aligned with conservative principles. The plan also advocates for a flat income tax, reduced taxes on corporations and capital gains, and the relaxation of regulations on small businesses, particularly in rural areas[1].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the alignment between its proposals and his policies is striking. As CBS News noted, at least 270 proposals in the project's blueprint match Trump's past policies and current campaign promises. Trump's recent actions, such as establishing a review council to advise on changes to FEMA, align with Project 2025's call to shift disaster response costs to states and local governments[4][5].The reaction to Project 2025 has been overwhelmingly negative from many quarters. Critics argue that it would gut the system of checks and balances, create an imperial presidency, and devastate public education and social safety nets. The National Education Association (NEA) has warned that the project's education reforms would deny vulnerable students the resources they need to succeed. Environmental groups have condemned the project's climate policies as disastrous and misguided[2][3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it is clear that this initiative represents a fundamental shift in how the federal government operates and the values it upholds. The project's architects see it as a last opportunity to save what they perceive as a beleaguered republic, but critics see it as a dangerous blueprint for extremism and authoritarianism.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025's proposals will depend on various factors, including legislative support and public opposition. As the American public becomes more aware of the project's details, their opposition is likely to grow. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this vision for a radically reshaped federal government becomes a reality or remains a contentious blueprint on the fringes of American politics. One thing is certain: the stakes are high, and the future of American governance hangs in the balance.

Anne Telnaes Edward "Big Balls" Coristine, State Department Senior Adviser “Big Balls” is 19-year-old high school graduate Edward Coristine, who now works as a “senior adviser” in the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Technology. That pretty much sums up President Elon Musk's reign of terror running through the federal government, even as Trump's Clown Cabinet gets virtually unanimous support from a spineless U.S. Senate. This week we talk with a veteran of federal departments that are being gutted by the Musk administration. In Michigan, we have our first polling on how the race for Governor might be impacted by third-party candidate Mike Duggan. We get the detailed findings from veteran pollster Bernie Porn, CEO of EPIC-MRA. Also on our radar:  Governor Whitmer and the Legislature are in last-minute 3-way negotiations over Michigan's minimum wage and paid medical leave;  The CEO of Ford warns that Trump's economic agenda could cripple the auto industry which means crippling Michigan's economy; And the Governor is looking at weed and big corporations to fund more fixing of the damn roads. Also joining us on the podcast: University of Michigan law professor Sam Bagenstos, who was a senior staffer at what it now Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Department of Health and Human Services, the Project 2025-driven office of Management and Budget, and the probably-soon-to-be shuttered Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights. Sam Bagenstos — Frank G. Millard Professor of Law, University of Michigan Bagenstos took an extended leave from U. of M. to serve in multiple roles in the Biden administration, with senior positions in HHS, the Federal Budget Office and Department of Justice. From June 2022 to December 2024, he was general counsel to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where he played a key role in advancing and implementing policies across the department, including: pursuing several initiatives on abortion and reproductive rights; crafting and defending the first-ever Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program; drafting and issuing major rules on civil rights, health privacy, Medicare and Medicaid, drug advertising, the regulation of “lab-developed” medical tests and food safety, the treatment of unaccompanied migrant children in HHS care, the treatment of LGBTQ+ kids in the foster care system, and many other issues; advancing marijuana rescheduling, and advising and defending the Food and Drug Administration's tobacco enforcement program; and working with the Department of Justice on litigation involving HHS, including significant abortion rights, free speech, and tobacco regulation cases in the US Supreme Court. From Inauguration Day 2021 to June 2022, he served as general counsel to the Office of Management and Budget. There, he worked on President Biden's Day One executive orders; helped respond to COVID-19, including implementing several crucial aid programs; responded to regulations adopted by the prior administration just before the inauguration and helped advance the new administration's regulations on labor, health, the environment, and much else; helped craft and implement the American Rescue Plan, the bipartisan infrastructure law, and what became the Inflation Reduction Act; and assisted in developing two annual budgets, along with advising the entire Executive Branch on issues of appropriations law and administrative law. In an earlier stint on leave from the Law School, from 2009 to 2011, Bagenstos was an appointee in the US Department of Justice, where he served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights, the No. 2 official in the Civil Rights Division. There, he helped promulgate the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations—the first comprehensive update of those regulations since they were first issued in 1991—and led the reinvigoration of the Civil Rights Division's enforcement of the US Supreme Court's deci...

