Podcasts about Clayton County

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

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.   The Supreme Court held that Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.First, the Equal Protection Clause does not require heightened scrutiny because Tennessee's law does not classify on any bases that warrant such review. The law contains only two classifications: one based on age (allowing treatments for adults but not minors) and another based on medical use (permitting puberty blockers and hormones for certain conditions but not for treating gender dysphoria). Classifications based on age or medical use receive only rational basis review—the most deferential standard of constitutional review. The law does not classify based on sex because it prohibits healthcare providers from administering these treatments to any minor for the excluded diagnoses, regardless of the minor's biological sex. When properly understood as regulating specific combinations of drugs and medical indications, the law treats all minors equally: none may receive these treatments for gender dysphoria, but minors of any sex may receive them for other qualifying conditions like precocious puberty or congenital defects.The law satisfies rational basis review because Tennessee's legislature had reasonable grounds for its restrictions. The state found that these treatments for gender dysphoria carry risks including irreversible sterility, increased disease risk, and adverse psychological consequences, while minors lack the maturity to understand these consequences and many express later regret. Tennessee also determined that the treatments are experimental with unknown long-term effects, and that gender dysphoria can often be resolved through less invasive approaches. Under rational basis review, courts must uphold laws if there are any reasonably conceivable facts supporting the classification. States have wide discretion in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty, noting that recent reports from health authorities in England and other countries have raised similar concerns about the evidence supporting these treatments for minors.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that Bostock v Clayton County (in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination because of sex includes discrimination based on transgender identity or sexual orientation) should not apply to Equal Protection Clause analysis and criticizing deference to medical experts who lack consensus and have allowed political ideology to influence their guidance on transgender treatments for minors.Justice Barrett authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that transgender individuals do not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack the “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics” of a “discrete group” and because suspect class analysis should focus on a history of de jure (legal) discrimination rather than private discrimination.

On June 18, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law that prohibits medical transitions for transgender minors. In this episode, William Eskridge Jr. of Yale Law School and Christopher Green of The Ohio State University join to debate the decision and to discuss the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.    Resources United States v. Skrmetti (2025) Christopher Green, Brief amicus curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Oct. 15, 2024) William Eskridge, et al., Brief amici curiae, United States v. Skrmetti (Sept. 3, 2024) Geduldig v. Aiello (1974)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠podcast@constitutioncenter.org⁠⁠⁠⁠ Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Sign up⁠⁠⁠⁠ to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Follow, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming ⁠⁠⁠⁠live program⁠⁠⁠⁠ or watch recordings on ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠. Support our important work. ⁠⁠⁠⁠Donate

Part 3: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II.B only in this episode, and stop at his II.C. We'll cover his II.C next time. Part 3. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Part 2: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral II A only in this episode, and stop at his II.B. We'll cover his II.B next time. Part 2. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

We begin our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. Part 1. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In episode 202, Coffey talks with Shannon Norris about a federal court ruling that invalidated portions of the EEOC's 2024 harassment guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity.  They discuss Norther District of Texas Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's decision in State of Texas v. EEOC; the narrow scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County; the EEOC's broad interpretation of the Bostock ruling in its 2024 Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace; the elimination of courts' deference to agency's opinions under the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision; the distinction between agency guidance and actual law post Loper; practical workplace challenges concerning bathrooms, pronouns, misgendering, and dress codes; the difference between harassment based on biological sex versus sexual orientation or gender identity; why the Texas v. EEOC ruling doesn't change existing anti-harassment law; the importance of maintaining respectful workplaces regardless of legal requirements; and advice for employers to avoid becoming test cases in emerging litigation. Links to stuff they talked about are on our website at https://goodmorninghr.com/EP202 and include the following topics: State of Texas and The Heritage Foundation v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al: Memorandum Opinion and Order EEOC  Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit  Federal judge in Texas rules LGBTQ+ people can be discriminated against at work Federal Judge Scraps Biden EEOC's Gender Identity Guidance: Here's What It Means for the Workplace Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com.  If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com.  About our Guest: Shannon Norris has represented a broad range of clients since he began practicing in 1993 in the areas of employment law, business litigation, trade secrets, civil fraud, and employee benefits.  During that time, he has represented Fortune 100 companies to small businesses and individuals.  Mr. Norris has extensive experience with employment litigation, noncompete agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, and occupational fraud.  He is a regular speaker on topics relating to employment law, civil litigation, and human resources. Mr. Norris began his career in 1993 at the law firm of Jones Day, where he was a member of the Labor & Employment Law Section.  He formed his own practice in the year 2000.  He is also a Certified Fraud Examiner and a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Mr. Norris is Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated.  Ratings reflect the anonymous opinions of members of the bar and the judiciary.  Martindale-Hubbell® PEER REVIEW RATINGS™ fall into two categories—legal ability and general ethical standards. Shannon Norris can be reached athttps://www.norrisfirm.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/sdnorris/ About Mike Coffey: Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Imperative has been named a Best Places to Work, the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year, and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike shares his insight from 25+ years of HR-entrepreneurship on the Good Morning, HR podcast, where each week he talks to business leaders about bringing people together to create value for customers, shareholders, and community.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence by FW, Inc. and has twice been recognized as the North Texas HR Professional of the Year. Mike serves as a board member of a number of organizations, including the Texas State Council, where he serves Texas' 31 SHRM chapters as State Director-Elect; Workforce Solutions for Tarrant County; the Texas Association of Business; and the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, where he is chair of the Talent Committee.Mike is a certified Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute and a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP). He is also a Yoga Alliance registered yoga teacher (RYT-200) and teaches multiple times each week. Mike and his very patient wife of 28 years are empty nesters in Fort Worth.   Learning Objectives: 1.       Understand the constitutional limitations on federal agencies like the EEOC under current law.2.       Understand the limitations of State of Texas v. EEOC and continue to prohibit any workplace harassment or disparate treatment based on sex.3.    &n...

In March, a convicted murderer was released from the Clayton County Jail by mistake. The family of his victim and Clayton County officials say they were not alerted until days later. The inmate was eventually apprehended almost three weeks later, not far from the Florida hometown of his victim’s family. Today we’re asking, how often are inmates released by mistake, who should be held accountable and what process should be in place for alerting the public, especially the victim’s family? Defense attorney David West returns to “Closer Look” to give his legal take. Plus, there has been an increase in data centers being built across the Peach State, prompting many questions. Today, we preview WABE’s new series, “Server South.” The series explores what data centers are and why the industry has honed in on Georgia to plant roots. For “Closer Look’s” Class of 2025 graduation series, we hear from Ivy Nganga. The Oglethorpe University graduate majored in economics and minored in math. She talks with Rose about her academic journey, including plans to pursue a PhD and her long-term aspirations to help women in Kenya.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Georgia Democrats are looking for a new leader, Clayton County officials say they're ready for business, and Georgia Tech students who were designing an elementary school in Clarkston face uncertainty as that program is paused by the Trump Administration. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest Bio and Links: Victor Hill is the former Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia, known for his tough-on-crime policies and bold leadership style. Despite facing multiple legal challenges, Hill remains a vocal critic of politicized justice and a passionate advocate for reform within the criminal justice system. He is the author of The Vigilante Sheriff and co-host of a podcast with his brother. Vigilante Sheriff: The Truth about Corrupt Prosecutors Weaponizing the Legal System Resources: In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum sits down with Victor Hill, former Sheriff of Clayton County, Georgia, for a powerful and personal Zone 7 episode. They look back on some unforgettable moments from Hill’s career, like a high-stakes bank robbery, and explore how his early love for Batman shaped his approach to justice. Hill opens up about his time as Clayton County Sheriff, the tough decisions he made, the legal battles he fought, and the 18 months he spent in federal prison. Through it all, he found a way to keep learning, keep growing, and keep showing up for people, even from behind prison walls. Show Notes: (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum (0:30) Sheryl welcomes guest, Victor Hill to Zone 7 (1:00) The memorable bank robbery (2:30) The significance of the Batman challenge coin (4:30)  ”You know, murder is the ultimate theft. It's a theft of which there can be no restitution.” (7:00) The sheriff's election and assassination of Derwin Brown on Dec. 15, 2000 (12:30) The indictment and media portrayal (15:00) Indictments, grand juries & lawfare tactics (21:30) Facing a 37-count RICO indictment (24:00) Political indictments and election timing (25:00) Understanding the RICO charges (29:00) Thoughts on community policing - real talk from the front lines (34:00) The misunderstanding of officer demeanor & crime control (40:30) Federal prison - brotherhood, books, and becoming the student (43:00) “If you send sheep to a lion’s den, they’ll be devoured. If you send a lion - it’s a brotherhood.” (49:00) “ Save yourself. You don't owe these people anymore. You've given them everything.” -Catwoman, Batman, Dark Knight Rises Thanks for listening to another episode! If you’re loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review! --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases. Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcastSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ep. 366 Doug Shaw fills in. He and Dave discuss tariffs, the falling dollar, Bahiminan death, shooting at those who want to destroy your sweater, TB, three quarters of a million to feed the needy, flying birds, and Clayton County can't keep people in jail.

This Day in Legal History: Selma to Montgomery MarchOn March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. led the beginning of the third and final Selma to Montgomery march, a pivotal moment in the American civil rights movement. The march was a direct response to the violent suppression of earlier demonstrations and the systemic disenfranchisement of Black voters in the Jim Crow South. Just weeks earlier, peaceful marchers had been brutally attacked by law enforcement on “Bloody Sunday,” as they attempted to cross Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge. That violence was broadcast nationwide, shocking the conscience of the country and mobilizing public support for voting rights legislation.The march that began on March 21 was federally sanctioned, with U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr. ruling that the demonstrators had a constitutional right to march. Protected by federal troops and the National Guard, the marchers traveled 54 miles over five days, arriving at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery on March 25. Their numbers swelled to more than 25,000 by the time they reached the steps of the Capitol, where Dr. King delivered his famous "How Long, Not Long" speech, declaring that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”This sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance laid the moral and legal foundation for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed into law just five months later. The Act outlawed discriminatory practices like literacy tests and poll taxes and empowered federal oversight of voter registration in areas with histories of discrimination. The Selma marches highlighted the power of constitutional protest and judicial protection of civil rights, reinforcing the essential role of federal courts in safeguarding democratic participation.There was once a towering oak tree that stood firm in the wind and, under it, a reed that bent whenever the wind blew. A tyrant came to the land of the reed and oak, stomping his boot wherever he pleased. The oak resisted and was chopped down. The reed, seeing this, bent deeper–letting the boot press it into the mud day after day. Years passed and the reed, still alive, whispered to the boot: “See? I'm wise – I survived.”The boot replied, “You're not wise. You're soft. The oak was crushed because it defied us. But you? I step on you because I can.” Then the boot ground the reed into the dirt—without another thought. In a move that underscores the growing influence of executive power over traditionally independent legal institutions, President Trump rescinded an executive order targeting Paul Weiss after the firm pledged $40 million in pro bono services aligned with his administration's political goals. The announcement followed a private meeting with firm chairman Brad Karp and was accompanied by a sweeping commitment: no DEI policies, merit-based hiring, and representation of clients across the political spectrum—including those favored by the administration.Trump had previously sanctioned Paul Weiss by revoking its security clearance and threatening client contracts, citing the involvement of former partner Mark Pomerantz in the Manhattan DA's prosecution of Trump. That campaign against Paul Weiss, part of a broader effort targeting over 20 legal entities, seemed aimed at punishing firms perceived as adversarial while promoting loyalty through coercion.Karp's public gratitude for the order's withdrawal—and his reported acknowledgment of “wrongdoing” by Pomerantz—reads less like a principled resolution and more like a compelled confession by a simpering coward. Paul Weiss, a firm with deep Democratic ties, has now aligned itself with a president actively dismantling traditional norms around legal independence, seemingly in exchange for restored access and favor.This capitulation signals more than just a thaw in Trump's icy relationship with Big Law—it may represent a strategic blueprint: punish, pressure, and reward compliance – like with dogs. Legal experts and those with eyes to see warn that this redefinition of executive influence risks turning law firms into instruments of political will rather than defenders from it.Trump Rescinds Paul Weiss Order as Firm Pledges $40 Million (2)Frustrated by constant helicopter and seaplane noise, New York lawmakers are pushing for a first-of-its-kind "noise tax" targeting non-essential flights over the city. The proposal, led by state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for tourist and luxury air travel, while exempting essential services like medical transport, law enforcement, and construction. The revenue—expected to reach $10–15 million annually—would fund the state's Environmental Protection Fund, a move Gonzalez says is critical amid federal environmental funding cuts under President Trump.The bill reflects growing anger among residents across socio-economic lines who say aerial traffic disrupts daily life, especially in parks and along waterfronts. App-based services like Blade have exacerbated the issue by making chartered air travel more accessible to the wealthy, turning the skies into noisy corridors over neighborhoods and landmarks.Supporters, including advocacy group Stop the Chop NY/NJ, hope the tax discourages unnecessary flights by raising costs. However, the helicopter industry, represented by Vertical Aviation International, strongly opposes the bill. They argue that aviation regulation is solely under federal jurisdiction and warn the tax could trigger lawsuits and threaten jobs. The group says it has already taken steps to reduce noise but acknowledges that changing flight paths often just shifts the problem from one area to another.The legislation has passed the state Senate but faces challenges in the Assembly, where it stalled last year. With a budget deadline approaching on April 1, negotiations continue.New Yorkers Sick of Hovering Helicopters Prompt Bid to Tax NoiseA federal judge has ruled that the Social Security Administration (SSA) likely broke privacy laws by giving Elon Musk's anti-fraud team, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE), unrestricted access to sensitive personal data on millions of Americans. Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of Maryland blocked any further data sharing and criticized the agency for turning over vast amounts of information without proper oversight. The judge described DGE's actions as a "fishing expedition" based more on suspicion than evidence, warning against overreach in the name of rooting out fraud.The data in question comes from the SSA's “Numident” database—its so-called “crown jewels”—which holds Social Security numbers, medical records, banking data, and more, some dating back to the 1930s. SSA officials admitted DGE staff had access to a “massive amount” of records, and privacy advocates said the team was embedded in the agency without vetting or training. The ruling requires DGE to delete any data it accessed.The decision is a significant setback for DGE and comes on the heels of another ruling limiting Musk's authority to shut down USAID, since he lacks Senate confirmation. President Trump's administration has defended DGE's mission, calling it a necessary tool to cut waste, but the court noted a disturbing lack of concern for citizen privacy. SSA's acting head, Leland Dudek, expressed confusion over the order's breadth and said it might require cutting off access for all SSA staff.Meanwhile, labor unions and advocacy groups involved in the lawsuit welcomed the decision, saying it defends Americans' data from unlawful government intrusion. DGE's aggressive tactics have drawn scrutiny across other agencies as well, with courts allowing access in some departments but blocking it in more sensitive areas like the Treasury.Judge stops Musk's team from 'unbridled access' to Social Security private data | ReutersChief Judge Diane Sykes of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status on October 1, creating the first appellate court vacancy during President Donald Trump's second term. Sykes, appointed by President George W. Bush and once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee under Trump, has served over three decades in both the Wisconsin and federal judiciary. Her transition to semi-retirement allows Trump to nominate a new full-time judge to the influential Chicago-based court, which currently holds a narrow 6–5 Republican-appointed majority.Sykes cited a desire to spend more time with family as her reason for stepping back from active service. She becomes the second federal appellate judge to announce senior status since Trump's return to office, following Judge Sandra Ikuta of the 9th Circuit. While four appellate vacancies remain from President Biden's term, Sykes's departure offers Trump his first direct opportunity to shape the 7th Circuit bench.Sykes has authored notable decisions, including one upholding Wisconsin's voter ID law and a dissent in a landmark 2017 case where the 7th Circuit ruled that LGBTQ employees are protected under Title VII. She criticized the majority in that case for overstepping legislative boundaries—a position later rejected by the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).7th Circuit's Sykes to take senior status, creating vacancy for Trump | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.This week, we close with a piece as enduring and elemental as the legal principles we often discuss: Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, specifically its iconic Prelude. Born on this day, March 21, 1685, Bach remains one of the foundational figures in Western music—a composer whose work balances mathematical precision with deep emotional resonance. Though he wrote for kings and churches, his music speaks to the full range of human experience, from joy to lament, duty to wonder.The Prelude to this suite is among the most recognizable solo cello pieces ever written, opening with a simple G major arpeggio that expands into a flowing, almost improvisational meditation. It's unaccompanied, yet complete—no orchestra, no embellishment, just one instrument revealing infinite depth. Written around 1717–1723 during Bach's time in Köthen, the suites were not published in his lifetime and lay in relative obscurity until cellist Pablo Casals rediscovered them in the 20th century.The piece carries a quiet authority that feels apt for reflection—whether on a ruling, a civil rights march, or a government in turmoil. It's structured, yes, but never rigid; expressive, but never indulgent. The Prelude doesn't declare or argue. It invites, it unfolds. It reminds us, like authority best wielded, that elegance lies in clarity and that restraint can be a form of power.This week, we let the steady resonance of Bach's Prelude accompany us out.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, the Prelude. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!What's the real difference between a difficult workplace and one that's legally "hostile"? This episode cuts through the legalese to reveal the actual standards courts use when determining if harassment crosses the line from unpleasant to unlawful.We unpack decades of landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped workplace discrimination law, from Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson establishing sexual harassment as discrimination, to the groundbreaking Bostock v. Clayton County extending protections to LGBTQ+ workers. Through clear explanations of key legal concepts like "severe or pervasive" and "reasonable person standard," we demystify what makes harassment actionable under federal law.The conversation moves beyond theory into practical territory, examining what documentation employees should maintain, how reporting systems affect liability, and when employers become responsible for harassment from supervisors, coworkers, or even customers. We explore nuanced questions about online harassment in remote work settings and how intersectionality affects discrimination cases when someone faces multiple forms of bias simultaneously.Whether you're an employee wondering if your workplace crosses legal boundaries, a manager seeking to understand your responsibilities, or simply curious about this evolving area of law, this episode provides a comprehensive yet accessible roadmap to navigating hostile work environment claims. Take away clear guidance on documentation strategies, reporting options including the EEOC, and how changing workplace dynamics continue to shape these critical legal protections. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney Tessie D. Edwards. Tessie D. Edwards & Associates, P.C. is a local, family-owned law firm that has been serving the Atlanta, GA, community for over 15 years. Our attorneys enthusiastically represent their clients and bring extensive experience. We strive to provide personalized, affordable legal services with special discounts for military personnel and first responders. Tessie D. Edwards fights to find the right solutions for families in crisis. With her years of experience as a prosecutor, attorneys respect Tessie as an aggressive advocate who can achieve clients’ objectives. Clients see her compassionate side, where she and her team take the time to listen and understand the situation entirely.With a passion for justice, Tessie started her career in criminal law, serving as an Assistant Solicitor General in Clayton County and an Assistant District Attorney in Fulton County. She prosecuted over 2,000 cases involving a variety of offenses, including crimes of family violence. Over time, her zeal to help children and families drew her toward the practice of family law. She strives to help families recognize how to put the best interests of their children at the forefront and to find solutions that meet the needs of the family while still fulfilling legal requirements demanded by the courts.Tessie leads a team that understands the nuances of family law and how courts apply statutory guidelines and legal precedents to reach their decisions. They find alternative methods of helping clients get what they want while protecting the overall needs of the family. #BEST #STRAW #SHMS Support the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney Tessie D. Edwards. Tessie D. Edwards & Associates, P.C. is a local, family-owned law firm that has been serving the Atlanta, GA, community for over 15 years. Our attorneys enthusiastically represent their clients and bring extensive experience. We strive to provide personalized, affordable legal services with special discounts for military personnel and first responders. Tessie D. Edwards fights to find the right solutions for families in crisis. With her years of experience as a prosecutor, attorneys respect Tessie as an aggressive advocate who can achieve clients’ objectives. Clients see her compassionate side, where she and her team take the time to listen and understand the situation entirely.With a passion for justice, Tessie started her career in criminal law, serving as an Assistant Solicitor General in Clayton County and an Assistant District Attorney in Fulton County. She prosecuted over 2,000 cases involving a variety of offenses, including crimes of family violence. Over time, her zeal to help children and families drew her toward the practice of family law. She strives to help families recognize how to put the best interests of their children at the forefront and to find solutions that meet the needs of the family while still fulfilling legal requirements demanded by the courts.Tessie leads a team that understands the nuances of family law and how courts apply statutory guidelines and legal precedents to reach their decisions. They find alternative methods of helping clients get what they want while protecting the overall needs of the family. #BEST #STRAW #SHMS See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney Tessie D. Edwards. Tessie D. Edwards & Associates, P.C. is a local, family-owned law firm that has been serving the Atlanta, GA, community for over 15 years. Our attorneys enthusiastically represent their clients and bring extensive experience. We strive to provide personalized, affordable legal services with special discounts for military personnel and first responders. Tessie D. Edwards fights to find the right solutions for families in crisis. With her years of experience as a prosecutor, attorneys respect Tessie as an aggressive advocate who can achieve clients’ objectives. Clients see her compassionate side, where she and her team take the time to listen and understand the situation entirely.With a passion for justice, Tessie started her career in criminal law, serving as an Assistant Solicitor General in Clayton County and an Assistant District Attorney in Fulton County. She prosecuted over 2,000 cases involving a variety of offenses, including crimes of family violence. Over time, her zeal to help children and families drew her toward the practice of family law. She strives to help families recognize how to put the best interests of their children at the forefront and to find solutions that meet the needs of the family while still fulfilling legal requirements demanded by the courts.Tessie leads a team that understands the nuances of family law and how courts apply statutory guidelines and legal precedents to reach their decisions. They find alternative methods of helping clients get what they want while protecting the overall needs of the family. #BEST #STRAW #SHMS Steve Harvey Morning Show Online: http://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Brought to you by Trade Coffee! Get up to 3 bags free with any new Trade subscription at drinktrade.com/OA OA 1128 - First: an urgent question from a patron on Trump's latest executive power grab. Matt explains the history of the “unitary executive theory” and the Federalist Society-backed movement to give the President more power than an actual king.  Then: Rutgers Law professor Katie Eyer studies, teaches, and litigates the law of anti-discrimination with a specialty in LGBTQ rights. She joins to discuss the current state of the law in the shadow of the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti and the wake of Donald Trump's recent anti-trans executive orders. Which, if any, of these orders should we actually be concerned about? What does it mean that the fight for trans lives is now becoming a federal issue?  Can Trump really just instruct the federal government to ignore the Supreme Court's extension of employment protections to LGBTQ employees in Bostock v. Clayton County? Professor Eyer takes up these questions and many more as we find reasons both for concern and for hope. “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” (2/18/25) “Interrogating the Historical Basis for a Unitary Executive,” Daniel D. Birke, Stanford Law Review (Jan. 2021) Professor Katie Eyer (Rutgers Law bio) Anti-Transgender Constitutional Law, 77 Vanderbilt L. Rev. __ (2024) (forthcoming) Transgender Constitutional Law, 171 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1405 (2023) Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 US ___ (2020) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

SCOTUS is considering whether Tennessee's total ban on transgender medical care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause, and Liz and Rebecca have some thoughts. They explain what the oral arguments last month revealed and what the stakes are for the real people who will be affected by the Court's decision.    Background Case page on SCOTUSblog Oral Arguments Transcript Senate Bill 1 NYT: "Opinion - The Supreme Court Just Showed Us What Contempt for Expertise Looks Like” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Tennessee ban on youth transgender care Cases Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Loving v. Virginia (1967)   Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)   Submit your questions for the mailbag episode here!   Check us out on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and X. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

A Clayton County hospital is accused in a lawsuit of putting vulnerable patients at risk. Darryl Lynn Fussell II was having a mental health crisis and escaped the Southern Regional Medical Center, even though he was on an involuntary 1013 hold. Our Atlanta News First investigation found 44 patients have been reported missing from the location in the last three years.   Read the full investigation here: https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2024/12/18/dozens-patients-reported-missing-this-metro-atlanta-hospital/

A Supreme Court case on medical care for transgender youth could have major ramifications – not only for children who have gender dysphoria and their families but also for how other statutes are reviewed under the Equal Protection Clause. In this episode, Amanda and Holly examine the oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, breaking down key moments in the heated courtroom exchanges, examining the specific constitutional question in this case, and discussing the broader implications of the possible ruling. While the specific question in this case involves the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, religion and religious arguments often loom large in cases that involve sexual orientation or gender identity.  SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:38): The stakes of Skrmetti and the specific question presented For more on the atmosphere surrounding the case, read this piece from Mark Walsh for SCOTUSblog: Inside the Supreme Court arguments on transgender care Visit the website of the National Archives for more information on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.    Segment 2 (starting at 07:17): The heated oral arguments The U.S. Supreme Court heard U.S. v. Skrmetti on Dec. 4, 2024. The Supreme Court's website has links to listen to the oral arguments or read a transcript of the arguments. We played four clips from the courtroom: The opening argument of Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (from 00:00:10 in the oral argument) A question and statement from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 01:41:25 in the oral argument) The opening argument of Matthew Rice, Solicitor General for the state of Tennessee (from at 01:45:26 in the oral argument) An exchange between Matthew Rice and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (from 02:10:17 in the oral argument) Holly mentioned the Bostock v. Clayton County decision from 2020, which interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Holly and Amanda discussed the decision in episode 17 of season 1, titled “A landmark case for LGTBQ rights: What's next for religious liberty?”   Segment 3 (starting 39:57): Thank you to our listeners  Our most-listened to episode in 2024 was episode 21 of season 5, titled “But … is it Christian nationalism?”  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Your gift to BJC is tax-deductible, and you can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

In 2014, a popular Atlanta DJ was gunned down in his driveway. When the wife of another DJ was killed months later, some wondered if people were targeting those working in the clubs. Though the police said that's not what happened here, many people still think the cases are related.  This case is *partially solved* If you know anything about the murder of William Fernando Barnes aka DJ Nando, you can call the Clayton County police at 770-477-3747   Thank you to today's sponsors! They help you up your gift giving game: Go to Storyworth.com/crimelines to save $10 on your first purchase Get 20% off a gift subscription to Newspapers.com    Come to Chile and Argentina with me! True Crime & Fine Wine w/ Josh Hallmark, Charlie Worroll & Lanie Hobbs  Support the show! Get the exclusive show Beyond the Files plus Crimelines episodes ad free on Supercast: https://crimelines.supercast.com/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/crimelines Apple Subscriptions: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crimelines-true-crime/id1112004494  For one time support: https://www.basementfortproductions.com/support Links to all my socials and more: https://linktr.ee/crimelines   Sources: 2024 Crimelines Podcast Source List   Events: Feb 27-Mar 5 2025 True Crime & Fine Wine w/ Josh Hallmark, Charlie Worroll & Lanie Hobbs Transcript: https://app.podscribe.ai/series/3790 If an exact transcript is needed, please request at crimelinespodcast@gmail.com   Licensing and credits: Theme music by Scott Buckley https://www.scottbuckley.com.au/ Cover Art by Lars Hacking from Rusty Hinges   Crimelines is a registered trademark of Crimelines LLC.  

A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt Lash of the University of Richmond and David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center join Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Resources: Kurt Lash, Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents, U.S. v. Skrmetti David Gans, Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner and Respondents in Support of Petitioner, U.S. v. Skrmetti  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) Loving v. Virginia (1967) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

This past April, the Department of Education published a 423-page final rule amending its implementing for Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs and activities, with certain, important exceptions. The new rule was consistent with an order issued by President Biden on his first day in office that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County be applied across the entire federal government.Shortly after the new rule issued, at least ten separate lawsuits challenging it were filed by states, school districts, and parental rights groups in various federal jurisdictions. Thus far, the lawsuits have been uniformly successfully, with the rule now preliminarily enjoined in 26 states and numerous additional school districts. As oral argument is set to begin in the circuit courts on the government’s appeal, this webinar will review this litigation’s history, as well as preview its future, including what it might say about Bostock applicability outside of Title VII.Featuring: Donald A. Daugherty, Senior Counsel, Litigation, Defense of Freedom Institute

How can we make reading more enjoyable and exciting for children?  In honor of National Book Month, SONIC Drive-In is partnering with DonorsChoose and Little Free Library to take action. Tune in as we are joined by Stuart Brown from the SONIC Foundation and Shavawn Simmons from Family Literacy of Georgia, representing Little Free Library, to share ways we can all make a difference.Moments with Marianne airs in the Southern California area on KMET1490AM & 98.1 FM, an ABC Talk News Radio affiliate!Stuart Brown serves as the Executive Director for the Inspire Brands Foundation, the charitable arm of Inspire Brands. The foundation works on behalf of Inspire and its brands to ignite and nourish change for good in the communities we serve. Before joining the Foundation in 2014, Stuart developed a passion for leveraging innovation to promote community impact while working for Fortune 500 companies, industry-leading non-profits and a West African start-up.  He is an alumnus of Auburn University where he earned a bachelor's degree in Industrial Engineering as well as the Kellogg School of Management where he earned his MBA with a focus on Finance and Economics.  www.LimeadesForLearning.comShavawn P. Simmons is the Founder and Executive Director of Family Literacy of Georgia. Simmons founded the organization with the desire to increase enthusiasm for reading within communities lacking easy access to books and book diversity.  An avid reader, writer and artist, Simmons is a retired 30-year public school educator. A native of Miami (Opa-Locka) Florida, Simmons directs Family Literacy of Georgia from metro Atlanta in Clayton County, Georgia. https://littlefreelibrary.orgFor more show information visit: www.MariannePestana.com#book #newbook #bookclub #mustread 

Recovery efforts continue after the historic flooding of the Little Sioux River in late June. Bonds to fund conservation and recreation projects are on the ballot in two Iowa counties. And a Clayton County farmer has been sentenced to over 15 years in federal prison.

In this podcast, host Sloan Simmons engages with Lozano Smith Title IX Practice Group Leaders Monica Batanero and Sarah Fama in a step-by-step discussion regarding the new Title IX regulations, as well as helpful context regarding various legal challenges pending around the country to the new regulations. Show Notes & References 1:48 – Overview of Title IX 3:48 – New Title IX Regulations 6:14 – California regulations under the Education code 8:19 – Flexibility within new regulations 10:28 – Sex-based harassment structure for students at higher education institutions (34 CFR 106.46) 12:06 – August 1, 2024 implementation deadline and policy updates 18:22 – Lawsuits around the country and impacts on California schools 19:05 – State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, No. 23-CV-3205-JWL, 2024 WL [specific page numbers to be determined], (D. Kan. July 2, 2024) 21:58 – Overruling of the Chevron Doctrine and its impact 22:53 – Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024); 144 S.Ct. 2244 23:05 – Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020) 26:09 – Resources and training opportunities 26:45 – Lozano Smith Illuminate 28:00 – Lozano Smith Title IX Toolkit - Email clientservices@lozanosmith.com for more information   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

In this hour, the RSMS crew discusses Atlanta rapper T.I. being arrested, but by accident. There was a warrant out for Clifford Harris, but it was not the rapper Clifford Harris. It was a mistaken identity and T.I. was released from Clayton County jail. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It is Tuesday on The Rickey Smiley Morning Show Podcast. In this episode, the RSMS crew discusses Atlanta rapper T.I. being arrested, but by accident. There was a warrant out for Clifford Harris, but it was not the rapper Clifford Harris. It was a mistaken identity and T.I. was released from Clayton County jail.   There are people on social media that are overracting to the relationship of LaLa Anthony and her son Kiyan Anthony. Social media is in an uproar that Kiyan Anthony got a tattoo of the face of his mother. Other people commented on a picture of LaLa and Kiyan saying it's not what a mother and son should do. Also, there is breaking news coming out of the Kamala Harris campaign. Harris has finally picked her running mate and possible next Vice President. It is Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz. All of this and more on The Rickey Smiley Morning Show Podcast.   Website: https://www.urban1podcasts.com/rickey-smiley-morning-show  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On May 7th, 2019, 62-year-old Kenneth Herring drove through a red light and struck a semi-trailer truck off I-285 in Clayton County, GA. Thankfully, no one was hurt. But when witnesses pulled off to the side of the road to check on things, they noticed Kenneth acting strangely. After he suddenly fled the accident scene, bystander Hannah Payne jumped into her Jeep to pursue him, against the advice of a 911 dispatcher…  Written by Sam Foster, Executive Produced by Michael Ojibway. View full episode source list at https://www.invisiblechoir.com/listen/badsamaritan      Support Our Sponsors:  WildGrain: Go to https://wildgrain.com/choir or use code “CHOIR” at checkout to get $30 off the first box, PLUS free Croissants in every box!   BetterHelp: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/invisiblechoir and get on your way to being your best self.  Rocket Money: Cancel unwanted subscriptions and manage your expenses the easy way by going to https://www.rocketmoney.com/invisible   Blueland: Celebrate plastic free July with up to 25% off your Blueland order by going to https://www.blueland.com/choir  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, Liz and Andrew talk to Salon's Amanda Marcotte about the right wing's assault on Title IX through the prism of the political wedge issue of women's sports. Then, Amanda breaks down the phenomenon of conservative “tradwives” as both cosplay and a gateway drug to white supremacy.   Links: “Texas professors sue to fail students who seek abortions,” by Amanda Marcotte https://www.salon.com/2024/06/03/texas-professors-to-fail-students-seek-abortions/   “After Supreme Court's abortion pill decision, Donald Trump is even more likely to ban abortion,” by Amanda Marcotte https://www.salon.com/2024/06/14/after-abortion-pill-decision-donald-is-even-more-likely-to-ban-abortion/   “A tradwife drops a racist slur: Why the right's trolling economy made Lilly Gaddis' rise inevitable,” by Amanda Marcotte https://www.salon.com/2024/06/17/a-tradwife-drops-a-slur-why-the-rights-trolling-economy-made-lilly-gaddis-rise-inevitable/   Bostock v. Clayton County https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf   Title IX fact sheet https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-final-rule-factsheet.pdf   34 CFR Part 106 (Final Rule - Title IX) https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/t9-unofficial-final-rule-2024.pdf   -Reed O'Connor “striking down” fact sheet https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.377970/gov.uscourts.txnd.377970.37.0.pdf   TX v. USA (Judge Kacsmaryk Docket, via Court Listener) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68479793/state-of-texas-v-the-united-states-of-america/    TX v. Cardona (Judge O'Connor Docket, via Court Listener) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67502155/the-state-of-texas-v-cardona/    Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald, interviewed Dr. Artesius Miller.   Dr. Artesius Miller is recognized as a visionary leader in K-12 public education in Georgia who has dedicated his career to providing high quality educational options for families in low-income communities.He founded Georgia's first state-approved, arts-focused charter school, Utopian Academy for the Arts, a decade ago to serve families in Clayton County when arts programs were being removed from the curriculum. The school was since named "Charter School of the Year" in 2023. Under Dr. Miller's leadership, the Utopian Academy Charter School Network now includes an elementary school, a middle school, and a high school in Clayton County, and a new satellite middle school in Fayetteville, Ga. that opened in August 2023 with statewide attendance zones. In addition to his role as CEO and Founder of the Utopian Academy Charter Network, Dr. Miller also serves as a leader in higher education. In 2024, he became the first African American to chair the state board of the Technical College System of Georgia. He most recently served as vice chair of the board after being appointed in 2019 by Gov. Brian Kemp. Dr. Miller also serves as an adjunct professor of education at Morehouse College, his alma mater. He earned his bachelor's degree in Economics from Morehouse, and has a master's degree in Education Leadership from Columbia University, and a doctoral degree in Educational Administration and Policy from the University of Georgia. He is a member of several organizations and has won numerous accolades, including the “Champion for Children” Award presented by the Georgia Charter Schools Association and the "Avante Garde Economic Development Award" from the Development Authority of Clayton County.Support the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Clayton County police announced the arrest of Michale Edwards for the murder of Briana Winston, his girlfriend, in their College Park, Georgia apartment. The incident, which occurred on March 17, took a macabre turn as Edwards allegedly strangled Winston to death after she confronted him about secretly marrying another woman. What followed was a ghastly cover-up orchestrated with the help of his own family. Lt. Ashanti Marbury of the Clayton County Police Department described the crime as anything but a "crime of passion," highlighting the evident malice and intent behind Edwards' actions. According to Lt. Marbury, Edwards, 23, engaged in a heated argument with Winston over his infidelity before fatally choking her. The aftermath of the murder unfolded gruesomely. Edwards purportedly stuffed Winston's lifeless body into a suitcase and drove to Gates, Tennessee, with the assistance of an accomplice. There, they burned her body in a barrel, using a shovel to hasten the process of incineration. "Together, the two men placed a suitcase inside of a burned barrel located behind the home, they doused it with accelerant, lit a fire, and they kept their fire burning from the early afternoon until nightfall," Marbury further said. Marbury revealed that prosecutors granted immunity to the accomplice in exchange for vital information leading to the arrests of Edwards and his family members. Subsequent investigations unveiled a sinister family involvement in the cover-up. Edwards' wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, allegedly aided him by allowing the use of their car for transporting Winston's body.  According to Clayton County police, during the investigation, Edwards was already in jail on an unrelated charge. He was caught on a jail call instructing his wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, to dispose of a pair of shoes and gloves.  Phillips-Edwards is now facing several charges, including being party to the commission of a crime - murder. Additionally, investigators have charged Edward's mother, Ebony Anderson, and his brother, Keilan Wright, with aiding in the destruction of evidence The timeline of events paints a horrifying picture. Winston, a mother of a 4-year-old child with Edwards, was reported missing by her family on April 1. Upon visiting her apartment, they discovered it had been completely cleared out, emanating the smell of bleach. Further inquiry revealed Winston had not shown up for work on March 17. Police intensified their investigation, eventually leading them to Ripley, Tennessee, where they recovered Winston's remains at a cemetery and along a road, approximately 430 miles from the murder scene. Edwards is currently being held at Clayton County Jail on numerous charges, including malice murder, felony murder, concealing death, and tampering with evidence. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Clayton County police announced the arrest of Michale Edwards for the murder of Briana Winston, his girlfriend, in their College Park, Georgia apartment. The incident, which occurred on March 17, took a macabre turn as Edwards allegedly strangled Winston to death after she confronted him about secretly marrying another woman. What followed was a ghastly cover-up orchestrated with the help of his own family. Lt. Ashanti Marbury of the Clayton County Police Department described the crime as anything but a "crime of passion," highlighting the evident malice and intent behind Edwards' actions. According to Lt. Marbury, Edwards, 23, engaged in a heated argument with Winston over his infidelity before fatally choking her. The aftermath of the murder unfolded gruesomely. Edwards purportedly stuffed Winston's lifeless body into a suitcase and drove to Gates, Tennessee, with the assistance of an accomplice. There, they burned her body in a barrel, using a shovel to hasten the process of incineration. "Together, the two men placed a suitcase inside of a burned barrel located behind the home, they doused it with accelerant, lit a fire, and they kept their fire burning from the early afternoon until nightfall," Marbury further said. Marbury revealed that prosecutors granted immunity to the accomplice in exchange for vital information leading to the arrests of Edwards and his family members. Subsequent investigations unveiled a sinister family involvement in the cover-up. Edwards' wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, allegedly aided him by allowing the use of their car for transporting Winston's body.  According to Clayton County police, during the investigation, Edwards was already in jail on an unrelated charge. He was caught on a jail call instructing his wife, Brieanna Phillips-Edwards, to dispose of a pair of shoes and gloves.  Phillips-Edwards is now facing several charges, including being party to the commission of a crime - murder. Additionally, investigators have charged Edward's mother, Ebony Anderson, and his brother, Keilan Wright, with aiding in the destruction of evidence The timeline of events paints a horrifying picture. Winston, a mother of a 4-year-old child with Edwards, was reported missing by her family on April 1. Upon visiting her apartment, they discovered it had been completely cleared out, emanating the smell of bleach. Further inquiry revealed Winston had not shown up for work on March 17. Police intensified their investigation, eventually leading them to Ripley, Tennessee, where they recovered Winston's remains at a cemetery and along a road, approximately 430 miles from the murder scene. Edwards is currently being held at Clayton County Jail on numerous charges, including malice murder, felony murder, concealing death, and tampering with evidence. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Karen Read Trial, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

The Cheat Sheet is The Murder Sheet's segment breaking down weekly news and updates in some of the murder cases we cover.In this episode of The Cheat Sheet, we will talk about several cases, including a number of murder conspiracies.NBC News on the arrest of middle school principal Keante Harris for the brutal murders of Cheryl Colquitt-Thompson, Quinones King, and Rodney Cottrell in Georgia: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-middle-school-principal-arrested-charged-2013-cold-case-murder-rcna152229The Daily Mail on the Keante Harris case: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13418411/alabama-Keante-Harris-middle-school-principal-arrested-cold-case-murder.html11 Alive on the Keante Harris case: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/cold-cases/family-knew-who-allegedly-killed-loved-ones-all-along-clayton-county-cold-case-murder-unsolved/85-f31f3336-7ec2-43fe-b9b3-83a99a4e282eWBRC on the Keante Harris case: https://www.wbrc.com/2024/05/14/montgomery-families-getting-answers-after-arrests-cold-case-including-jefferson-county-assistant-principal/WSFA on the Keante Harris case: https://www.wsfa.com/2024/05/13/central-alabama-crimestoppers-speaks-arrests-11-year-old-cold-case/Clayton County's press release on the arrests in the formerly-cold torture-murders of Cheryl Colquitt-Thompson, Quinones King, and Rodney Cottrell: https://nixle.us/FJBBRKSDK on the arrest of Thomas E. Gamble in the disappearance and presumed murder of John Paul Parton in Missouri: https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/crime/murder-charge-missing-high-ridge-19-year-old/63-e2b1f4b6-6006-498c-92ab-a216f430af06News On 6 on the recent release of Muhammad Aziz, the man convicted of plotting to murder Neal Sweeney in Oklahoma: https://www.newson6.com/story/6643f1febf33fc23319cd0f2/mastermind-in-murder-for-hire-in-tulsa-set-to-be-released-from-prisonFox 19 on the bizarre case of accused shooter Gregory Guilfoyle and the subsequent recusal of Judge J. Steven Cox of the Franklin County Circuit Court: https://www.fox19.com/2024/05/15/prosecutor-refiles-attempted-murder-charges-wants-judge-removed-case/The latest court filings in the Steven James Weis case in Wisconsin: https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2023CF000334&countyNo=66&index=0&mode=detailsThe Miami Herald's coverage of the murders of mother-and-son Carmen Harris and DeMarco Harris, decades apart: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article288449059.htmlLocal 10's coverage of the murders of mother-and-son Carmen Harris and DeMarco Harris, decades apart: https://www.local10.com/news/local/2024/05/15/family-mourns-death-of-24-year-old-whose-mother-was-murdered-21-years-ago/The WSVN on the murder Carmen Harris: https://wsvn.com/news/carmen-harris/The Cold Case Project's filing on Carmen Harris: https://database.projectcoldcase.org/?age=&city=Miami&county=&gender=&lea=&more=&name=&offense=&page=98&race=&reported_max=&reported_min=&state=Florida&status=&weapon=&year=&zip=This episode also cited reporting from the Tulsa World, which was accessed on Newspapers.com.Support The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

LGBTQ rights and religious freedom are often pitted against one another, but they are not mutually exclusive. This episode of Respecting Religion looks at the recent decision by the United Methodist Church to repeal its ban on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings as well as the broader conversation. Holly Hollman is joined by guest co-host Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, BJC Communications Director. He shares some of his personal story, then he and Holly reflect on work bridging differences between LGBTQ rights advocacy and religious groups that oppose LGBTQ protections. They highlight the Respect for Marriage Act as one hallmark of bipartisan consensus building that achieves civil rights protections and safeguards religious liberty.    SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 1:23): The changing landscape of LGBTQ rights and religious freedom Learn more about Guthrie Graves-Fitzimmons in his BJC bio. Find more resources on religious liberty and the LGBTQ community on BJC's website.  For in-depth information about public opinion on LGBTQ rights among different religious groups, visit the Public Religion Research Institute's website at this link.     Segment 2 (starting at 5:20): The United Methodist Church lifts ban on LGBTQ clergy Read coverage from Ruth Graham of The New York Times: United Methodist Church Reverses Ban on Practicing Gay Clergy Read Guthrie's MSNBC column: “Why United Methodists' historic vote means so much to gay Christians like me.”   Segment 3 (starting 16:33): Bridging differences  Holly and Guthrie discussed the 2020 Brookings Institution report “A Time to Heal, A Time to Build,” by E.J. Dionne Jr. and Melissa Rogers.  Respecting Religion has devoted several episodes to the topics discussed in this episode. Listen to Season 4, Episode 7 for more on the Respect for Marriage Act, Season 4, Episode 26 for more on 303 Creative v. Elenis, and Season 1, Episode 17 for more on Bostock v. Clayton County.   Read more about BJC's reaction to the Obergefell decision in 2015 in this column from Holly Hollman: Obergefell decision does not remove the separation of church and state. You can also access a 2-page resource with frequently asked questions about the decision. Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC.

Guests: Dr. Jason Snyder and Dr. Jonathan Teague   Some incredible excerpts/statements from Five Lies:   This book is for Christian, especially Christian WOMEN. But still a valuable read for guys - which is why we are tackling this book on T4M   But some of us believe, as I do, that God's design for women determines our roles and our priorities. The Christian family matters, and its neglect is deadly. God's design for women is biologically to bear children - and the greatest calling and responsibility for Christians (men and women) is to train children and raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord… This will require a sacrifice from both men and women in terms of their priorities and opportunities…   This book [the Bible] offers one simple answer: the world is in chaos, and the church is divided because we have failed to obey God and value his plan for how men and women should live.   The creation of man and woman, also known as the “creation ordinance,” is CENTRAL, not peripheral, to the GOSPEL.   God is holy, and therefore ignorance, iniquity, and ungodliness reflect our sin nature in Adam.   Three “exchanges” of truth for lies in Romans 1:21-28 First there is the exchange of the Creator for the creature, or the exchange of God worship for idol worship Second is the exchange of truth for lies Third comes the exchange of natural sexuality (heterosexuality) or dishonorable passions (homosexuality)   The Five Lies: Lie #1: Homosexuality is normal Lie #1 claims that the word of God doesn't apply to homosexual orientation because homosexual orientation represents a person's core truth But if you exchange the Creator for the creature, you impose God's attributes on man.   Lie #2: Being a spiritual person is kinder than being a biblical Christian.   Lie #3: Feminism is good for the world and the church. In 2023, we cannot even define what a woman is or defend her right to exist   Lie #4: Transgenderism is normal.   Lie #5: Modesty is an outdated burden that serves male dominance and holds women back.   My reason for changing my mind can be stated in two words: Obergefell (as in Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015) and Bostock (as in Bostock v. Clayton County, 2020) Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage Bostock made sexual orientation a protected class   Thomas Watson in The Doctrine of Repentance Recognition of sin Sorrow for sin Confession of sin Shame for sin Hatred for sin Turning from sin   Thomas Watson comments: “Loving of sin is worse than committing it. A goodman may run into a sinful action unawares, but to love sin is desperate…”   After Obergefell and Bostock, LGBTQ+ describes who someone is rather than how someone feels.   T4M guys - just a reminder that Training4Manhood is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) ministry and you can make donations either via Zelle (info@training4manhood.com) or by visiting the Training4Manhood website. Huge thank you to Jared Wood for allowing T4M to use his music in our intro and outro selections.

Press conference with LGBTQ leaders, legal experts, civil rights leaders and student advocates that Emmy Winner Charlotte Robinson host of OUTTAKE VOICES™ attended about the new Title IX rule. The U.S. Department of Education published its final regulatory updates that clarify Title IX protections for LGBTQ students, student survivors of sexual assault and pregnant and parenting students. Consistent with the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Bostock v. Clayton County decision in 2020 the Department now clarifies that harassment on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics violates Title IX's mandate for federally funded schools to prohibit sex discrimination. In March 2021 President Biden issued Executive Order 14021 beginning the process of undoing the Trump administration's harmful actions undermining Title IX and protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors. In this virtual press briefing Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivors and Senior Counsel, National Women's Law Center conducted this intimate informative session joined by Brandon Wolf, Human Rights Campaign, National Press Secretary, Olivia Hunt, National Center for Transgender Equality Policy Director, Kenyora Parham, End Rape on Campus CEO, Kel O'Hara, Equal Rights Advocates Senior Attorney, Emily Bach & Andrew Davis who are student organizers with Know Your IX A which is a project of advocates for youth and concluded with Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, GLSEN's Executive Director.  As we celebrate this important milestone to protect our LGBTQ youth there's still much more work to be done. Schools have also been hampered by extremist efforts at the state and local level to target LGBTQ youth especially transgender, nonbinary and gender-expansive youth. This year alone we're already dealing with more than 470 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures nationwide mostly targeting our transgender youth. The new Title IX Ruling also does not protect the rights of transgender athletes to play and be part of a team. Every student including LGBTQ students should have equal access to educational opportunities throughout the entirety of their school experience. For More Info… LISTEN: 600+ LGBTQ Chats @OUTTAKE VOICES

We've got a Podcast FIRST! Amy Harris is the Director of Elementary Athletics for Clayton Co. Schools in Georgia and she shares her story plus some BEST PRACTICES for ADs - and for creating a top notch Elementary Program! THIS is the Educational AD Podcast! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/educational-ad-podcast/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/educational-ad-podcast/support

 Brenda Booth was still mourning the loss of her beloved sister, Claudia Marie, when she found out her sister had transferred her home's deed to a private company on April 26, 2022.“Uh, she can't sign a deed three months after she died,” Booth recalled.Families such as Booth's say metro Atlanta law police are not criminally pursuing cases of stolen homes, which is all part of a troubling trend of deed theft in Georgia.Claudia Marie died in 2022 after a long period of declining health. While Booth was preparing for her sister's demise, she could not anticipate what happened afterward.Booth sought the help of probate court attorney Daniel Kalamaro to handle her late sister's assets. Among those assets was a Clayton County home in the unincorporated community of Rex.“It's usually a fairly routine process: gather the assets, gather the debts, identify the creditors and make your disbursements and away you go,” Kalamaro explained. “That did not happen here.”“It's been a doozie.”Read the full story here: https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2024/02/12/if-your-home-gets-stolen-will-police-investigate-this-family-says-no/

Today we're sitting down with Wally Taylor, an attorney for the Sierra Club of Iowa, to discuss the organization's concerns about a Clayton County livestock facility that is seeking approval from state regulators on how to dispose the manure they produce.

On the Tuesday, Jan. 9 edition of Georgia Today: VP Harris made a stop in Atlanta today; Georgia needs more poll workers; And police in Clayton County have confirmed a death related to the severe storms that rolled through Metro Atlanta this morning.

Hannah Payne Murder Trial Opening Statements | Profiling Evil Hannah Payne, Racism, Murder or Self Defense? | Profiling Evil Hannah Payne witnessed a non-injury traffic accident in Clayton County, Georgia. When Kenneth Herring drove away from the scene, she followed and after blocking him in an intersection, shots were fired and Herring lay dead. Was this self defense or murder? =======================================SUPPORT our Podcasts: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1213394/supportGet Truthfinder: https://truthfinder.pxf.io/c/3466408/1404760/15694

MDJ Script/ Top Stories for Dec 22nd          Publish Date:  Dec 21st       Commercial: Henssler :15   From the Henssler Financial Studio, Welcome to the Marietta Daily Journal Podcast.  Today is Friday, December 22nd and Happy 84th Birthday to actor Jon Voight.  ***12.29.23 - BIRTHDAY - JON VOIGHT*** I'm Dan Radcliffe and here are the stories Cobb is talking about, presented by Engineered Solutions of Georgia Austell Doc Accused of Assault — Again 2 Arrested in Powder Springs Carjacking; Officer Sustains Minor Injuries in Wreck A Home for Christmas Connects Cobb Families to Housing All of this and more is coming up on the Marietta Daily Journal Podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen and subscribe!  BREAK: ESOG STORY 1: Austell Doc Accused of Assault — Again Dr. Melvin Gerald Perry, a pediatrician in Austell, has been arrested for the second time in two years, facing charges of felony false imprisonment and misdemeanors including simple assault, criminal trespass, and terroristic threats. According to arrest warrants, Perry allegedly threatened and blocked a female medical worker who was attempting to draw his blood at Kaiser Permanente West Cobb Medical Center. This incident follows a July 2022 arrest when Perry reportedly attacked a paramedic during an argument about care for a child, resulting in charges of assault and property damage. Perry operates Total Care Pediatrics in Austell. STORY 2: 2 Arrested in Powder Springs Carjacking; Officer Sustains Minor Injuries in Wreck A Powder Springs police officer, Lt. Robert Bodron, was involved in a wreck while responding to a carjacking incident involving a vehicle stolen from Clayton County. The car chase ended when the carjacked vehicle entered a backyard due to mud and rain, and the suspects fled. Two suspects, including 17-year-old Destyn Wilson and an unnamed 16-year-old with a stolen handgun, were apprehended. Wilson was caught after a resident reported a suspicious person. The third suspect is still on the run. Lt. Bodron's police cruiser was hit at an intersection, and minor injuries were reported. The Cobb Police Department is investigating the crash. STORY 3: A Home for Christmas: Local Organizations Connect Cobb Families to Housing Ravin O'Bannon and her daughters faced homelessness after she lost her job in 2020. They moved between hotels, friends' homes, and temporary shelters. O'Bannon eventually entered Open Doors' Housing Support Navigation program, which connects housing-insecure households to stable housing. The program aims to help 200 households in the metro Atlanta area within a year. Cobb County has a significant housing insecurity issue, with around 3,000 people considered unhoused or housing unstable. Open Doors serves as a liaison between tenants and leasing agents, reducing approval criteria barriers and supporting tenants to maintain stable housing.   We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.799.6810 for more info.  We'll be right back  Break:  CU of GA – DRAKE   STORY 4: Cobb State Senators Targeted by Swatting Calls Swatting calls targeted Georgia officials during the holidays, including State Sen. Kay Kirkpatrick and Sen. John Albers. Kirkpatrick's neighbor alerted her to SWAT officers heading for her home, responding to a false call about a hostage situation. The officers found a history of swatting calls associated with the phone number. Albers, who was out of town, learned that Roswell police responded to a swatting call at his home. Other officials, including Sen. Clint Dixon and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, were also swatted. Swatting is a dangerous criminal act that diverts law enforcement resources and poses serious risks. STORY 5:  New Acworth Alderman Wants to Listen and Learn Dr. Toby Carmichael, a veterinarian at Lake City Animal Hospital in Acworth, is set to begin his first term as a member of the Acworth Board of Aldermen in January after winning the At Large Post 1 seat in November. With 20 years of service on the city's planning and zoning commission, Carmichael aims to continue the city's growth while maintaining a high quality of life. He emphasizes the importance of smart growth and infrastructure improvements to support the increasing population. Carmichael's priority is to listen and learn from residents to better understand their needs and contribute positively to the community. We'll be back in a moment  Break: INGLES 5 STORY 6: Credit Union of Georgia Hosted Food Drive Credit Union of Georgia, with branches and ATMs in Cobb County, conducted a food drive, both in-branch and online, to support Pearson Middle School's Fresh Market during the holidays. The drive collected non-perishable foods and canned goods throughout November. Pearson Middle School's Fresh Market, overseen by Principal Dean Yoder, serves 80-125 families during each distribution, occurring once a month on the third Saturday from 9 to 11 a.m. The effort by Credit Union of Georgia aimed to contribute to the food pantry's stock and support local families in need. For more information, visit www.CUofGA.org. STORY 7: No. 3: Cobb School Board Map Thrown into Question by Lawsuit In 2023, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Cobb Board of Education's districts intensified, leading to a federal judge's order for the General Assembly to draw new districts. The lawsuit, initiated in June 2022, alleged racial gerrymandering in the school board map. In December, Judge Eleanor Ross granted a preliminary injunction, preventing future elections with the current map. Ross found it "substantially likely" the map would be deemed unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to draw a new map by Jan. 10. The school district has appealed, arguing against the racial gerrymander claim, while critics accuse the elections board of collusion. Break: Henssler :60  Signoff-   Thanks again for hanging out with us on today's Marietta Daily Journal podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast, the Gwinnett Daily Post, the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties, or the Paulding County News Podcast. Read more about all our stories and get other great content at MDJonline.com.   Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.    Produced by the BG Podcast Network   Show Sponsors: henssler.com ingles-markets.com cuofga.org drakerealty.com esogrepair.com     #NewsPodcast #CurrentEvents #TopHeadlines #BreakingNews #PodcastDiscussion #PodcastNews #InDepthAnalysis #NewsAnalysis #PodcastTrending #WorldNews #LocalNews #GlobalNews #PodcastInsights #NewsBrief #PodcastUpdate #NewsRoundup #WeeklyNews #DailyNews #PodcastInterviews #HotTopics #PodcastOpinions #InvestigativeJournalism #BehindTheHeadlines #PodcastMedia #NewsStories #PodcastReports #JournalismMatters #PodcastPerspectives #NewsCommentary #PodcastListeners #NewsPodcastCommunity #NewsSource #PodcastCuration #WorldAffairs #PodcastUpdates #AudioNews #PodcastJournalism #EmergingStories #NewsFlash #PodcastConversations See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

GDP Script/ Top Stories for Dec 20th    Publish Date:  Dec 19th    HENSSLER 15 From the Henssler Financial Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast. Today is Wednesday, December 20th and Happy 76th Birthday to TV producer Dick Wolfe. ***12.20.23 – BIRTHDAY – DICK WOLF*** I'm Bruce Jenkins and here are your top stories presented by Engineered Solutions of Georgia. Gwinnett Place CID Reports Nearly $16 Billion Economic Impact Gwinnett County Identified as Key 'Decider' County for 2024 Presidential Election by NBC News And Atlanta Man Accused of Trafficking a Disabled Adult Plus, my conversation with Leah McGrath from Ingles Markets on raw milk. All of this and more is coming up on the Gwinnett Daily Post podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen daily and subscribe! Break 1: ESOG   STORY 1: Gwinnett Place CID Reports Nearly $16 Billion Economic Impact The Gwinnett Place Community Improvement District (CID) in Georgia has reported a substantial economic impact of $15.9 billion, showcasing its role as a significant economic driver in the region. Despite the Gwinnett Place CID occupying less than 1% of Gwinnett County's total land area and the local mall being mostly vacant, the economic impact increased by $2.5 billion in the last three years and $6.4 billion since 2017. The CID contributes 28,688 jobs, accounting for 7% of all jobs in Gwinnett County, with retail, accommodation and food services, and professional services sectors being key contributors. The area is set for major redevelopment, aiming for a "Global Villages"-style transformation.   STORY 2: NBC News names Gwinnett County one of seven key 'Decider' counties in 2024 presidential election NBC News has identified Gwinnett County, Georgia, as one of seven "Decider" counties that will play a pivotal role in determining the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. As part of its "The Deciders" hyperlocal reporting effort, NBC will invest in covering demographic bellwether counties that played crucial roles in the 2020 and 2022 election cycles. With Gwinnett crossing the 1 million residents mark in 2023, it has become a politically significant county, having shifted from a Republican stronghold to being won by Democrats in recent elections. NBC News will deploy nearly three dozen journalists, including correspondent Blayne Alexander, to cover Gwinnett County's political dynamics leading up to the 2024 election.   STORY 3: Atlanta man charged with trafficking of disabled adult Felipe Smith, 24, from Atlanta, has been indicted in Clayton County on charges related to trafficking an adult female with a developmental disability. The defendant allegedly transported and provided the victim for commercial sex acts at various hotels in metro Atlanta, benefiting financially from the sales. The case has a connection to Smith's association with the criminal street gang PDE. Investigated by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation's Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit, the Attorney General's Human Trafficking and Gang Prosecution Units, the case represents an effort to combat human trafficking and gang activity in Georgia. Smith faces multiple charges, including trafficking and violations of the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act.   We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.874.3200 for more info. We'll be right back Break 2: PEGGY SLAPPY – TOM WAGES   STORY 4: C-sections could prevent women from conceiving again: study A new study reveals that women who have had a previous C-section are 10% less likely to conceive again. The research also found a reciprocal link, with women who took over a year to conceive being 21% more likely to deliver via C-section. Additionally, those facing conception difficulties were more prone to develop serious health problems such as high blood pressure and diabetes mellitus. While earlier studies linked reduced fertility after C-section to the surgical procedure, this study suggests that common underlying risk factors may contribute to both reduced fertility and C-section. Maternal stress is proposed as a plausible explanation connecting challenges in conceiving and an elevated risk of labor difficulties, leading to a higher likelihood of C-section.     STORY 5: UGA researcher explores ancient wheat genomes to improve bread wheat diversity A two-year project, the Wheat Diversity Project, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, aims to sequence the genomes of 12 landrace varieties representing the global diversity of bread wheat. Led by the International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium, the initiative includes plant genomics expert Robin Buell from the University of Georgia. Landraces, traditional wheat varieties adapted to local conditions, carry genetic diversity with key traits for crop improvement. The project will update the reference genome for bread wheat research and develop a haplotype graph for genomics and breeding research. The information will be publicly accessible for wheat breeding advancements.   We'll be back in a moment   Break 3: INGLES 9 – DTL   STORY 6: LEAH MCGRATH And now here is my conversation with Leah McGrath from Ingles Markets on raw milk.   STORY 7: LEAH MCGRATH ***LEAH MCGRATH INERVIEW***   We'll have final thoughts after this.   Break 4: Henssler 60   Signoff – Thanks again for hanging out with us on today's Gwinnett Daily Post podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties, or the Paulding County News Podcast. Read more about all our stories, and get other great content at Gwinnettdailypost.com. Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Produced by the BG Podcast Network   Show Sponsors: henssler.com ingles-markets.com wagesfuneralhome.com psponline.com esogrepair.com mallofgeorgiachryslerdodgejeep.com downtownlawrencevillega.com   #NewsPodcast #CurrentEvents #TopHeadlines #BreakingNews #PodcastDiscussion #PodcastNews #InDepthAnalysis #NewsAnalysis #PodcastTrending #WorldNews #LocalNews #GlobalNews #PodcastInsights #NewsBrief #PodcastUpdate #NewsRoundup #WeeklyNews #DailyNews #PodcastInterviews #HotTopics #PodcastOpinions #InvestigativeJournalism #BehindTheHeadlines #PodcastMedia #NewsStories #PodcastReports #JournalismMatters #PodcastPerspectives #NewsCommentary #PodcastListeners #NewsPodcastCommunity #NewsSource #PodcastCuration #WorldAffairs #PodcastUpdates #AudioNews #PodcastJournalism #EmergingStories #NewsFlash #PodcastConversationsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On today's episode of The G Talk Podcast, we are live from Atlanta, GA! I got my old friends Byrd and Kenny in the building. We begin with intros and check ins, then we share our experience at Twin Peaks (3:14). Kenny shares his thoughts about Byrd from back in the day (8:25). The last conversation gets us into a discussion on family dynamics (15:20). We begin to reminisce on the childhood days in Clayton County (29:27). We get breaking news of a latest development that leads us to talking about the Diddy situation (58:41). The pod takes a turn and we end with how I began podcasting years ago, which takes us on a wild tangent. I hope you enjoy this episode, thank you for your continued support!

CFB's silly season begins as head coaches fall like drunken Clayton County commissioners, Falcons suck again so when will Arthur fire Arthur? Shohei Otani in a Braves uni?! How about Aaron Nola? Dawgs play in front of Dolly Parton, Jimbo Fisher's replacement, MNF wild ending, Dick Vitale great news, Rookies of the Year, NBA analyst tells truth about James Harden and promptly gets deleted (with sound), UGA's dominance, SEC title game odds, the million dollar bat, plus Pete's Tweets, This Day in Sports History, Ripley's, and a rant about real nazis 

GDP Script/ Top Stories for Sept 6 Publish Date:  sept 5 From the Henssler Financial Studio Welcome to the Gwinnett Daily Post Podcast Today is Sunday September 10th, and happy 74th birthday to Bill O'reilly ****O'reilly**** I'm Bruce Jenkins and here are your top stories presented by Mall of Georgia Chrysler Dodge Jeep Gwinnett police looking for missing Alpharetta woman who disappeared after leaving county jail Gwinnett police say East Point man allegedly led crew that broke into hundreds of cars across metro Atlanta Gwinnett County identify victim in fatal shooting in Dacula All of this and more is coming up on the Gwinnett Daily Post podcast, and if you are looking for community news, we encourage you to listen daily and subscribe!    Break 1 : M.O.G.          Story 1. Alpharetta woman who disappeared after leaving county jail   Maury-Ange Martinez, an Alpharetta resident, has been missing since her release from Gwinnett County jail last month. Her family reported her disappearance a week after her release, and the only leads suggest she may be in Cobb or Cherokee counties north of Atlanta. Martinez was last seen leaving the jail on August 21 and may be in the Woodstock or Marietta areas. She had been in a drug abuse recovery program but was released when she was arrested on August 19. Concerns about drug abuse and possible human trafficking have been raised. Surveillance video shows her leaving the jail and getting into a white Chevrolet pickup truck. Her abandoned car was found in Marietta. Martinez is 5'4" tall, weighs about 100 pounds, has long brown hair, brown eyes, and several tattoos, including one of a snake on her sternum. If you have information, please call 911...…….. read more at gwinnettdailypost.com   STORY 2: East Point Man The Gwinnett County Sheriff's Office Fugitive Task Force, in collaboration with U.S. Marshals and Clayton County police agencies, apprehended Javaris Gamble, an East Point man accused of leading a group responsible for hundreds of car break-ins in metro Atlanta since May. Gwinnett County detectives identified Gamble as the crew leader and arrested him on August 31 in Forest Park, linking him to 30 Entering Auto and Motor Vehicle Theft crimes that occurred on June 22, 2023. Over the summer, more than 400 vehicles were entered and 15 stolen in Gwinnett County alone. Detectives plan to pursue numerous additional charges against Gamble. He is currently held without bond in Gwinnett County Jail. The investigation revealed similar break-ins in other areas, including Norcross and Lilburn. Law enforcement agencies across metro Atlanta collaborated to achieve this arrest, showcasing the dedication and cooperation of officers, technicians, analysts, and detectives. Story 3: Dacula shooting Gwinnett County police have identified Kenneth Stockton, a 42-year-old Dawsonville man, as the victim of a fatal shooting in Dacula at the end of August. The shooting occurred on Jona Trail, and investigators believe Stockton was involved in a confrontation before being shot. As of now, no suspect has been identified, and the case is actively under investigation. The incident was reported on August 31 at 11:15 p.m., and Stockton was already deceased when officers arrived. Police are urging anyone with information to contact them at 770-513-5300 or Crime Stoppers at 404-577-8477, where tips can be submitted anonymously. A cash reward is offered for information leading to an arrest and indictment. We have opportunities for sponsors to get great engagement on these shows. Call 770.874.3200 for more info. We'll be right back   Break 2:   Slappey- Tom Wages -  Obits                   Story 4: Lawrenceville mural taking shape ahead of community painting days   Lawrenceville residents will have the chance to participate in painting a new city mural along Jackson Street. The Lawrenceville Arts Commission initiated this community mural project, located on the wall where Jackson Street transitions into Buford Drive. They've scheduled two workdays for residents to join in: the first on Sunday and the second on September 15. To kickstart the project, artist Teresa Abboud began outlining the mural earlier this week. Residents interested in contributing can sign up online. It's an opportunity for the community to engage in the creation of public art.   Story 5: Police looking for man accused of stealing power drills, other items from Norcross-area Home Depot   Gwinnett County police are seeking a man who stole seven Milwaukee power drills valued at approximately $700 from a Home Depot near Norcross. The theft occurred around 7:40 a.m. on a Monday at the store located on Jimmy Carter Blvd. The suspect also allegedly took a large box worth about $5 and a 30-gallon tote worth about $13. He placed the drills inside the box and exited the store. Despite a Home Depot loss prevention officer attempting to intervene, the suspect left in a vehicle with a Texas license plate before being apprehended. The suspect is described as Hispanic, wearing a light blue shirt, khaki pants, and white shoes, possibly white or multi-racial. Anyone with information is urged to contact detectives or Crime Stoppers for a potential cash reward.   Story 6: Collins Hill's Jameson Pifer, Mill Creek's Evelyn Schlitz earn Gwinnett running honors   Jameson Pifer from Collins Hill and Evelyn Schlitz from Mill Creek were recognized as Gwinnett Runners of the Week by the county's cross country coaches. Pifer received the honor for his impressive victory at the Jekyll Island Invite, completing the race in just 15 minutes and 52 seconds. On the girls' side, Schlitz was awarded for her performance at the AT&T Starr's Mill Panther XC Meet, where she secured the 23rd position with a time of 20:03. Both athletes displayed outstanding skills in their respective races, earning them this recognition.   We'll be back in a moment   Break 3:  ESOG – Ingles 2 - Cumming   Story 7: Gwinnett's Monkey Wrench Brewing expanding beer capability and adding spirits   Monkey Wrench Brewing, based in Gwinnett County, is expanding its beer production capabilities and venturing into the world of spirits. The brewery offers a diverse range of beer styles, including experimental beers, NEIPAs, West Coast IPAs, sours, stouts, porters, Belgium ales, and lighter lagers. They aim to make their beer more widely available in local bars and restaurants.   Additionally, Monkey Wrench Brewing is branching into spirits production, equipped with a 500-gallon copper pot still and the capacity to craft rum, gin, vodka, and whiskey.   To accommodate their growing supply of kegs and cans, the brewery has built a spacious walk-in cooler. They've also set up a 26-foot tiki bar, creating a vibrant setting for special events and signature cocktails inspired by the Hawaiian Islands.   In addition to their wide range of brews and spirits, Monkey Wrench Brewing offers flavored "slushies" infused with in-house rum and vodka, featuring flavors like apricot, coconut, and mango. They are also serving craft cocktails.   For more information, you can visit their website at www.monkeywrenchbrewing.com or follow them on social media @MonkeyWrenchBrewing.       We'll have final thoughts after this And now, Leah McGrath, corporate dietician at Ingles markets talks with us about foods that help with swollen feet Break 4:  Henssler 60 Thanks again for hanging out with us on today's Gwinnett Daily Post podcast. If you enjoy these shows, we encourage you to check out our other offerings, like the Cherokee Tribune Ledger Podcast, the Marietta Daily Journal, the Community Podcast for Rockdale Newton and Morgan Counties, or the Paulding County News Podcast. Read more about all our stories, and get other great content at Gwinnettdailypost.com. Did you know over 50% of Americans listen to podcasts weekly? Giving you important news about our community and telling great stories are what we do. Make sure you join us for our next episode and be sure to share this podcast on social media with your friends and family. Add us to your Alexa Flash Briefing or your Google Home Briefing and be sure to like, follow, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. www.wagesfuneralhome.com  www.psponline.com  www.mallofgeorgiachryslerdodgejeep.com  www.esogrepair.com  www.henssler.com  www.ingles-markets.com  www.downtownlawrencevillega.com  www.gcpsk12.org  www.cummingfair.netSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, a panel of libertarian and conservative scholars—J. Joel Alicea of the Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Anastasia Boden of the Cato Institute, and Sherif Girgis of Notre Dame Law School—explore the different strands of originalism as a constitutional methodology. They also explore the Roberts Court's application of originalism in recent cases, and how originalism intersects with textualism and other interpretive approaches. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. This program was originally streamed live on June 28, 2023.    Additional Resources  Moore v. Harper (2023)  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2023)  Grutter v. Bollinger (2002)  District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)  Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)  Counterman v. Colorado (2023)   J. Joel Alicea, “The Moral Authority of Original Meaning,” Notre Dame Law Review (2022)   Joel Alicea, “Originalism and the Rule of the Dead,” National Affairs (2022)  Sherif Girgis,  “Living Traditionalism,” N.Y.U. L.Rev (2023)  Sherif Gergis, “Dobb's History and the future of Abortion Laws,” SCOTUSblog (2022)  Anastasia Boden, “Supreme Court's Sidestep Leaves Native Kids Without Answers,” Volokh Conspiracy (June 2023)  Anastasia Boden, “Discourse: Irrational Basis,” Pacific Legal Foundation, (August 2022)    Stay Connected and Learn More  Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. 

Today our guest is Dr. Tonya Clarke, Mathematics Coordinator in the Division of Teaching and Learning and Strategic Improvement at Clayton County Public Schools. We talk with Dr. Clarke about the crucial role of supporting teachers as they implement culturally responsive and sustaining mathematics practices. She explains how her team is providing onsite job-embedded professional development to help teachers apply the training to their classrooms. Dr. Clarke also discusses the various strategies they are using to support teachers across the 66 schools in the district, including math ambassadors, partnerships with colleges, and collaborative learning. Additionally, she shares some of the remarkable impacts that this work has on students' mathematics learning. To learn more: Read Dr. Clarke's recent feature in Ed Week - Making Math Matter: A District Leader's Mission : https://www.edweek.org/leaders/2023/making-math-matter-a-district-leaders-mission   As a Mathematics Coordinator for Clayton County Public Schools with over 20 years of experience in education, Dr. Tonya Clarke has a laser focus on increasing achievement in mathematics for all students. Her team's work focuses on creating structures and establishing partnerships that support teachers with implementing widely accessible teaching practices. As founder of the I'm W.O.K.E. Project (Widening Options through Knowledge and Empowerment), Dr. Clarke and her team guide teachers through a process for developing and implementing culturally relevant and sustaining mathematics practices. I'm W.O.KE. Projects use highly accessible teaching practices that guide students through applying mathematical models to investigate social, economic, environmental, and political issues. As a consultant to several educational organizations she has had the opportunity to work with teachers and leaders around the world, most recently in Ghana, Malaysia, South Africa, and Singapore. Through her work in Clayton County, her consulting work, and her service with the NAACP, Dr. Clarke continues to cultivate critical consciousness. Her devotion to equitable learning environments and student empowerment motivates her to continue supporting strong implementation of equitable teaching practices and the development of programs that make math matter for every student every day.

On this week's episode of Sibling Rivalry, Bob the Drag Queen and Monet X Change talk about colorism. Bob compares their experience growing up in Clayton County and other parts of the South to Monet's experience in Saint Lucia and Brooklyn and they both discuss how they have seen colorism in the entertainment industry and beyond. Find and book a top rated doctor today at https://ZocDoc.com/RIVALRY and download the Zocdoc app for free! Want to see exclusive Sibling Rivalry Bonus Content? Head over to www.patreon.com/siblingrivalrypodcast to be the first to see our latest Sibling Rivalry Podcast Videos! @BobTheDragQueen @MonetXChange Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices