Podcasts about columbia circuit

fWotD Episode 3417: United States v. Moore (1973) Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Saturday, 12 September 2026, is United States v. Moore (1973).United States v. Moore, 486 F.2d 1139 (D. C. Cir. 1973), was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in which the court ruled that narcotics addicts are not protected from prosecution for narcotics possession. Police officers investigating a drug trafficking ring found the defendant, Raymond Moore, in a hotel room with heroin capsules in his pocket; he was charged with narcotics possession. Moore claimed at trial and on appeal that his addiction to heroin forced him to possess and use drugs. He argued that because he did not have the free will to keep himself from possessing drugs, he should not be held criminally responsible. At trial, he was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.Moore's proposed addiction defense on appeal to the D. C. Circuit was based on three legal foundations. First, he argued that laws criminalizing possession of narcotics were not intended to apply to narcotics addicts. Second, he argued that narcotics addicts are protected by the common law principle of mens rea (meaning a "guilty mind"), which generally requires the government to prove that a person had the free will to commit a crime before they can be found guilty of it. Third, he argued that punishing a narcotics addict for possession would be cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, citing a previous U. S. Supreme Court ruling. The government responded that the law was not intended to create an addiction defense, and that the Supreme Court ruling did not apply to this case.The D. C. Circuit upheld Moore's conviction in a 5–4 vote, refusing to create the addiction defense. The five judges, split across two separate opinions, doubted that addicts physically cannot keep themselves from taking drugs; they also worried that the defense could potentially apply to crimes more serious than possession, or lead people to fake addiction. The dissent supported Moore's legal arguments and argued even further that the justice system accomplishes nothing by imprisoning an addict for possession. The court remanded Moore's case to the lower court for reconsideration of his sentence. Other courts have widely adopted Moore's holding, while legal commentators split sharply; some scholars defended the court's rejection of the addiction defense as legally sound and a necessary deterrent, while others attacked it as unsupported by the law and the medical evidence.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:00 UTC on Saturday, 12 September 2026.For the full current version of the article, see United States v. Moore (1973) on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Joanna.

What employers should know about key developments this week: NLRB Shifts to Republican Majority: The Senate confirmed David Prouty and James Macey to the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") in August, establishing Republican control with three Republican members among the four currently confirmed. General Counsel Crystal Carey has indicated her intent to present several decisions for the new majority to overturn, particularly the Cemex, Stericycle, and Thryv decisions from the Biden era. Chevron Deference Ends: Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling, courts are no longer required to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Circuit courts now have authority to reject NLRB positions that lack statutory support. DC Circuit Declines to Enforce "Successor Bar" Doctrine: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to enforce a Board order based on the "successor bar" doctrine—a Board-created rule affecting when representation elections can proceed after a company acquisition. This decision is a clear sign of how the circuit courts can be expected to address the deference to be afforded to administrative agencies' statutory interpretations post-Loper Bright. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steven M. Swirsky and Erin E. Schaefer discuss the NLRB's new landscape under Republican control and how the end of Chevron deference affects agency interpretations. - Visit our site for this week's video edition and more news: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw446 Sign up for notifications: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw-subscribe Visit https://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com - Epstein Becker Green is a national law firm focused on health care and life sciences; employment, labor, and workforce management; and litigation and business disputes. This video is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship.  EMPLOYMENT LAW THIS WEEK® and #WorkforceWednesday® are registered trademarks of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. © Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on Aug. 13 told reporters the U.S. military has the capability to maintain its naval presence to enforce its retaliatory blockade of Iran, which has inflicted severe economic damage on the country. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States planned to inflict more financial damage on Iran."Watch this space for more announcements coming next week because we are going to apply measures like have never been seen in the history of economic isolation on a country," he said in an interview on Newsmax's "Rob Schmitt Tonight" program.The Trump administration on Aug. 14 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow it to continue construction of the $400 million White House ballroom after an appeals court ruled the project lacked the necessary approval from Congress. It asked the justices to keep the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on hold while it prepares a full appeal to the Supreme Court.

This Day in Legal History: John Adams Sworn in as VPOn April 21, 1789, John Adams was sworn in as the first Vice President of the United States, becoming one of the earliest officials to assume office under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution. His inauguration followed the formation of the new federal government and helped signal that the Constitution was not merely theoretical but fully operational. At the time, the role of Vice President was not yet clearly defined, leaving Adams to shape many of its early norms through practice rather than precedent. The Constitution assigned him the duty of presiding over the Senate, placing him at the intersection of the executive and legislative branches. This hybrid function raised early questions about separation of powers, a core principle embedded in the constitutional structure. Adams himself reportedly found the position frustrating, as it carried limited executive authority while restricting his participation in Senate debates. Despite these limitations, his service helped establish procedural expectations for how the Vice President would engage in legislative affairs.The peaceful assumption of office by Adams also reinforced the legitimacy of the new constitutional system at a time when its durability was uncertain. It demonstrated that leadership transitions could occur within a stable legal framework rather than through upheaval or force. This moment contributed to the broader development of constitutional governance by modeling adherence to formal legal processes. Early officeholders like Adams played a critical role in translating the Constitution's text into functioning institutions. His tenure also highlighted ambiguities in the document, many of which would later be addressed through political practice and constitutional amendments. Over time, the vice presidency evolved into a more active executive role, but its foundation was laid during this initial transition period. Adams's swearing-in remains a key example of how early constitutional actors shaped the practical meaning of the nation's governing document.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to revisit its denial of a whistleblower award to an anonymous claimant. The court granted a partial win to the individual, sending the case back to the agency for a clearer explanation of its reasoning. Although the court's full opinion remains sealed, earlier oral arguments suggested the judges were focused on whether the claimant's actions met the legal definition of “voluntary” under Dodd-Frank Act. The SEC had previously rejected the claim, stating that it only learned of the information after contacting the individual, who had first shared allegations with the media. The claimant argued that this sequence should not disqualify them from receiving an award.Whistleblower awards under Dodd-Frank apply when provided information leads to enforcement actions with penalties exceeding $1 million, with awards ranging from 10% to 30% of collected sanctions. Because of this structure, the denied award in this case could amount to a significant financial loss. The court's decision signals concern that the SEC may not have adequately justified its interpretation of the law. The ruling does not guarantee the claimant will receive an award but requires the agency to reconsider and better articulate its position. The case highlights ongoing tension over how strictly the SEC defines eligibility requirements for whistleblowers. It also underscores the importance of transparency in agency decision-making when financial incentives and legal protections are at stake.DC Circ. Orders SEC Rethink Of Whistleblower Claim - Law360A Reuters investigation found that Tesla, Inc. has paid little to no U.S. federal income tax over most of its history, including reporting a zero-dollar tax bill for 2025 despite generating substantial revenue. While some of these low tax obligations are explained by earlier business losses and government incentives for clean energy, the report highlights another major factor: profit shifting through foreign subsidiaries. Specifically, Tesla units in the Netherlands and Singapore recorded about $18 billion in profits that were not taxed in those countries and likely avoided U.S. taxation as well. Experts cited in the report estimate this strategy may have reduced Tesla's U.S. tax burden by more than $400 million.The mechanism appears tied to transferring intellectual property rights to overseas entities, allowing profits tied to those assets to be recorded in lower-tax jurisdictions. One Dutch-linked entity, structured as a partnership, reportedly had no employees and functioned mainly as a conduit for income. These arrangements are legal and commonly used by multinational corporations, though they remain controversial and are often criticized as exploiting gaps in international tax systems. The findings contrast with past public comments by Elon Musk, who has expressed skepticism about using aggressive tax loopholes. The report found no evidence that Tesla violated tax laws, but it underscores ongoing debates about corporate tax practices and transparency.Musk scorned “shady” loopholes, yet offshore tax tricks likely saved Tesla hundreds of millions | ReutersA federal judge has temporarily blocked the $6.2 billion merger between Nexstar Media Group and Tegna Inc., finding that challengers are likely to prove the deal would harm competition. The ruling came from a California federal court, which issued a preliminary injunction stopping the companies from integrating while lawsuits from DirecTV and several state attorneys general move forward. The court said the merger could lead to higher fees for distributors, fewer choices for consumers, and reductions in local journalism. It also warned that combining the companies would increase leverage to threaten “blackouts,” where broadcasters pull channels during fee disputes, potentially leaving viewers without access to sports and local news.The judge emphasized that Nexstar must keep Tegna operating as an independent competitor for now, noting that further integration could cause irreversible harm, including layoffs and station closures. Although the deal had already received approval from regulators like the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice, the court found that oversight did not sufficiently address antitrust concerns. State officials and DirecTV argue the merger would create the largest local TV station owner in the U.S., reaching a vast majority of households and concentrating too much control in one company. Nexstar has said it will appeal the decision and continues to defend the merger as beneficial for local broadcasting.To understand the stakes, it helps to know what these companies control. Nexstar is already the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., operating more than 200 stations affiliated with major networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, and it also owns the cable network NewsNation. Tegna owns dozens of local TV stations across major markets, many of which also carry network programming and produce local news. DirecTV, while not a broadcaster, distributes these channels to subscribers and would be directly affected by any increase in fees. Together, Nexstar and Tegna would control over 250 stations nationwide, raising concerns about pricing power, reduced competition, and the future of local news coverage.Nexstar-Tegna Deal Blocked Amid DirecTV, AGs' Challenge - Law360My column for Bloomberg this week argues that states rushing to tax prediction markets are trying to regulate something they haven't yet clearly defined. That uncertainty creates a real risk: policymakers could end up taxing the wrong base entirely. Until there is clarity about what these platforms actually are, restraint is the more defensible approach.Prediction markets have grown rapidly, with trading volume skyrocketing in just a few years. That growth has drawn attention from lawmakers at both the state and federal levels, but the central question remains unresolved. If these platforms are gambling, then state sports betting frameworks might apply. If they function more like financial instruments, they fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And if they are neither, forcing them into an existing category may create more confusion than clarity.I explain that the case for treating them like gambling platforms is understandable, since users are effectively betting on real-world outcomes. But the comparison breaks down when you look at how these platforms operate. Unlike sportsbooks, they don't act as “the house” or take on risk. Instead, they function more like exchanges, matching users who take opposite sides of a contract and earning revenue through transaction fees rather than betting outcomes.This distinction matters for tax policy. Sportsbooks are typically taxed on gross gaming revenue, which reflects the house's winnings after payouts. That model assumes operators profit from users losing bets. Prediction markets don't fit that structure, because they don't generate meaningful gaming revenue in the traditional sense. Treating trading volume as taxable revenue risks overstating the size of the tax base.At the same time, the CFTC has asserted federal authority and begun challenging state efforts in court. As these disputes move through the judiciary, there is a growing possibility of conflicting rulings that could ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even if states succeed in the short term, their tax systems could rest on shaky legal ground.I also emphasize that prediction markets are inherently borderless digital platforms, which makes fragmented state-by-state regulation difficult to sustain. If they are closer to financial exchanges than local gambling operations, a coherent federal framework may be more appropriate.A more durable solution would be a federal system that taxes platform fees rather than mischaracterized gaming revenue. But that approach would require policymakers to explain why prediction markets deserve distinct treatment from other financial intermediaries. Once the gambling analogy is set aside, that justification becomes harder.None of this eliminates a role for states, particularly in areas like consumer protection and fraud enforcement. But the core questions—what prediction markets are, how they generate income, and how they should be taxed—are national in scope and should be treated that way. 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

I never thought I'd be standing in the shadow of the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on a crisp February morning in 2026, feeling the weight of a decision that just reshaped presidential power. But here we are, listeners, just two days ago on Friday, February 20, the nine justices handed down a bombshell in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the consolidated case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump. By a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion striking down the sweeping tariffs President Donald Trump imposed through executive orders, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, doesn't give the president authority to slap tariffs on imports during so-called national emergencies like drug trafficking from Canada or massive trade deficits.Picture this: Trump had declared these threats "unusual and extraordinary," hitting Canadian goods with a 25% duty and broader tariffs on everything from electronics to steel, all under IEEPA's vague language about regulating importation. But Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson on key parts, said no way. The Court applied the major questions doctrine, arguing Congress never clearly delegated such huge economic power to the executive branch. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the Democratic appointees, signed on to parts rejecting the tariffs outright, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented fiercely, insisting IEEPA's text, history, and precedents backed Trump all the way, calling it a "straightforward case" for presidential authority in foreign affairs.The ruling came fast—arguments were back in November 2025 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Federal Circuit—and it vacated lower court judgments, remanding one with instructions to dismiss. Importers like Learning Resources, Inc., who challenged the tariffs on toys and educational materials, celebrated outside the marble steps, while businesses nationwide breathed easier, spared from billions in extra costs.That same evening, President Trump took the stage in the White House Rose Garden, crowd roaring behind him, and unloaded. According to CNBC's live coverage, he called the decision "deeply disappointing," slamming certain justices as "ashamed," "unpatriotic," and "disloyal to our Constitution," hinting they were swayed by "foreign interests and a small political movement." He praised Justice Kavanaugh's "genius" dissent and his own appointee Justice Alito, but vowed to fight on. Trump announced he'd sign an executive order that day for a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act, effective in days, plus Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by countries like China. "We'll end up being in court for the next five years," he shrugged, but insisted America wouldn't lose.Across the country, reactions poured in. California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded immediate refund checks for Americans hit by the now-invalid tariffs, calling them "illegal" in a Sacramento presser. Legal experts at Holland & Knight law firm noted importers could now seek reimbursements, while SCOTUSblog broke it down: Roberts dissected IEEPA's two little words—"regulate... importation"—ruling they don't stretch to outright tariffs, a tool historically for Congress.As I wrap up this whirlwind from the past few days, it's clear this Supreme Court showdown isn't just about trade—it's a defining line on executive power, echoing Trump's past battles like Trump v. Vance in 2020, where the Court said no absolute immunity from state subpoenas. With Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch in 2017, Kavanaugh in 2018, Barrett in 2020—shifting the bench to a 6-3 conservative tilt, yet ruling against him here, the tensions are electric.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

This Day in Legal History: Edison Receives Patent on PhonographOn February 19, 1878, Thomas Edison received a patent for one of his most transformative inventions: the phonograph. The device could record and reproduce sound, a breakthrough that stunned the public and reshaped the relationship between technology and creativity. Until that point, copyright law primarily protected written works such as books, maps, and sheet music. The phonograph introduced an entirely new category of expression—recorded sound—that did not fit neatly into existing statutes. Lawmakers and courts were soon confronted with a difficult question: who owns a performance once it is captured on a machine?Early copyright frameworks did not clearly account for performers' rights in recorded works. As the recording industry grew, pressure mounted to recognize both composers and performers as legal stakeholders. Congress responded incrementally, expanding federal copyright protections to cover sound recordings in the twentieth century. These changes reflected a broader shift toward adapting intellectual property law to technological innovation. Courts also played a role by interpreting statutes in ways that acknowledged the economic realities of recorded music. The phonograph's legacy thus extends far beyond its mechanical design. It forced the legal system to confront how creative labor should be valued in an age of reproduction. In doing so, Edison's invention helped lay the foundation for modern intellectual property law governing sound recording and broadcasting.A coalition of environmental and public health organizations has filed suit against the Trump administration over its decision to revoke the scientific “endangerment finding” that underpins federal climate regulations. The case was brought in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and also challenges the Environmental Protection Agency's move to repeal vehicle tailpipe emissions limits. The administration recently announced it would eliminate the 17-year-old finding and end greenhouse gas standards for model years 2012 through 2027.The endangerment finding, first adopted in 2009, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, triggering regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. Its repeal would remove requirements for measuring and complying with federal vehicle emissions standards, though immediate effects on stationary sources like power plants remain uncertain. The administration characterized the rollback as a major cost-saving measure, estimating $1.3 trillion in taxpayer savings.By contrast, the Biden administration had previously argued the vehicle standards would produce net consumer benefits, including lower fuel and maintenance costs averaging thousands of dollars over a vehicle's lifetime. The lawsuit marks one of the most significant legal challenges yet to President Trump's broader effort to scale back climate policy, promote fossil fuel development, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and dismantle clean energy incentives. Transportation and power generation each account for roughly a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the stakes of the regulatory reversal.Environmental groups challenge Trump decision to revoke basis of US climate regulations | ReutersMeta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is scheduled to testify in a Los Angeles jury trial examining whether Instagram harms young users' mental health. The case centers on allegations that Meta designed its platform to keep children engaged despite knowing about potential psychological risks. A California woman who began using Instagram and YouTube as a child claims the platforms contributed to her depression and suicidal thoughts. She is seeking damages, arguing the companies prioritized profit over user well-being.Meta and Google deny the accusations and point to safety features they have implemented. Meta has also cited research suggesting that evidence does not conclusively show social media directly changes children's mental health. Defense attorneys argue the plaintiff's struggles stem from personal and family issues rather than her social media use.The lawsuit is part of a broader wave of litigation in the United States, where families, schools, and states have filed thousands of similar claims against major tech companies. Internationally, governments such as Australia have imposed age-based restrictions, and other countries are considering similar measures. The trial could test the tech industry's longstanding legal protections against liability for user harm. If the plaintiff prevails, the verdict may weaken those defenses and open the door to additional claims. Zuckerberg is expected to face questions about internal company research concerning Instagram's effects on teens.Meta's Zuckerberg faces questioning at youth addiction trial | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco has ordered a lawyer representing passengers in sexual assault litigation against Uber to pay sanctions for violating a protective order. The ruling requires attorney Bret Stanley to pay $30,000 in legal fees to Uber after he disclosed confidential company information obtained during discovery. The case is part of consolidated litigation accusing Uber of failing to implement adequate safety measures and background checks for drivers, claims the company denies.U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros found that Stanley improperly shared the names of internal Uber policies in unrelated lawsuits and with other plaintiffs' attorneys. Uber argued that he used the confidential material as a roadmap to pursue evidence in other cases. The judge concluded that Stanley acted unreasonably by unilaterally deciding to disclose protected information. However, she rejected Uber's request for more than $168,000 in fees, finding that the company had not demonstrated significant harm from the disclosures.Stanley defended his actions, stating he intended to streamline discovery in related cases and accused Uber of delaying document production nationwide. The judge also indicated Stanley will owe additional fees tied to a separate sanctions request, after finding he searched case documents to assist another lawsuit. The decision comes shortly after a federal jury awarded $8.5 million to a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver.Uber wins sanctions against lawyer for sexual assault plaintiffs | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen watching court battles unfold like a high-stakes thriller, but here we are in the thick of President Donald Trump's second term, with legal fights erupting everywhere from federal appeals courts to the steps of the Supreme Court. Just last Friday, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the Trump administration's immigration detention policy, mandating that people arrested in the crackdown stay detained without bond, as reported by Reuters journalist Nate Raymond. It's a win for the White House's tough stance on borders, keeping the momentum from earlier victories.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is buzzing with Trump-related pleas. On February 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, vacated a nationwide injunction blocking two of Trump's executive orders targeting what he calls illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in federal grantees and contractors. Chief Judge Albert Diaz wrote the opinion, remanding it to the District of Maryland and signaling these orders might survive scrutiny, according to Law and the Workplace analysis. Employers, especially government contractors, are on notice—DEI initiatives could face real enforcement heat now.Over in immigration again, the Trump team filed an official appeal notice in a Haitian Temporary Protected Status suit, challenging U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes' February 2 ruling that halted the cancellation of TPS for Haitian immigrants, per The Columbus Dispatch's Bethany Bruner. Government lawyers even asked Reyes to pause her order by noon that day, pushing the case toward the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court itself.Redistricting wars rage on too. The Supreme Court recently cleared new maps for Texas and California—Texas gaining five Republican-friendly House seats, California countering with five for Democrats—yet battles like Louisiana v. Callais over race and the Voting Rights Act continue, as detailed by Washington Examiner's Jack Birle. And get this: Trump's lawyers are petitioning the Supreme Court to toss the 2023 E. Jean Carroll civil verdict against him, arguing in their final brief that the president is too busy running the country to fight old allegations, according to USA Today's Maureen Groppe. The justices will conference on it February 20.Don't forget the bigger picture from the Brennan Center: while Trump was convicted in New York City state court in May 2024 for falsifying business records over hush money to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, three criminal cases linger—federal ones in Washington, D.C., for election interference, Fulton County, Georgia, for the same, and Florida over classified documents. Lawfare's litigation tracker counts 298 active challenges to Trump administration actions on national security, plus 14 Supreme Court stays favoring the feds.Even whispers of impeachment surfaced, with ET Now's February 6 livestream claiming the House of Representatives is deciding Trump's fate—though details remain murky amid the chaos. From Venezuelan TPS revocations paused by the Supreme Court despite U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's rulings in San Francisco, to National Guard deployment blocks in Illinois that Trump ultimately pulled back from Chicago and Portland, these shadow docket moves have real-world bite, as SCOTUSblog explains.It's a legal whirlwind, listeners, with Trump fighting on multiple fronts, courts picking sides, and the Supreme Court wielding quiet power that reshapes policies overnight. Stay tuned as these cases collide toward 2026 elections.Thank you for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

January 30, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, a landmark First Amendment speech clause case. While the podcast normally airs current oral arguments, we thought that it would be interesting to spotlight the oral arguments in this landmark case during month of its anniversary.Episode 44: Buckley v. ValeoJames L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975 and decided on January 30, 1976. Argued by Ralph K. Winter, Joel M. Gora, Brice M. Claggett, and  (on behalf of James L. Buckley) and Daniel M. Friedman, Archibald Cox, Lloyd N. Cutler, and Ralph S. Spritzer (on behalf of Francis R. Valeo).   Case Background [from the Federal Election Commission]:On January 2, 1975, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, Eugene McCarthy, Presidential candidate and former Senator from Minnesota, and several others. The defendants included Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and Ex officio member of the newly formed Federal Election Commission, and the Commission itself. The plaintiffs charged that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), under which the Commission was formed, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act were unconstitutional on a number of grounds.On January 24, 1975, pursuant to Section 437h(a) of the FECA, the district court certified the constitutional questions in the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 15, 1975, the appeals court rendered a decision upholding almost all of the substantive provisions of the FECA with respect to contributions, expenditures and disclosure. The court also sustained the constitutionality of the method of appointing the Commission.On September 19, 1975, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which reached its decision on January 30, 1976. Questions Presented, from the Appellants' Brief: 1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on expenditures by political candidates and organizations are constitutional?2. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitation imposed by FECA on expenditures by any person relative to a clearly identified candidate are constitutional?3. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on contributions to political candidates and organizations are constitutional?4. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the disclosure requirements imposed on political candidates, organizations and individuals by FECA are constitutional?5. Did the courts below correctly conclude that the public financing provisions of FECA and Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code are constitutional?6. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the method provided by FECA for appointing members of the Federal Election Commission is constitutional?7. Did the Court of Appeals properly decline to decide whether certain powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA are constitutional?8. Are the powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA constitutional?Resources:   Supreme Court OpinionInstitute for Free Speech AnalysisC-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 1C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 2C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 3The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

One of the country's foremost authorities on executive power, Prof. Saikrishna “Sai” Prakash, joins the Anchoring Truths Podcast to discuss his fascinating new book The Presidential Pardon. Prof. Prakash's slim new tome from Harvard University Press delivers an engaging analysis of the Constitution's Pardon Clause and its transformation over the centuries into a blunt and potent instrument that is an ever growing feature of our politics as well as still a mechanism of mercy. Prof. Prakash is the James Monroe distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia. He is also the author of  The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers, and Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive. The former book focuses on the modern presidency while the latter considers the presidency of the Founders. Prakash majored in economics and political science at Stanford University. At Yale Law School, he served as senior editor of the Yale Law Journal. He subsequently clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and for Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court.Order the book from Harvard University Press or Amazon.

In part one of Red Eye Radio with Gary McNamara and Eric Harley, five people were killed last night including a police officer when a gunman unleashed a barrage of gunfire at a midtown Manhattan office building that is home to the Blackstone investment firm and the headquarters for the NFL. The gunman identified as Shane Tamura then waited for an elevator and allowed a woman to exit unharmed before going to the 33rd floor. He then shot and killed another person before shooting himself. Tamura, who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon in the state of Nevada, killed four people and wounded another. Also Gary laments his Congresswoman Rep. Jasmine Crockett as redistricting is underway, social media response from the Barrett Media article on Gary and Eric's 20th anniversary on Red Eye Radio, the shooting in NYC won't change state gun control laws, AI is not always accurate and "bottomless Pinocchios" (don't ask). Also President Trump gives Putin 10-12 days to reach a cease fire with Ukraine, the Russia collusion hoax remains in the news cycle with audio from Jonathan Turley on CNN and a new survey reveals Americans spend nearly half their time online. Also a description of "Golf Force One" (President Trump's armored golf cart), the Department of Justice has filed an official complaint alleging misconduct by US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg. The complaint which was written by Attorney General Pam Bondi's Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle and addressed to the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Sri Srinivasan. the fact checkers need fact checkers and audio from CNN on foreign policy. For more talk on the issues that matter to you, listen on radio stations across America Monday-Friday 12am-5am CT (1am-6am ET and 10pm-3am PT), download the RED EYE RADIO SHOW app, asking your smart speaker, or listening at RedEyeRadioShow.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, ACTA President Michael Poliakoff discusses solutions to our nation's civic education crisis with distinguished jurist Douglas Ginsburg and his wife, Dorothy “Deecy” Gray. Judge Ginsburg previously served as chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and is currently a professor at George Mason University's (GMU) Antonin Scalia Law School. A former member of the GMU Board of Visitors, Deecy Gray is a strong advocate for civic education. Together, they created Civics Fundamentals, a free online civics course for those studying to take the U.S. Citizenship Test and for the many students who have never been exposed to these basic, foundational lessons.

Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency's denial actions are "nationally applicable" or, alternatively, are "based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect."  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen leads a special panel discussion with Federal Judges Association President Judge J. Michelle Childs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and past president of the Federal Judges Association; Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida; and Judge Stephen R. Bough of the U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri. The judges explore threats to the judicial branch and the importance of judicial independence and civic education in maintaining the rule of law. This program was presented in partnership with the Federal Judges Association.  Resources  Michelle Childs, Justice Jackson Lecture: “The Republic is Safe as Long as the Courts Remain Open” (April 1, 2025)  Code of Conduct for United States Judges  John Roberts, 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary (December 2024)  Federal Judges Association Civics Challenge 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

Today on Lawfare No Bull: On March 24, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on whether to stay a temporary restraining order issued on March 15—which bars summary removals of alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang—under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The panel, composed of Judge Patricia Millet, Judge Justin Miller, and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, asked attorneys about the lack of notice and process given to migrants, why the migrants couldn't have just filed habeas petitions, and why the lawyers filed in D.C. rather than Texas.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer's products that is located within that circuit. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (January 10) - First Amendment, National Security; Issue(s): Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Hewitt v. U.S. (January 13) - Criminal Law, First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (January 13) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.Thompson v. U.S. (January 14) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services (January 14) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (January 15) - Free Speech; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation (January 21) - Telecommunications; Issue(s): Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.Barnes v. Felix (January 22) - Criminal Law, Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.Cunningham v. Cornell University (January 22) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.Featuring:Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceProf. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolShannon M. Grammel, Counsel, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPGregory Y. Porter, Partner, Bailey Glasser LLPVikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together TrustBryan Weir, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC(Moderator) Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

Alpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“Alpine') raises a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure and regulatory authority of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Alpine Securities, a brokerage firm, argues that the structure of FINRA violates the U.S. Constitution, […]

Alpine Securities Corp. v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“Alpine’) raises a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure and regulatory authority of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Alpine Securities, a brokerage firm, argues that the structure of FINRA violates the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2), and the separation of powers doctrine. The company contends that FINRA, which operates as a self-regulatory organization (SRO), is improperly structured because its disciplinary and regulatory authority is exercised without sufficient oversight by the federal government or the President, who would normally appoint officers exercising such powers.Alpine's central argument is that FINRA's board members are not appointed by the President, nor are they subject to Senate confirmation, as required by the Appointments Clause and the private non-delegation doctrine for officers of the United States. Alpine contends that, as a private, non-governmental entity, FINRA is composed of individuals who are not accountable to the public or elected officials in the same way that government agencies are. This, Alpine argues, makes its regulatory and enforcement powers unconstitutional. FINRA argues, however, that its regulations and enforcement decisions are under close scrutiny by the SEC, and, thus, that this delegation of federal power to it, a private regulator, is constitutionally permissible. FINRA also worries that accepting Alpine’s arguments could bring destabilizing and potentially disastrous consequences to the self-regulatory framework of the markets.The case involves questions about the balance between public regulatory authority and private self-regulation within the securities industry. The outcome could have significant implications for the structure of SROs like FINRA, which play a key role in regulating the securities industry but operate outside the direct control of the government.The Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group of the Federalist Society is pleased to present this FedSoc Forum on the Alpine case. Join us in discussing the arguments raised in the case and the DC Circuit’s opinion, as well as the implications for securities industry self-regulation going forward.Featuring:Brian Barnes, Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, Lead Counsel for AlpineW. Hardy Callcott, Partner, Sidley Austin LLPModerator: Joanne Medero, Former Managing Director, BlackRock Inc.--To register, click the link above.

A federal appeals court panel upheld a law on Friday that could lead to a ban on TikTok within weeks. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law—which requires TikTok to break ties with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned by mid-January 2025. The jurors in Daniel Penny's fatal subway chokehold trial told the judge on Friday that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on the top charge of manslaughter. Judge Maxwell Wiley is considering whether to give them what's known as an Allen charge—an instruction urging them to make every possible effort to reach a verdict. America's job market rebounded in November, adding 227,000 workers in a solid recovery from the previous month—when the effects of strikes and hurricanes had sharply diminished employers' payrolls. Friday's report from the Labor Department showed that the unemployment rate ticked up from 4.1 percent in October to 4.2 percent last month. ⭕️Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

A federal appeals court panel upheld a law on Friday that could lead to a ban on TikTok within weeks. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied TikTok's petition to overturn the law—which requires TikTok to break ties with its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or be banned by mid-January 2025.The jurors in Daniel Penny's fatal subway chokehold trial told the judge on Friday that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict on the top charge of manslaughter. Judge Maxwell Wiley is considering whether to give them what's known as an Allen charge—an instruction urging them to make every possible effort to reach a verdict.America's job market rebounded in November, adding 227,000 workers in a solid recovery from the previous month—when the effects of strikes and hurricanes had sharply diminished employers' payrolls. Friday's report from the Labor Department showed that the unemployment rate ticked up from 4.1 percent in October to 4.2 percent last month.

Accomplishing anything of significance in this political environment requires courage. The legal industry has a few well-trodden pathways: law school, clerkship, large law firm, and perhaps a brief stint in government. Yet without courage, there is little potential for lasting impact along these pathways. While prior administrations may have emphasized conventional career paths and credentials in their selection process, there is an emerging interest in selecting for courage, independent thought, and sound judgment.But what paths best equip future leaders to accomplish great things in public service? Does the pressure to keep the option to return to a large law firm hinder one from accomplishing great things? What should we be doing to support people who demonstrate courage - including those who make the courageous choice to balance their careers with responsibilities to family and children?Featuring:Ms. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLPHon. Jonathan Mitchell, Principal, Mitchell Law PLLCHon. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General, TennesseeMs. Annie Donaldson Talley, Partner, Luther Strange & AssociatesMODERATOR: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

We are excited to be dive into Second Amendment jurisprudence and the Natural Right to Self Defense. Our entry into that topic is collection of opinions in Hanson v. United States from a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from October 29, 2024. In that case, the majority upheld the District's ban on the possession and sale of what it called “extra-large capacity magazines." The panel ruled the city's ten-round limit for magazines fit within the nation's historical tradition of regulating “particularly dangerous weapons” and those “capable of unprecedented lethality,” even though there weren't similar bans when the Second Amendment was ratified. A dissenting opinion held that “Magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition are arms in common use for lawful purposes. Therefore, the government cannot ban them.” Joining us on the episode is the lawyer who delivered theoral argument and represented Mr. Hanson and other plaintiffs at the D.C. Circuit, Edward “Ed” Wenger. Ed, a 2016 James Wilson Fellow, is a partner at Holtzman Vogel. Ed has focused the bulk of his career on appellate and constitutional litigation, as well as critical motions practice. His appellate experience began, first, as a law clerk for the Judge Edward Prado of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and it continued as a law clerk for the Judge Karen Henderson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has since served as the Chief Deputy Solicitor General for the State of Florida (the number two appellate litigator or the State) and the General Counsel to the West Virginia Attorney General. Hanson v. D.C. appellate opinion Hadley Arkes on D.C. v. Heller in First Things

TikTok has a lot going on legally these days. Last week, it saw a fresh round of lawsuits alleging the short-form video app harms children. And then there’s the federal law that could ban the app if ByteDance, its China-based owner, doesn’t divest by January. TikTok has sued to block that law. Oral arguments in TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland were heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September. The company is joined by eight TikTok creators as plaintiffs in the case, and one of them is Talia Cadet. She has nearly 140,000 followers on TikTok, where she produces lifestyle videos focused on her love of books and travel. She talked with Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino about the case.

TikTok has a lot going on legally these days. Last week, it saw a fresh round of lawsuits alleging the short-form video app harms children. And then there’s the federal law that could ban the app if ByteDance, its China-based owner, doesn’t divest by January. TikTok has sued to block that law. Oral arguments in TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland were heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September. The company is joined by eight TikTok creators as plaintiffs in the case, and one of them is Talia Cadet. She has nearly 140,000 followers on TikTok, where she produces lifestyle videos focused on her love of books and travel. She talked with Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino about the case.

TikTok has a lot going on legally these days. Last week, it saw a fresh round of lawsuits alleging the short-form video app harms children. And then there’s the federal law that could ban the app if ByteDance, its China-based owner, doesn’t divest by January. TikTok has sued to block that law. Oral arguments in TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland were heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September. The company is joined by eight TikTok creators as plaintiffs in the case, and one of them is Talia Cadet. She has nearly 140,000 followers on TikTok, where she produces lifestyle videos focused on her love of books and travel. She talked with Marketplace’s Meghan McCarty Carino about the case.

Judge David Tatel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1994 to 2023. Prior to that, his three-decade career as a civil rights lawyer included private and government positions, and focused heavily on equal educational opportunity and access to justice. He served as Director of the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and then Director of the National Committee. He was the Director of the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare during the Carter Administration. When he returned to private practice in 1979, Judge Tatel joined Hogan & Hartson, where he founded and headed the firm's education practice until his appointment to the D.C. Circuit. Judge Tatel also co-chaired the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Science, Technology and Law. Judge Tatel joins me in The Back Room for a riveting conversation about his illustrious life and career, his terrific book Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice, and the controversies involving the current United States Supreme Court. Got somethin' to say?! Email us at BackroomAndy@gmail.com Leave us a message: 845-307-7446 Twitter: @AndyOstroy Produced by Andy Ostroy, Matty Rosenberg, and Jennifer Hammoud @ Radio Free Rhiniecliff Design by Cricket Lengyel

Today is a big day! Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joins Glennon and Amanda to share her deeply personal journey to becoming the first Black woman Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.   Discover: How four misspelled words changed her entire world view;   How the angel she encountered for 5 seconds at Harvard kept her striving; What her Autistic daughter taught her about living well; Her grandmother's advice that keeps her undistracted by the unfairness she faces; and How the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling affects democracy. Justice Jackson's beautiful new memoir, Lovely One, is out today! On the Guest: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received her undergraduate and law degrees, both with honors, from Harvard University, then served as a law clerk for three federal judges, practiced law in the private sector, worked as Commissioner of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and served as an assistant federal public defender. President Obama nominated Justice Jackson to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2021, Justice Jackson made history in 2022 when President Biden nominated her as an Associate Justice. One of only 115 people in history to have the job – and the Black woman ever to have the job – she was confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and took her seat on June 30, 2022. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's not just us feeling exhausted right? It's been a totally wild past few weeks. That's why we are taking off the next few weeks to bring you a special series we're calling “The Law According to Trump.” Andrea Bernstein, the host of WNYC's Trump Inc., will be stepping into the host chair for Dahlia Lithwick in the month of August to explain how the former president uses the law to his advantage, and how he has gamed the judicial system to his advantage for decades before he entered political life. Andrea joins Dahlia to preview the series. Later in the show, Dahlia talks with Judge David S. Tatel. Tatel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and became prominent for both his jurisprudence and his blindness. His new memoir, Vision, was published last month and every young lawyer should read it. On this week's show Judge Tatel discusses the book, which details his experience on the federal appeals court and his blindness. They also talk about his concerns for the current Supreme Court and its recent approach to the law.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's not just us feeling exhausted right? It's been a totally wild past few weeks. That's why we are taking off the next few weeks to bring you a special series we're calling “The Law According to Trump.” Andrea Bernstein, the host of WNYC's Trump Inc., will be stepping into the host chair for Dahlia Lithwick in the month of August to explain how the former president uses the law to his advantage, and how he has gamed the judicial system to his advantage for decades before he entered political life. Andrea joins Dahlia to preview the series. Later in the show, Dahlia talks with Judge David S. Tatel. Tatel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and became prominent for both his jurisprudence and his blindness. His new memoir, Vision, was published last month and every young lawyer should read it. On this week's show Judge Tatel discusses the book, which details his experience on the federal appeals court and his blindness. They also talk about his concerns for the current Supreme Court and its recent approach to the law.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's not just us feeling exhausted right? It's been a totally wild past few weeks. That's why we are taking off the next few weeks to bring you a special series we're calling “The Law According to Trump.” Andrea Bernstein, the host of WNYC's Trump Inc., will be stepping into the host chair for Dahlia Lithwick in the month of August to explain how the former president uses the law to his advantage, and how he has gamed the judicial system to his advantage for decades before he entered political life. Andrea joins Dahlia to preview the series. Later in the show, Dahlia talks with Judge David S. Tatel. Tatel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and became prominent for both his jurisprudence and his blindness. His new memoir, Vision, was published last month and every young lawyer should read it. On this week's show Judge Tatel discusses the book, which details his experience on the federal appeals court and his blindness. They also talk about his concerns for the current Supreme Court and its recent approach to the law.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's not just us feeling exhausted right? It's been a totally wild past few weeks. That's why we are taking off the next few weeks to bring you a special series we're calling “The Law According to Trump.” Andrea Bernstein, the host of WNYC's Trump Inc., will be stepping into the host chair for Dahlia Lithwick in the month of August to explain how the former president uses the law to his advantage, and how he has gamed the judicial system to his advantage for decades before he entered political life. Andrea joins Dahlia to preview the series. Later in the show, Dahlia talks with Judge David S. Tatel. Tatel served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and became prominent for both his jurisprudence and his blindness. His new memoir, Vision, was published last month and every young lawyer should read it. On this week's show Judge Tatel discusses the book, which details his experience on the federal appeals court and his blindness. They also talk about his concerns for the current Supreme Court and its recent approach to the law.  Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Late spring/early summer is always a busy time for the Supreme Court, but this year, it's not just the controversial decisions that are making news. The justices themselves have been in headlines — for all the wrong reasons. Kara and an expert panel discuss the ethical lapses, refusals the recuse, and of course, the cases themselves — including the big one, over Trump's claim to “complete and total” immunity. The panelists are: Judge Nancy Gertner (retired), a lecturer at Harvard Law School and former US District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts who served on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court; Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel, and senior director for ethics at the Campaign Legal Center; and Judge David Tatel (retired), a former judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and author of the new book Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice. This interview was recorded on Tuesday June 18.  Questions? Comments? Email us at on@voxmedia.com or find Kara on Instagram/Threads as @karaswisher Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A group of seventeen states, predominantly leaning conservative, have risen in contest against California's stringent emissions regulations. These states, spearheaded by Nebraska, find fault in California's Advanced Clean Fleets regulations. These regulations stipulate inevitable cessation of new internal-combustion trucks sales by the year 2036, superseding federal law with what one may perceive as ambitious environmental targets. This legal challenge raises concerns around the forces this mandate imposes on national societal dynamics. Particularly, fears circulate around disruption of supply chains due to the imposed transition towards 'zero emission vehicles'. This transition, critics argue, poses a threat to the efficient rhythm of interstate transportation, a rhythm crucial to the ebb and flow of American society. The legal action, seeking attention at a national level, comments sharply on California's regulations. In the words of the lawsuit, it was a 'stunning gambit'. An evocative phrase, intended to convey the unprecedented nature of encroaching on federal jurisdiction, painting this as an audacious power-play staged by California to ban internal-combustion engines in medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The lawsuit argues the California's plan not only Macgyvers the law, but it irrationally disregards the logistical and economic realities we are all tethered to. Demands on American families and businesses, who are already grappling with the impact of inflation, are undue and would increase with compliance to this 'ban'. This argument acts as a plea for reason and balance in the quest to reduce environmental footprint. Joining forces alongside Nebraska, we see multiple states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Moreover, the Arizona State Legislature and the Nebraska Trucking Association too have climbed aboard this legal battlewagon. The ensuing lawsuit was lodged in none other than the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Now, not limited to targeting the Golden State, Nebraska notches up an additional lawsuit. This time the crosshairs are pointed at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), accused of enforcing overreaching regulations around tailpipe emission standards for heavy vehicles. The litigants suggest there is a not-so-subtle subtext here, a nudge towards pushing manufacturing companies to favor production of electric vehicles over more traditional offerings. The list of states rallying against the EPA isn't identical, but it remains hefty in lineup. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming all stand alongside Nebraska in this legal dance. Poised and ready, these states presented their case in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The legal filings imply a concern of industry and infrastructure transfiguration orchestrated by California and an out-of-touch EPA. Lamenting the potential of facing heightened inflation and an already-taxed electrical grid, they put forth that their operations could be devastated by such transformative measures. These trucking and logistics industries, vital arteries to the American body economic, risk severe trauma from such regulatory shifts. With costs inevitably passed down the supply chain, these measures come with the promise of price rises for everyday consumers. Pockets, it is suggested, could start to feel a little lighter, and soon. Furthermore, harking a tolling bell for the labor market, countless jobs across these states could feel the shockwave from these industry shifts. The ripple effect from policy to industry to worker's livelihood illustrates the interconnected nature of such regulatory measures. It shows that the environmental fork in the road may present survival challenges to more than just the natural world. To quote Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, these changes might impact an 'untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country'. It's a litigator's thesis statement of sorts, zeroing in on the cost of environmental change and those who stand to bear the brunt of it: the workers, their families, and indeed the stability of local economies within these states. Whether this legal challenge will alter policy trends towards clean energy remains to be seen. In tackling climate change, states like California and federal bodies like the EPA walk a razor's edge: one side being the protection and nurturing of our fragile environment and the other, catering to the immediate and practical needs of industry, labour and economics. It's a balancing act of stewardship and pragmatism. As the narratives of environmental stewardship, practicality, and legality intertwine, decisions made in courts and policy-making chambers today will have wide-ranging effects on the futures of economies, societies, and our planet. It will be up to those in leadership roles to strike the right balance, encompassing not only the realities of today but also the necessities of tomorrow. Article: https://www.realnewsnow.com/seventeen-states-stand-strong-against-californias-fleet-regulations/  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Snyder v. United States (April 15) - Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon (April 15) - Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff's malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.Fischer v. United States (April 16) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.Thornell v. Jones. (April 17) - Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court's precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court's factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state's rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (April 22) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.Smith v. Spizzirri (April 22) - Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.Department of State v. Munoz (April 23) - (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due.Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (April 23) - Whether courts must evaluate the National Labor Relations Board's requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act using the traditional, stringent, four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or some other more lenient standard.Moyle v. United States (April 24) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho enjoining the enforcement of Idaho's Defense of Life Act, which prohibits abortions unless necessary to save the life of the mother, on the ground that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts it.Trump v. United States (April 24) - Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.Featuring:Anya Bidwell, Attorney, Institute for JusticeG. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy AssociationHarry Graver, Associate, Jones Day Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Litigation, Goldwater InstituteProf. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley; Nonresident Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Visiting Fellow, Hoover InstitutionModerator: Danielle Thumann, Partner, McGuireWoods

It's Tuesday, February 13th, AD 2024. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes and heard at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson                                                                                               Finnish voters reject homosexual candidate for Prime Minister Finland's presidential election on Sunday ended on the right side of the center, reports The Guardian.  Former Prime Minister Alexander Stubb won the election against the homosexual leftist, Pekka Haavisto, in a close race. The vote came out 52% to 48%. New Dutch law allows euthanizing kids under 12 A Dutch law allowing the euthanizing of children under 12 years of age went into effect on February 1st, reports Reuters. This allows for the killing of children who suffer “hopelessly and unbearably” as determined by doctors.  Previously, the Netherlands only allowed euthanasia for persons over 12 years of age. Former Brazilian president investigated for questioning 2022 election results While the leading Republican nominee for U.S. president, Donald Trump, faces 91 criminal charges — some related to his alleged opposition to the 2020 election results -- now Brazil's former president, Jair Bolsonaro, is being investigated for allegedly trying to overturn the results of his 2022 election.   Four of his aides have been arrested by the Lula de Silva government. 86% of Americans don't believe Biden is “fit to serve” An ABC/IPSOS poll found that 86% of Americans do not believe President Joe Biden is “fit to serve.”  That included 73% registered Democrats and 91% of the Independent voting base. This comes after a Special Counsel report described the current president as “an elderly man with a poor memory.” A recent Rasmussen poll found that 42% of likely U.S. voters respected Donald Trump as a leader, and only 21% would say the same thing for President Joe Biden. Donald Trump asked Supreme Court to affirm his immunity claim On Monday, Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on his argument that he has immunity from prosecution on any alleged actions he may have taken to overturn the 2020 election results. He asked the high court to put a hold on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling that rejected his immunity claim, reports CNBC.  Gunman, pretending to be a woman, shot dead in Osteen's church On Sunday afternoon, a man, pretending to be a woman, entered Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas with a long gun before the 2:00pm service and began firing.   Born Jeffrey Escalante from El Salvador, he pulled out an AR-15 from his trench coat, pointed it at the officers, who then fired upon him, killing him in self-defense, and halting the attack, reports Fox News.  Escalante's 7-year-old son, whose age was initially described as 5, was seriously injured during the exchange of gunfire.  And a 57-year-old man, who was shot in the leg, is expected to survive.   Escalante, age 36, pretended to be a woman named Genesse Ivonne Moreno. He had a history of mental health problems and antisemitic inclinations. Perhaps that's why the word “Palestine” was written on the long rifle. Here's what Joel Osteen said in the news conference: OSTEEN: “These men and women did an amazing job. You said it Chief. It could have been a lot worse. Of course, we're devastated. I mean, this is, we've been here 65 years and have someone shooting in your church. But, you know, we don't understand why these things happen. But we know God is in control.  And we'll pray for that little five-year-old boy and pray for the lady that was deceased.” Christian talk host Todd Starnes wants LGBT movement investigated Christian talk show host Todd Starnes described the shooting as a domestic terrorist attack perpetuated by a member of the LGBT community. Indeed, there have been a dozen such attacks. Transgender people were the shooters at Covenant Christian School in Nashville, at a Denver school, and at an Iowan school.  Plus, the Colorado Springs shooter claimed to be non-binary. Starnes said, “It's time for federal investigations about why the LGBT movement is turning young people into violent extremists.” Kansas City Chiefs win Superbowl The Kansas City Chiefs clinched their third Super Bowl win in five years in Sunday's game with a score of 25 to 22. Quarterback Patrick Mahomes joins the club of five quarterbacks winning three or more Super Bowls.  New England Patriot Quarterback Tom Brady leads the pack with 7 Super Bowl wins to his name. But let us remember what Jesus said, “I do not receive honor from men. ... How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44) The controversial “Jesus Gets Us” Super Bowl ad Speaking of the Super Bowl, the PR campaign for Jesus, better known as the HeGetsUs ad campaign, aired another ad on the Super Bowl broadcast this year. The campaign offered a confusing Christian message relating to love, God's law, abortion, and homosexuality. The ad featured a priest washing the feet of a member of the LGBTQ community, and another woman washing the feet of a young woman outside an abortion clinic with pro-life protesters standing in the background. The message informs everybody that “Jesus didn't teach hate. He washed feet.” Hobby Lobby co-founder David Green contributed to the campaign.  In Revelation 2:20-23, Jesus said this to the church at Thyatira: “I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality. … I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts.” Student in hot water for affirming two genders on shirt When Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts told the students to “wear a positive message of acceptance/love” during the school's Pride spirit week, 12-year-old Liam Morrison chose rather to wear a shirt that stated, “There are only two genders.” The school banned the shirt, and a lower court upheld the ban.  Alliance Defending Freedom has appealed the case to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals. Colorado abortion mills 26% busier And finally, the Denver Post reports that Colorado abortion clinics have increased their business by 26% since the reversal of Roe V. Wade. After multiple pro-abortion efforts succeeded in state referendums since the Dobbs case, 2024 promises to be an active year with more referendums on the ballot. These include Florida, Nevada, Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana, and Missouri, reports the Los Angeles Times. Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Tuesday, February 13th in the year of our Lord 2024. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com).  Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

A federal court of appeals has ruled that a former president can be criminally prosecuted for crimes that were committed while in office. A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has unanimously rejected Donald Trump's claims that he has absolute immunity from charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Glenn reviews some of the most important passages of the appellate court's opinion.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A federal court of appeals has ruled that a former president can be criminally prosecuted for crimes that were committed while in office. A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has unanimously rejected Donald Trump's claims that he has absolute immunity from charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Glenn reviews some of the most important passages of the appellate court's opinion.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump's immunity. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected former President Donald Trump's claim that he is immune to criminal charges of trying to undermine the 2020 election. The panel, composed of two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee, said that presidential privileges don't shield Trump from prosecution for federal crimes that apply to every American citizen. You can read today's podcast ⁠⁠here⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story here and today's “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest YouTube video where we tried to build the most electable president ever here. Today's clickables: Two important notes (0:43), Quick hits (2:17), Today's story (4:32), Right's take (6:50), Left's take (10:32), Isaac's take (14:24), Listener question (19:10), Under the Radar (21:36), Numbers (22:36), Have a nice day (23:41) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.  The response to our first-ever Tangle Live event was better than we could have imagined and we're excited to announce we're running it back on Wednesday, April 17th in New York City! We'll be gathering the Tangle community at The Loft at City Winery for a conversation between special guests about the 2024 election moderated by founder Isaac Saul with an audience Q&A afterwards.  Choose Seated General Admission tickets or VIP Tickets that include a post show meet- and- greet, Tangle merch, and the best seats in the house. Tangle paid subscribers will get first dibs on tickets a day early with a password protected pre-sale today, Tuesday, February 6th (password for subscribers below). Grab your tickets fast as this show is sure to sell out! TICKET CODE FOR TANGLE SUBSCRIBERS: TANGLENYC2024 Buy your tickets here Take the poll. What do you think of the court's ruling that former President Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution in his federal election interference case? Let us know! Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message

Donald Trump does not have immunity from charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election defeat, a federal appeals court ruled, bringing the former U.S. president a step closer to an unprecedented criminal trial.A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected Trump's claim that he cannot be prosecuted because the allegations relate to his official responsibilities as president."We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter," the unanimous panel wrote.Republicans appear ready to squash the Border-Ukraine Package, The very same package they insisted on. Some lawmakers (Sen. James Lankford) who worked hard negotiating this deal may now vote against it. There is movement in the classified documents case against Trump. We will look at the latest developments.We welcome Pulitzer Prize winning author and journalist David Cay Johnston to the show to discuss it all. Jefferson Graham joins with a review of a new wearable video camera, The Mark Thompson Show 2/6/24

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law writes: “Conservative appellate judges, including three appointed by Donald Trump, decried what they view as an unprecedented search of the former president's social media records as part of the special counsel's election interference investigation. Decisions by two courts blessing a search warrant into Trump's Twitter account “have flipped the presumption” that presidential communications should be privileged, Judge Neomi Rao of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote Tuesday.” Ryan Binkley shocks the world in Iowa caucus! Wait. Who? No one has ever heard of him, but Binkley somehow won more votes than former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie combined. In an editorial featured in The Wall Street Journal, Tal Fortgang writes: “The anti-Israel demonstrators who have blocked traffic in major cities across the country know that their victims are decent people. There is little risk that the drivers who can't get to their jobs, families and other obligations will run them over because those drivers are careful to avoid harming others and breaking the law—even as they face down people who flagrantly do both… Those who reacted to Hamas's Oct. 7 attack by doubling down on calls for Israel's elimination emulate Hamas by inflicting suffering on innocent people to achieve their political ends, albeit at a much smaller scale. Seeing their own cause as absolutely righteous, they are blind to the cruelty of their own actions and prey upon those too decent to respond with deterrent force. They think they are engaging in civil disobedience, the tactic that exposed the injustice of racial segregation. But they aren't trying to draw attention to the wrongness of the laws they are breaking; they are trying to draw attention to an unrelated political issue. These demonstrators would more accurately be called civil terrorists.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/blocking-the-road-is-a-hamas-like-strategem-anti-israel-protesters-099787f0?mod=opinion_lead_pos7 Did a half-naked man randomly just walk through Dick Morris' living room during a Newsmax appearance?

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/16/2024): 3:05pm- On Monday night, former president Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus with 51% of his party's vote—with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis earning 21%, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley at 19%, and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy finishing fourth with 8%. Media outlets called Trump the winner roughly 30-minutes after the caucus began and before some votes were cast. 3:15pm- The Wall Street Journal noted that “Donald Trump won the Iowa caucuses Monday night with the largest margin in the history of the first Republican presidential nominating contest.” You can read the full recap from John McCormick, Alex Leary, and Eliza Collins here: https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/iowa-caucus-2024-republican-primary-d55c152a 3:20pm- Following the release of Monday's Iowa caucus results, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced he was suspending his campaign. Ramaswamy finished fourth with roughly 8% of the vote and is now endorsing Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. 3:40pm- After learning he finished a distant second to Donald Trump in Monday's Iowa caucus, Ron DeSantis told a crowd of supporters that “we've got our ticket punched out of Iowa”—calling the result a success as rivals “spent almost $50 million attacking” him and his campaign. 4:05pm- During his Iowa caucus victory speech, Donald Trump joked: “I want to congratulate Ron [DeSantis] and Nikki [Haley] for having a good time” in Iowa. However, MSNBC did not air his speech—host Rachel Maddow explained that the decision was “not out of spite” but because the television station didn't want to broadcast “untrue things.” In the same broadcast, Joy Reid accused white Christians in Iowa of supporting Trump because they believe everyone aside from “white, conservative Christians” are “fraudulent” Americans. She also accused Ron DeSantis of destroying Florida's K-12 education system—however, a quick fact check indicates it's actually ranked #1 in country. 4:20pm- Despite finishing behind former President Donald and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the Iowa caucus, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley claimed that the Republican presidential nomination is now a “two-person race” between herself and Trump. According to Real Clear Politics polling averages, Trump leads Haley 44% to 29% in New Hampshire and 52% to 22% in her home state of South Carolina. 4:30pm- On a recent episode of The Journal podcast, New Hampshire voters revealed that they are changing their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican prior to the state's January 23rd primary. Because they can't vote for their preferred candidate—Joe Biden—as he won't appear on the ballot following a Democrat National Committee feud with the state over scheduling dates, many Democrat voters are now registering as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump, supporting rival candidates like Nikki Haley. Democrats have seemingly destroyed their own New Hampshire primary, are they impacting the Republican primary as well? 4:40pm- The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board writes: “The Supreme Court has been trying to restore the proper constitutional balance of power, and its next opportunity comes Wednesday when it hears two cases challenging its own landmark Chevron doctrine (Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc., v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce). In 1984 in Chevron v. NRDC, the Justices ruled that courts should defer to administrative agencies' interpretation of laws when the statutory text is silent or ambiguous. In practice this has become a license for Congress to write vague laws that delegate legislative power to administrative agencies. Over the last 40 years the federal register of regulations has grown by tens of thousands of pages. Wednesday's cases are textbook examples of how regulators invoke Chevron to expand their power and impose enormous burdens on Americans. Family-owned herring fisheries and vessel operators are challenging an obscure Commerce rule that requires New England fisheries to pay for on-board monitors.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-for-the-supreme-court-to-overturn-chevron-deference-e7f762b4?mod=opinion_lead_pos2 5:05pm- On Monday night, former president Donald Trump won the Iowa caucus with 51% of his party's vote—with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis earning 21%, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley at 19%, and businessman Vivek Ramaswamy finishing fourth with 8%. Media outlets called Trump the winner roughly 30-minutes after the caucus began and before some votes were cast. Despite finishing behind former President Donald and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the Iowa caucus, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley claimed that the Republican presidential nomination is now a “two-person race” between herself and Trump. According to Real Clear Politics polling averages, Trump leads Haley 44% to 29% in New Hampshire and 52% to 22% in her home state of South Carolina. With Trump seemingly well on his way towards winning the Republican nomination, despite Haley's claims to the contrary, who might the former president select to be his Vice President? 5:10pm- On Monday Night Football, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat the Philadelphia Eagles 32 to 9. The Eagles finished their season losing six of their final seven games. Will head coach Nick Sirianni be fired? According to reports, Eagles All-Pro Center—and future Hall of Famer—Jason Kelce is expected to retire. 5:30pm- In The New York Times podcast Matter of Opinion, hosts Michelle Cottle, Ross Douthat, and Carlos Lozada discussed the possibility that if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election, he might run again in 2028—wrongfully claiming he was constitutionally permitted to serve again because his presidential terms weren't consecutive. 5:40pm- While speaking with CNBC, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that Ukraine needs an additional $50 billion in aid. He also emphasized that “this is not a forever war.” 5:50pm- Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal reports: “The Biden administration plans to put the Houthi rebel group back on its list of foreign terrorist organizations, days after the U.S. launched strikes on its facilities in Yemen in retaliation for months of attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea.” You can read more here: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-to-put-houthis-back-on-terrorist-list-596a974a# 5:55pm- Following the release of Monday's Iowa caucus results, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced he was suspending his campaign. Ramaswamy finished fourth with roughly 8% of the vote and is now endorsing Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. 6:05pm- Suzanne Monyak of Bloomberg Law writes: “Conservative appellate judges, including three appointed by Donald Trump, decried what they view as an unprecedented search of the former president's social media records as part of the special counsel's election interference investigation. Decisions by two courts blessing a search warrant into Trump's Twitter account “have flipped the presumption” that presidential communications should be privileged, Judge Neomi Rao of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit wrote Tuesday.” 6:10pm-Ryan Binkley shocks the world in Iowa caucus! Wait. Who? No one has ever heard of him, but Binkley somehow won more votes than former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie combined. 6:20pm- In an editorial featured in The Wall Street Journal, Tal Fortgang writes: “The anti-Israel demonstrators who have blocked traffic in major cities across the country know that their victims are decent people. There is little risk that the drivers who can't get to their jobs, families and other obligations will run them over because those drivers are careful to avoid harming others and breaking the law—even as they face down people who flagrantly do both… Those who reacted to Hamas's Oct. 7 attack by doubling down on calls for Israel's elimination emulate Hamas by inflicting suffering on innocent people to achieve their political ends, albeit at a much smaller scale. Seeing their own cause as absolutely righteous, they are blind to the cruelty of their own actions and prey upon those too decent to respond with deterrent force. They think they are engaging in civil disobedience, the tactic that exposed the injustice of racial segregation. But they aren't trying to draw attention to the wrongness of the laws they are breaking; they are trying to draw attention to an unrelated political issue. These demonstrators would more accurately be called civil terrorists.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/blocking-the-road-is-a-hamas-like-strategem-anti-israel-protesters-099787f0?mod=opinion_lead_pos7 6:40pm- Did a half-naked man randomly just walk through Dick Morris' living room during a Newsmax appearance?

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and Kate Christobek of The New York Times write: “Donald J. Trump on Thursday delivered abrupt remarks in his own defense on the final day of his civil fraud trial in Manhattan, attacking the New York attorney general, who brought the case, insulting the judge to his face and declaring himself ‘an innocent man.'Mr. Trump's remarks…lasted only minutes, during which he impugned the attorney general, Letitia James, a Democrat, saying she ‘hates Trump and uses Trump to get elected.' He also took aim at the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, remarking, ‘You have your own agenda, I certainly understand that.' He added, as the judge stared stonily at him, ‘You can't listen for more than one minute.' Justice Engoron instructed the former president's lawyer to ‘control your client.' But Mr. Trump continued until the lunch break, at which point he stopped as suddenly as he had started. The episode ushered in a dramatic conclusion to a monthslong trial that has enraged the former president and threatens his family business.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/11/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial 4:10pm- On Wednesday night, Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley participated in a debate on CNN hosted by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. Simultaneously, former President—and Republican primary front runner—Donald Trump held a town hall hosted by Fox News. 4:20pm- Jonah Bromwich, The New York Times reporter who is inside the courtroom for Donald Trump's civil fraud case, writes: “As [Andrew] Amer, the state lawyer, is explaining it, the case for Trump's intent rests on his responsibility for the annual financial statements, Michael Cohen's testimony and some of the gaps in Trump's own testimony. But thus far, there is no real smoking gun that shows that Trump intended to commit fraud—the evidence is mostly circumstantial.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/11/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial 4:35pm- John Yoo— the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley & a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing arguments to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. Professor Yoo explains that if Trump's immunity defense is found invalid, we'll have “presidents always worried about what their successors will do to them…which is what we see in banana republics” and could potentially impact the decision-making process of the nation's Commander in Chief. He points out the prosecution of Trump is particularly disturbing given the fact that the Biden Administration's Department of Justice is targeting a major party candidate actively challenging President Joe Biden in an election. 4:50pm- On Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) announced that tomorrow he is planning to formally endorse a Republican primary candidate for president. Most believe it will be former President Donald Trump.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/11/2024): 3:05pm- On Wednesday night during a campaign appearance in Windham, NH, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie announced he is suspending his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. A recently released University of New Hampshire/CNN poll indicates Haley is trailing former President Donald Trump by only seven-points in the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary—39% to 32%. Interestingly, Christie is garnering 12% support. Could Christie's absence put Haley over the top in NH? 3:15pm- Just prior to announcing the suspension of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Chris Christie was caught on a hot microphone saying that Nikki Haley is going to be “smoked” in the upcoming Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. Does this make endorsing Haley, as many presumed he would, impossible now? 3:20pm- On Thursday, Donald Trump's team delivered its closing arguments in a civil fraud trial in which New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that the former president inflated the value of assets controlled by the Trump Organization in past financial statements. If Trump loses the case, he could face up to $370 million in fines and penalties as well as being permanently prohibited from doing business in the state of New York. Notably, in 2018, while campaigning to become Attorney General, James vowed to “sue” Trump—providing evidence to the defense's argument that this civil suit is entirely political.   3:40pm- Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and Kate Christobek of The New York Times write: “Donald J. Trump on Thursday delivered abrupt remarks in his own defense on the final day of his civil fraud trial in Manhattan, attacking the New York attorney general, who brought the case, insulting the judge to his face and declaring himself ‘an innocent man.'Mr. Trump's remarks…lasted only minutes, during which he impugned the attorney general, Letitia James, a Democrat, saying she ‘hates Trump and uses Trump to get elected.' He also took aim at the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, remarking, ‘You have your own agenda, I certainly understand that.' He added, as the judge stared stonily at him, ‘You can't listen for more than one minute.' Justice Engoron instructed the former president's lawyer to ‘control your client.' But Mr. Trump continued until the lunch break, at which point he stopped as suddenly as he had started. The episode ushered in a dramatic conclusion to a monthslong trial that has enraged the former president and threatens his family business.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/11/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial 4:05pm- Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and Kate Christobek of The New York Times write: “Donald J. Trump on Thursday delivered abrupt remarks in his own defense on the final day of his civil fraud trial in Manhattan, attacking the New York attorney general, who brought the case, insulting the judge to his face and declaring himself ‘an innocent man.'Mr. Trump's remarks…lasted only minutes, during which he impugned the attorney general, Letitia James, a Democrat, saying she ‘hates Trump and uses Trump to get elected.' He also took aim at the judge, Arthur F. Engoron, remarking, ‘You have your own agenda, I certainly understand that.' He added, as the judge stared stonily at him, ‘You can't listen for more than one minute.' Justice Engoron instructed the former president's lawyer to ‘control your client.' But Mr. Trump continued until the lunch break, at which point he stopped as suddenly as he had started. The episode ushered in a dramatic conclusion to a monthslong trial that has enraged the former president and threatens his family business.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/11/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial 4:10pm- On Wednesday night, Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley participated in a debate on CNN hosted by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. Simultaneously, former President—and Republican primary front runner—Donald Trump held a town hall hosted by Fox News. 4:20pm- Jonah Bromwich, The New York Times reporter who is inside the courtroom for Donald Trump's civil fraud case, writes: “As [Andrew] Amer, the state lawyer, is explaining it, the case for Trump's intent rests on his responsibility for the annual financial statements, Michael Cohen's testimony and some of the gaps in Trump's own testimony. But thus far, there is no real smoking gun that shows that Trump intended to commit fraud—the evidence is mostly circumstantial.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/11/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial 4:35pm- John Yoo— the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley & a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing arguments to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. Professor Yoo explains that if Trump's immunity defense is found invalid, we'll have “presidents always worried about what their successors will do to them…which is what we see in banana republics” and could potentially impact the decision-making process of the nation's Commander in Chief. He points out the prosecution of Trump is particularly disturbing given the fact that the Biden Administration's Department of Justice is targeting a major party candidate actively challenging President Joe Biden in an election. 4:50pm- On Thursday, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) announced that tomorrow he is planning to formally endorse a Republican primary candidate for president. Most believe it will be former President Donald Trump. 5:05pm- Lara Jakes of The New York Times writes that a new Pentagon report “found that American officials and diplomats had failed to quickly or fully account for all of the nearly 40,000 weapons sent to the front” in Ukraine. She continues: “More than $1 billion worth of shoulder-fired missiles, kamikaze drones and night-vision goggles that the United States has sent to Ukraine have not been properly tracked by American officials…concerns that they could be stolen or smuggled at a time when Congress is debating whether to send more military aid to Kyiv.” You can read Jakes' full report here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/world/europe/us-military-aid-ukraine.html 5:15pm- During Thursday's White House press briefing, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs John Kirby was asked to answer for the Pentagon's report that an estimated $1 billion worth of weapons sent to Ukraine could not be accounted for—Kirby said he the Biden Administration would attempt to improve accountability. 5:30pm- Rich has his new, fancy pizza oven installed at his home. Matt wonders if Rich has ever cooked Ellio's frozen pizza in it… 5:45pm- On Wednesday night, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump participated in a town hall event on Fox News. At one point, hosts Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier asked Trump for his reaction to political rival Chris Christie dropping out of the race. Trump said the bigger story was Christie's “hot mic” moment where he insisted Nikki Haley would be “smoked” in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. 5:50pm- Following Chris Christie's decision to drop out of the Republican presidential primary, MSNBC's Symone Sanders said she “wouldn't be surprised” to see Christie at the DNC convention later this year. 6:05pm- On Wednesday night, Republican presidential candidates Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley participated in a debate on CNN hosted by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. Simultaneously, former President—and Republican primary front runner—Donald Trump held a town hall hosted by Fox News. 6:10pm- Despite placing the bulk of his resources in Iowa, Governor Ron DeSantis trails former President Donald Trump by a whopping 36.4%, according to Real Clear Politics polling averages. Assuming he is unable to close that massive gap by Monday, January 15th—the day of the Iowa caucus—he'll likely drop out of the race. So, what would be next for DeSantis? Perhaps an endorsement of Trump and a 2028 presidential run?   6:20pm- On Thursday, Donald Trump's team delivered its closing arguments in a civil fraud trial in which New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that the former president inflated the value of assets controlled by the Trump Organization in past financial statements. If Trump loses the case, he could face up to $370 million in fines and penalties as well as being permanently prohibited from doing business in the state of New York. Notably, in 2018, while campaigning to become Attorney General, James vowed to “sue” Trump—providing evidence to the defense's argument that this civil suit is entirely political.   6:25pm- Jonah Bromwich, The New York Times reporter who is inside the courtroom for Donald Trump's civil fraud case, writes: “As [Andrew] Amer, the state lawyer, is explaining it, the case for Trump's intent rests on his responsibility for the annual financial statements, Michael Cohen's testimony and some of the gaps in Trump's own testimony. But thus far, there is no real smoking gun that shows that Trump intended to commit fraud—the evidence is mostly circumstantial.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/11/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial 6:30pm- While speaking in the House of Representatives, Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) insisted that Republicans can't impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for simply following the Biden Administration's relaxed U.S. southern border policies. So, is this an admission that President Joe Biden is solely responsible for border chaos? 6:40pm- While speaking with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC, First Lady Jill Biden said what Republicans are doing to her son, Hunter Biden, is “cruel.”

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: Zack Smith—Legal Fellow and Manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing arguments on Tuesday to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. If the presidential immunity defense is dismissed, does that mean former president Barack Obama could be held accountable for his authorization of drone strikes which resulted in the death of an American citizen? On a recent episode of The Journal podcast, New Hampshire voters revealed that they are changing their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican prior to the state's January 23rd primary. Because they can't vote for their preferred candidate—Joe Biden—as he won't appear on the ballot following a Democrat National Committee feud with the state over scheduling dates, many Democrat voters are now registering as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump, supporting rival candidates like Nikki Haley and Chris Christie. Democrats have seemingly destroyed their own New Hampshire primary, are they impacting the Republican primary as well? During a Fox News town hall event on Monday, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley accused her primary opponent Donald Trump of orchestrating chaos. Lisa Kashinsky of Politico writes: “The New Hampshire attorney general's office is accusing the Democratic National Committee of engaging in unlawful voter suppression after the national party dismissed the state's upcoming primary as ‘meaningless.' Assistant Attorney General Brendan O'Donnell on Monday fired off a cease-and-desist order to the DNC, saying that instructing state Democrats to ‘educate the public' that the primary is ‘meaningless' violates the state's voter suppression laws.” You can read the full article here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/08/new-hampshire-attorney-general-dnc-voter-suppression-primary-00134378 Steven Nelson and Josh Christenson of The New York Post write: “First son Hunter Biden's Manhattan art dealer shared details Tuesday about purchasers of the first son's novice works—while contradicting the White House's claim that officials brokered an ethics arrangement to keep buyer identities anonymous to prevent corruption. Georges Bergès said that Hunter, 53, actually knew who bought about 70% of his art—including Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali, whom the dealer revealed purchased works by the first son both before and after scoring a prestigious appointment from President Biden.” You can read the full article here: https://nypost.com/2024/01/09/news/hunter-biden-knew-most-of-his-art-buyers-despite-ethics-plan-dealer-says/

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/09/2024): 3:05pm- On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. Two of the judges on the panel are Democratic appointees—Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan. Though, the third judge—Judge Karen L. Henderson—seemed equally unconvinced by the Trump team's legal argument. 3:15pm- Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer of The New York Times write: “Judge [Florence Y.] Pan asked [Donald Trump's Attorney John] Sauer to address a series of hypotheticals intended to test the limits of his position that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution over their officials acts, unless they have first been impeached and convicted by the Senate over the same matter. Among them, she asked, what if a president ordered SEAL Team 6, the Navy commando unit, to assassinate a president's political rival? Mr. Sauer said such a president would surely be impeached and convicted, but he insisted that courts would not have jurisdiction to oversee a murder trial unless that first happened.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/us/politics/trump-immunity-hearing-takeaways.html?smid=url-share 3:30pm- Following Tuesday's Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing, former president Donald Trump said that if his presidential immunity argument is proven to be unfounded then former president Barack Obama could, and should, be prosecuted for covert drone strikes he ordered in the Middle East—including one that resulted in the death of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. The strikes were conducted without congressional approval. 3:40pm- Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spent several days in an intensive care unit at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland following elective surgery—though the precise surgery has not been disclosed. Alarmingly, the White House—including President Joe Biden—was not informed of Secretary Austin's incapacitation for more than three days. Equally concerning, while Secretary Austin was in intensive care, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks was on vacation in Puerto Rico. Will anyone be held accountable for this disastrous breakdown in communication? Secretary Austin released a statement on Saturday addressing the issue: “I am very glad to be on the mend and look forward to returning to the Pentagon soon. I also understand the media concerns about transparency and I recognize I could have done a better job ensuring the public was appropriately informed. I commit to doing better.” On Tuesday, it was announced that Secretary Austin has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. 4:05pm- Zack Smith—Legal Fellow and Manager of the Supreme Court and Appellate Advocacy Program in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing arguments on Tuesday to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. If the presidential immunity defense is dismissed, does that mean former president Barack Obama could be held accountable for his authorization of drone strikes which resulted in the death of an American citizen? 4:25pm- On a recent episode of The Journal podcast, New Hampshire voters revealed that they are changing their party affiliation from Democrat to Republican prior to the state's January 23rd primary. Because they can't vote for their preferred candidate—Joe Biden—as he won't appear on the ballot following a Democrat National Committee feud with the state over scheduling dates, many Democrat voters are now registering as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump, supporting rival candidates like Nikki Haley and Chris Christie. Democrats have seemingly destroyed their own New Hampshire primary, are they impacting the Republican primary as well? 4:35pm- During a Fox News town hall event on Monday, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley accused her primary opponent Donald Trump of orchestrating chaos. 4:40pm- Lisa Kashinsky of Politico writes: “The New Hampshire attorney general's office is accusing the Democratic National Committee of engaging in unlawful voter suppression after the national party dismissed the state's upcoming primary as ‘meaningless.' Assistant Attorney General Brendan O'Donnell on Monday fired off a cease-and-desist order to the DNC, saying that instructing state Democrats to ‘educate the public' that the primary is ‘meaningless' violates the state's voter suppression laws.” You can read the full article here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/08/new-hampshire-attorney-general-dnc-voter-suppression-primary-00134378 4:45pm- Steven Nelson and Josh Christenson of The New York Post write: “First son Hunter Biden's Manhattan art dealer shared details Tuesday about purchasers of the first son's novice works—while contradicting the White House's claim that officials brokered an ethics arrangement to keep buyer identities anonymous to prevent corruption. Georges Bergès said that Hunter, 53, actually knew who bought about 70% of his art—including Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali, whom the dealer revealed purchased works by the first son both before and after scoring a prestigious appointment from President Biden.” You can read the full article here: https://nypost.com/2024/01/09/news/hunter-biden-knew-most-of-his-art-buyers-despite-ethics-plan-dealer-says/ 5:05pm- Over the weekend, MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart began to cry while discussing the three-year anniversary of the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021. 5:10pm- Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire writes: “One of the co-defendants in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' sprawling RICO case—against former President Donald Trump and several of his top associates—claimed in court filings this week that Willis had an ‘improper' relationship with one of the prosecutors in the case. The court filing claims that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private lawyer, paid for vacations that he allegedly took with Willis using funds his law firm received from the county as compensation for his work on the case. His firm has been paid approximately $650,000.” You can read the full article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-co-defendant-in-georgia-rico-case-claims-da-fani-willis-had-relationship-with-prosecutor-report 5:20pm- On Monday, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Dr. Anthony Fauci testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. During the hearing Dr. Fauci repeatedly denied remembering details about his decision making during the pandemic when pressed by members of Congress. 5:40pm- Haley Strack of National Review writes: “Maryland's largest school district drove up its legal expenses by 548 percent last year hiring counsel to investigate the school district's potential cover-up of sexual harassment and defend the district against parental complaints over mandatory LGBTQ curriculum. Montgomery County Public Schools has so far spent $412,544 more on legal fees this fiscal period than last, ‘due to substantial litigation on two separate matters pending in Federal Court,' according to the district's most recent legal-fees report.” You can read the full article here:https://www.nationalreview.com/news/maryland-school-district-amassed-exorbitant-legal-fees-defending-mandatory-lgbtq-curriculum/ 5:55pm- Rich got a shoutout in The Philadelphia Inquirer's article documenting how The National Park Service's decision to remove a statue of William Penn from Welcome Park was halted. The decision was quickly reversed after numerous people voiced their displeasure with the move online, on the radio, and on television. You can read the article here: https://www.inquirer.com/news/philadelphia/william-penn-statue-philadelphia-nps-social-media-outrage-20240109.html 6:05pm- Ray Epps—a former Trump support who some believe was an asset of the federal government who instigated the riot at Capitol Hill on January 6th, 2021—was sentenced to one-year of probation for his participation in the riot. 6:20pm- On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. Two of the judges on the panel are Democratic appointees—Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan. Though, the third judge—Judge Karen L. Henderson—seemed equally unconvinced by the Trump team's legal argument. 6:25pm- Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire writes: “One of the co-defendants in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' sprawling RICO case—against former President Donald Trump and several of his top associates—claimed in court filings this week that Willis had an ‘improper' relationship with one of the prosecutors in the case. The court filing claims that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private lawyer, paid for vacations that he allegedly took with Willis using funds his law firm received from the county as compensation for his work on the case. His firm has been paid approximately $650,000.” You can read the full article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-co-defendant-in-georgia-rico-case-claims-da-fani-willis-had-relationship-with-prosecutor-report 6:40pm- Following Tuesday's Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing, former president Donald Trump said that if his presidential immunity argument is proven to be unfounded then former president Barack Obama could, and should, be prosecuted for covert drone strikes he ordered in the Middle East—including one that resulted in the death of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. The strikes were conducted without congressional approval.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 1: On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. Two of the judges on the panel are Democratic appointees—Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan. Though, the third judge—Judge Karen L. Henderson—seemed equally unconvinced by the Trump team's legal argument. Charlie Savage and Alan Feuer of The New York Times write: “Judge [Florence Y.] Pan asked [Donald Trump's Attorney John] Sauer to address a series of hypotheticals intended to test the limits of his position that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution over their officials acts, unless they have first been impeached and convicted by the Senate over the same matter. Among them, she asked, what if a president ordered SEAL Team 6, the Navy commando unit, to assassinate a president's political rival? Mr. Sauer said such a president would surely be impeached and convicted, but he insisted that courts would not have jurisdiction to oversee a murder trial unless that first happened.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/us/politics/trump-immunity-hearing-takeaways.html?smid=url-share Following Tuesday's Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing, former president Donald Trump said that if his presidential immunity argument is proven to be unfounded then former president Barack Obama could, and should, be prosecuted for covert drone strikes he ordered in the Middle East—including one that resulted in the death of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. The strikes were conducted without congressional approval. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spent several days in an intensive care unit at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland following elective surgery—though the precise surgery has not been disclosed. Alarmingly, the White House—including President Joe Biden—was not informed of Secretary Austin's incapacitation for more than three days. Equally concerning, while Secretary Austin was in intensive care, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks was on vacation in Puerto Rico. Will anyone be held accountable for this disastrous breakdown in communication? Secretary Austin released a statement on Saturday addressing the issue: “I am very glad to be on the mend and look forward to returning to the Pentagon soon. I also understand the media concerns about transparency and I recognize I could have done a better job ensuring the public was appropriately informed. I commit to doing better.” On Tuesday, it was announced that Secretary Austin has been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: Ray Epps—a former Trump support who some believe was an asset of the federal government who instigated the riot at Capitol Hill on January 6th, 2021—was sentenced to one-year of probation for his participation in the riot. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments to determine the validity of Donald Trump's presidential immunity defense in his federal election subversion indictment. Two of the judges on the panel are Democratic appointees—Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan. Though, the third judge—Judge Karen L. Henderson—seemed equally unconvinced by the Trump team's legal argument. Ryan Saavedra of The Daily Wire writes: “One of the co-defendants in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' sprawling RICO case—against former President Donald Trump and several of his top associates—claimed in court filings this week that Willis had an ‘improper' relationship with one of the prosecutors in the case. The court filing claims that special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private lawyer, paid for vacations that he allegedly took with Willis using funds his law firm received from the county as compensation for his work on the case. His firm has been paid approximately $650,000.” You can read the full article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-co-defendant-in-georgia-rico-case-claims-da-fani-willis-had-relationship-with-prosecutor-report Following Tuesday's Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hearing, former president Donald Trump said that if his presidential immunity argument is proven to be unfounded then former president Barack Obama could, and should, be prosecuted for covert drone strikes he ordered in the Middle East—including one that resulted in the death of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. The strikes were conducted without congressional approval.