A week into the second iteration of Donald Trump's White House, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord take stock of the abrupt and unrelenting changes to our federal government. Andrew points to security details yanked and security clearances revoked as blatant retaliation against Trump's perceived foes. Mary highlights several judges who are pushing back against blanket pardons for J6 convictions. Then, they turn to Trump's executive action on birthright citizenship, reviewing several challenges already in motion, including a case brought by Mary and her ICAP team. And before wrapping up, our two resident career litigators look at the withering independence of the Justice Department from the White House, and how all roads lead through the DOJ.Further reading: Here is the New York Times' piece on Kash Patel that Andrew mentioned in this episode: F.B.I. Pick Pushed False and Misleading Claims About Trump InvestigationsWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

According to The New York Times, the Justice Department has halted new civil rights investigations and signaled it may backtrack on Biden-era agreements with police departments accused of discrimination or violence. In two internal memos, Chad Mizelle, the department's chief of staff, ordered a freeze on civil rights litigation and consent decrees, requiring senior Trump appointees' approval for new cases or interventions. Consent decrees, agreements with local governments to address systemic police misconduct, may be reconsidered, jeopardizing settlements like those with Louisville after Breonna Taylor's killing and Minneapolis following George Floyd's murder. A conservative lawyer and Trump ally has been nominated to lead the Civil Rights Division, raising concerns about the rollback of diversity and equity programs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti joins Dr. Roberts for a powerful discussion on the landmark case U.S. v. Skrmetti and the critical battles against federal overreach. General Skrmetti shares insights into his leadership in defending state sovereignty, tackling ESG mandates, and shaping the future of cyber law. From safeguarding education and healthcare policy to advancing common-sense public policy, this episode dives into the legal fights that will define America's future. About General Skrmetti: Jonathan Skrmetti was sworn in to an eight-year term as Tennessee's Attorney General and Reporter on September 1, 2022. Prior to his current role, General Skrmetti served as Chief Counsel to Governor Bill Lee and as Chief Deputy Attorney General to his predecessor, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery. Before working for the State of Tennessee, General Skrmetti was a partner at Butler Snow LLP in Memphis. His legal career began with nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor. He worked at the Civil Rights Division at Main Justice and then at the Memphis U.S. Attorney's Office and prosecuted sex traffickers, corrupt government officials, and violent white supremacists. In addition, General Skrmetti taught cyberlaw as an adjunct professor at the University of Memphis. General Skrmetti earned honors degrees from George Washington University, the University of Oxford, and Harvard Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Following law school, Jonathan clerked for Judge Steven Colloton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He lives in Franklin, Tennessee, with his wife and four children.

The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 210 features Cary London, Managing Partner at Shulman and Hill in Greater New York City focusing on Civil Rights, Police Brutality, Excessive Force, Wrongful Convictions, and Personal Injury.  Cary is the Chair of the Civil Rights Division of the Brooklyn Bar Association, and a Board Member of the Brooklyn Defender Services.  Cary is also a Founding Member of Lawyer Stories Connect!  Cary's journey as a civil rights lawyer began during his tenure as a Public Defender in Brooklyn. Cary witnessed, firsthand, the systemic injustices prevalent in the criminal justice system. This experience ignited a fire within him to advocate for change and pursue justice for those who have been marginalized or wronged.  One case at a time, Cary is becoming a voice for those in need, consistently striving to create a more equitable society for all.

The authors of Project 2025 say they'll carry out a hard-right agenda, voting rights advocates raise alarm over Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and conservatives aim to cut federal funding for public broadcasting. 

This week; Chris Wray announces that he will resign as FBI Director before Trump would have to fire him; Trump names Harmeet Dillon to head [upend] the Civil Rights Division at DoJ; DoJ OIG releases its January 6th report; as the plus listener questions.Thanks to GiveWell for sponsoring our showGo to Givewell.org pick PODCAST and enter Jack at checkout. Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJ AMICI CURIAE to the District Court of DC https://democracy21.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Attachment-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-in-Support-of-Governments-Proposed-Trial-Date.pdfGood to knowRule 403bhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_40318 U.S. Code § 1512https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 Prior RestraintPrior Restraint | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information InstituteBrady MaterialBrady Rule | US Law |Cornell Law School | Legal Information Institutehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brady_rule#:~:text=Brady%20material%2C%20or%20the%20evidence,infer%20against%20the%20defendant's%20guiltJenksJencks Material | Thomson Reuters Practical Law Glossaryhttps://content.next.westlaw.com/Glossary/PracticalLaw/I87bcf994d05a11e598dc8b09b4f043e0?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)Gigliohttps://definitions.uslegal.com/g/giglio-information/Statutes:18 U.S.C. § 241 | Conspiracy Against Rights18 U.S.C. § 371 | Conspiracy to Defraud the United States | JM | Department of Justice18 U.S.C. § 1512 | Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants Questions for the pod Submit questions for the pod here https://formfacade.com/sm/PTk_BSogJCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AGFollow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P

Jill Wine-Banks hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss the arrest of Luigi Mangione in the murder of the UHC CEO, looking at the attempt to extradite him, the use of surveillance cameras to catch him, and the legal status of ghost guns similar to the one used in the crime.  Then, the #Sisters explain clemency, contextualize its recent use by President Biden, and weigh its pros and cons.  They also share their takes on Harmeet Dhillon's appointment to the head of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, the importance of the FBI Director's 10-year term, and the Inspector General. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Check out Jill's New Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's New Politicon Podcast: Justice By Design Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  More From The #Sisters: From Joyce on Pardons, Chris Wray, and DOJ's Inspector General From Barb on The Art of the Counter-Punch From Barb on Why Trump Can't Just End Birthright Citizenship From Jill on Why Biden Was Right to Pardon His Son Hunter From Kim on How Clemency Can Help Save Us All Chris Wray's Resignation The Tree Moat: Please Support This Week's Sponsors: Osea Malibu: Get 10% off your order of clean beauty products from OSEA Malibu when you go to oseamalibu.com and use promo code: SISTERS Blueland: For 15% off your order of green cleaning products, go to blueland.com/sisters Thrive Causemetics: For 20% off incredible clean and cause-focused beauty products, go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters Get Barb's New Book: Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC

President-elect Donald Trump signaled his intention this week to make Harmeet K. Dhillon the deputy attorney general, running the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Dhillon is a San Francisco attorney who has long been a supporter of Trump. On this special edition of Political Breakdown, we're sharing an interview from 2018 when Marisa and Scott interviewed Dhillon about Republican politics, being an outspoken conservative living in liberal San Francisco, her time as a board member of the ACLU and her passion for knitting. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President-elect Trump and his allies, namely his pick for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, are expected to reverse President Biden's DEI policies. The division was created to fight discrimination in housing, employment, education, and voting and now will look to scale back DEI policies that many find wasteful. Companies and universities across the country have started scaling back DEI efforts following Trump's election win. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Lucas Tomlinson, FOX News correspondent in D.C., who breaks down the beginnings of the DEI policies and how they will come to an end under Trump. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Biden carries out the largest ever single-day act of clemency, voting rights advocates raise alarm over Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and election denier Kari Lake is tapped to lead the Voice of America.

President-elect Trump and his allies, namely his pick for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, are expected to reverse President Biden's DEI policies. The division was created to fight discrimination in housing, employment, education, and voting and now will look to scale back DEI policies that many find wasteful. Companies and universities across the country have started scaling back DEI efforts following Trump's election win. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Lucas Tomlinson, FOX News correspondent in D.C., who breaks down the beginnings of the DEI policies and how they will come to an end under Trump. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President-elect Trump and his allies, namely his pick for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, are expected to reverse President Biden's DEI policies. The division was created to fight discrimination in housing, employment, education, and voting and now will look to scale back DEI policies that many find wasteful. Companies and universities across the country have started scaling back DEI efforts following Trump's election win. FOX's Eben Brown speaks with Lucas Tomlinson, FOX News correspondent in D.C., who breaks down the beginnings of the DEI policies and how they will come to an end under Trump. Click Here To Follow 'The FOX News Rundown: Evening Edition' Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Wyoming Territory SuffrageOn December 10, 1869, the Wyoming Territory made history by enacting the first law in the United States to grant women the right to vote. Signed into law by Governor John A. Campbell, the legislation represented a bold step toward gender equality in a country where voting rights for women were otherwise non-existent. This groundbreaking decision was influenced by a mix of progressive ideals and pragmatic concerns. Some lawmakers supported the measure as a genuine effort to recognize women's rights, while others believed it might attract settlers to the sparsely populated territory.The law not only granted women the right to vote but also allowed them to hold public office, a rarity even in international contexts at the time. The first woman to serve on a jury in the U.S. would soon do so in Wyoming, and Esther Hobart Morris became the first female justice of the peace in 1870, further cementing Wyoming's legacy as a leader in women's rights.Although Wyoming's population was small and its territorial status meant it didn't have full representation in Congress, the move set a precedent that fueled the broader suffrage movement. When Wyoming sought statehood in 1890, it faced pressure to revoke women's voting rights, but the state stood firm, famously declaring it would remain out of the Union rather than sacrifice women's suffrage. This early commitment earned Wyoming its nickname, the "Equality State."By taking this step in 1869, Wyoming paved the way for the eventual passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920, which extended voting rights to women across the United States. Wyoming's decision remains a landmark moment in the history of democracy and gender equality in America.President-elect Donald Trump's administration is expected to target diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in businesses and universities, arguing that such policies violate anti-discrimination laws. The Justice Department under Trump plans to investigate and potentially litigate against these practices, framing them as unlawful discrimination. Trump's nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon, has a record of opposing "woke" corporate policies. The administration may leverage Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to challenge federally funded programs that consider race in decision-making, including university admissions and healthcare equity initiatives. Legal challenges to DEI efforts could also arise from private lawsuits, some of which have already been dismissed due to lack of standing. Conservative groups, such as America First Legal, have intensified pressure on corporations to dismantle diversity initiatives, often citing laws historically intended to protect marginalized communities. Critics argue this approach undermines the mission of civil rights laws, which were designed to address systemic inequities affecting underrepresented groups. Proponents of DEI programs contend they are crucial for addressing structural racism and promoting equitable opportunities. However, the threat of government scrutiny may prompt some companies to scale back their diversity commitments, as seen recently with Walmart and JPMorgan Chase. Legal experts note that while many DEI policies may withstand legal challenges, the broader campaign against them reflects a contentious debate over equity, merit, and the role of government in addressing societal disparities.DOJ v. DEI: Trump's Justice Department likely to target diversity programs | ReutersThe bankruptcy court hearing over Alex Jones' Infowars platform began with heated accusations, including claims of "voodoo economics" from Jones' attorney. The trustee overseeing the bankruptcy has chosen The Onion's corporate parent, Global Tetrahedron LLC, as the preferred bidder with a $7 million offer, which includes waived claims by Sandy Hook families against sale proceeds. Competing bidder First United American Cos., offering $3.5 million in cash and plans to keep Infowars operational, argues its bid is more substantial, calling The Onion's bid inflated and misleading.The sale aims to liquidate Jones' assets to address $1.3 billion in judgments related to his false claims about the Sandy Hook shooting. The Onion plans to replace Infowars with a new platform by January 2025, in collaboration with Everytown for Gun Safety. The Sandy Hook families' participation in boosting The Onion's bid has been criticized by Jones' team as manipulative.Meanwhile, social media accounts associated with Infowars on X (formerly Twitter) were excluded from the sale after X Corp. asserted ownership of the handles. The court has yet to decide who will take control of Infowars, with testimony expected to continue.Alex Jones Lawyer Accuses Onion of ‘Voodoo Economics' in CourtNew York prosecutors have charged Luigi Mangione, 26, with murder in the shooting of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson, concluding a five-day manhunt. Mangione was arrested in Altoona, Pennsylvania, after being spotted at a McDonald's. Upon his capture, police found a "ghost gun" matching the weapon used in the crime, along with masks, cash, false IDs, and a handwritten manifesto expressing hostility toward corporate America. Mangione is also facing forgery and gun charges in Pennsylvania, where prosecutors successfully argued to deny him bail.Thompson, 50, was killed outside a Manhattan hotel, in what authorities believe was a targeted attack. Surveillance footage showed the suspect fleeing on a bike, later boarding a bus out of the city. Investigators are probing whether others were also targeted. Shell casings at the scene were inscribed with the words "deny," "defend," and "depose," referencing a book critical of the insurance industry.Mangione, a Maryland native and Ivy League graduate, had a documented history of academic excellence but harbored grievances against corporate entities. Thompson's murder has fueled public frustration over the insurance industry, though officials, including Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, have condemned any glorification of the act. Thompson, a longtime UnitedHealth executive and father of two, was in New York for an investor conference at the time of his death.Suspect in killing of UnitedHealth executive Brian Thompson charged with murder | ReutersTexas exemplifies the need to condition federal aid on state tax reform, especially as federal debt grows and economic inequities deepen. While Texas touts its business-friendly, low-tax environment, this model relies heavily on regressive taxes that disproportionately burden lower- and middle-income residents. The state's avoidance of personal and corporate income taxes forces reliance on property taxes—among the nation's highest—and sales taxes, both of which hit poorer Texans hardest. Compounding the inequity, Texas receives significant federal funding, partly financed by taxpayers in higher-tax states like California. This dynamic effectively subsidizes Texas' low-tax model at a national cost. The state's tax policies create a paradox: wealthy individuals and corporations enjoy the benefits of Texas' infrastructure and services while avoiding proportional contributions, with federal taxpayers covering the shortfall. This system also distorts interstate competition, incentivizing migrations to low-tax states and exacerbating national fiscal inequities. As population growth and climate challenges strain Texas' regressive tax system, federal policymakers may need to condition aid—such as disaster relief or infrastructure grants—on reforms that promote equity and fiscal sustainability.Texas Shows Why Federal Aid Should Be Tied to State Tax Reform 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

#STSNation, Welcome to Surviving The Survivor the podcast that brings you the best guests in true crime. Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of the grisly 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Jose and Mary Louise "Kitty" Menendez, at the family's sprawling Beverly Hills mansion. They've been in prison ever since. But, do they have a new shot at freedom? A major press conference is set for Wednesday October 16th about resentencing the brothers. #BestGuests: Gen. Mark Davidson started his career as a prosecutor straight out of law school in 1994 as an Assistant District Attorney in Tennessee He began prosecuting cases in Tipton County, and within a year became the one and only prosecutor in Lauderdale County. Gen. Davidson later went to work for the Tennessee Attorney General's Office handling criminal cases on appeal and eventually death penalty cases. He was able to return to the District Attorney's Office in 2011. He was then elected District Attorney in August of 2018. Chris Lomax is the Managing Attorney at Lomax Legal. He began his career with the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice over a decade ago, and soon established a stellar reputation for taking on and winning complex, difficult cases in jurisdictions across the nation. Chris investigated and successfully prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated people's Constitutional rights, as well as individuals who committed hate crimes and human trafficking offenses. Josh Ritter is a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles, host of Courtroom Confidential and an Award Winning Former Prosecutor. Support the show:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorYouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeJoel's Book: Https://www.amazon.com/shop/surviving...Website: https://survivingthesurvivor.comAll Things STS: https://linktr.ee/stspodcast  #MenendezBrothers #TrueCrime #LyleMenendez #ErikMenendez #Menudo #BoyBand #PrisonLife #TrueCrimeCommunity #DomesticViolence #LosAngeles #GeorgeGascon #DistrictAttorney #truecrimecommunity #truecrimepodcast #truestory #justice #criminaljustice #crimestory #breakingnews #newsupdate  

#STSNation, Welcome to another episode of Surviving The Survivor, the podcast that brings you the #BestGuests in all of True Crime… Sean “Diddy” Combs made his first appearance before the judge who is expected to preside over the hip-hop powerbroker's trial on sex trafficking charges. Combs was taken to Manhattan federal court from a Brooklyn jail for a Thursday afternoon appearance before Judge Arun Subramanian. The hearing resulted in deadlines being set for lawyers on each side to submit arguments that will establish the boundaries for a trial that Combs' lawyers want to start in April or May. Prosecutors have not expressed a preference for when the trial might occur. #BestGuests: Chris Lomax is the Managing Attorney at Lomax Legal. He began his career with the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice over a decade ago, and soon established a stellar reputation for taking on and winning complex, difficult cases in jurisdictions across the nation. Chris investigated and successfully prosecuted law enforcement officers who violated people's Constitutional rights, as well as individuals who committed hate crimes and human trafficking offenses. he law office of Jessica Mishali, P.A. in Boca Raton Florida, representing client all over south Florida started my own practice after about a decade of representing the indigent, and took over a family practice from former state representative Stephen J Press in 2018. I've successfully handled many high profile cases, most recently Marcia Thompson, a not guilty verdict last month on a first degree murder case. I've been commenting on court TV regularly ever since. I handle all criminal and Family law cases but My niche is where family law and criminal Law meet: domestic violence, self defense, injunctions, etc. (grew up in Miami, FIU, Touro law in NY) Sierra One Consulting Robert D'Amico has served his country for thirty-nine years. Over the course of a unique, hybrid career in law enforcement and military service, covering counterterrorism and cyber security, Rob has worked tirelessly to help keep America safe. Rob joined the FBI as a Special Agent and was quickly assigned to infiltrate an organized crime family as an undercover agent  Support the show:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorYouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeJoel's Book: Https://www.amazon.com/shop/surviving...Website: https://survivingthesurvivor.comAll Things STS: https://linktr.ee/stspodcast #Diddy #FreakOff #SeanCombs #Cassie #TrueCrime #Rap #RapGame #CassieVentura #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeCommunity #Rapper #ThugLife #SugeKnight #JustinBieber #Usher #AshtonKutcher #criminaljustice #crimestory #truestory #podcast #newsupdate #news #prison

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Headlines and Sound Bites! 28 Mins In five years as counsel, senior counsel, and chief counsel to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Alex Aronson led Senate investigations, oversight, and legislative campaigns to confront anti-democratic judicial influence, ethical misconduct, and abuse of power. A political organizer, civil rights lawyer, and judicial ethics expert, Alex's work on judicial accountability and right-wing judicial influence has helped elevate these issues to national prominence, laying the groundwork for today's headlines exposing the Supreme Court's corruption and extreme judicial activism. Alex most recently served as the Managing Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law Center. He was previously an attorney in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, a litigation associate at Covington & Burling LLP, and a law clerk to Judge Albert Diaz on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Before attending Stanford Law School, Alex helped lead a nationally prominent state-based nonprofit focused on improving voting access for underrepresented communities in Oregon, culminating in the nation's first statewide automatic voter registration law.  56 Minutes Colby Hall is the Founding Editor of Mediaite.com. He is also a Peabody Award-winning television producer of non-fiction narrative programming, became a media contributor to NewsNation in March of 2023. He is also  a former Creative Director who launched iHeartRadio's original video offering. Check out his pieces at Mediaite  The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.  This past week (that lasted about a year) at the Supreme Court began badly and only went downhill from there. By Wednesday, justices were trying to set aside the facts of women being airlifted out of states where they can no longer access care to protect their major organs and reproductive future, if that emergency healthcare indicates an abortion - in favor of pondering the spending clause. On Thursday, the shocking reality of the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and former President Trump's many schemes to overturn the election and stay in power, were relegated to lower-case concerns as opposed to ALL CAPS panic over hypothetical aggressive prosecutors.  On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by leading constitutional scholar and former assistant Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Slate's senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern also joins the conversation about the MAGA justices flying the flag in arguments in Trump v United States. In today's bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Jeremy Stahl gives Dahlia Lithwick a view from inside the courtroom of Donald Trump's hush money trial.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Get your tickets for Amicus Live in Washington DC here.  This past week (that lasted about a year) at the Supreme Court began badly and only went downhill from there. By Wednesday, justices were trying to set aside the facts of women being airlifted out of states where they can no longer access care to protect their major organs and reproductive future, if that emergency healthcare indicates an abortion - in favor of pondering the spending clause. On Thursday, the shocking reality of the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and former President Trump's many schemes to overturn the election and stay in power, were relegated to lower-case concerns as opposed to ALL CAPS panic over hypothetical aggressive prosecutors.  On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by leading constitutional scholar and former assistant Professor Pam Karlan of Stanford Law School and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. Slate's senior legal writer Mark Joseph Stern also joins the conversation about the MAGA justices flying the flag in arguments in Trump v United States. In today's bonus episode only for Slate Plus members, Jeremy Stahl gives Dahlia Lithwick a view from inside the courtroom of Donald Trump's hush money trial.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices