Podcasts about columbia circuit

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.

The US Supreme Court announced on Wednesday it would consider TikTok's challenge to legislation that could force the popular social media platform to be sold to a US company by Jan 19 or face a nationwide ban.12月18日，美国联邦最高法院宣布将考虑TikTok对“不卖就禁”法案的抗议。该法案要求TikTok这款热门社交媒体平台于1月19日前出售给一家美国公司，否则这款应用程序将在美国被禁用。The announcement came two days after TikTok filed a petition with the nation's highest court. At the center of the challenge is the legislation called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.这一宣布是在TikTok向美国联邦最高法院提交诉讼请求两天后作出的决定。此次抗议聚焦于国会今年3月通过的《保护美国人免受外国对手控制的应用程序侵害法》。Passed by Congress and signed into law by US President Joe Biden in April, the act requires that TikTok's Chinese parent company, Byte-Dance, divest its ownership within 270 days or face a ban in the US market, where the platform has 170 million users.该法案于今年4月由美国国会通过并经美国总统乔·拜登签署成为法律，要求TikTok中国母公司字节跳动在270天内放弃所有权，否则禁止其在美运行，而TikTok在美国拥有1.7亿用户。The law would prohibit the TikTok app from being used on both Google's and Apple's app stores and require web-hosting services to stop supporting the platform or face substantial financial consequences.该法律将禁止谷歌和苹果的应用商店提供TikTok下载使用，并要求互联网托管服务停止支持该平台，否则将面临巨额罚款。TikTok has insisted that the Justice Department's allegations are unfounded. The company has denied accusations that it was sharing user data with Chinese authorities or serving as a conduit for "Chinese propaganda".TikTok坚称美国司法部的指控毫无根据。该公司否认了有关其与中国政府共享用户数据或充当“中国宣传”渠道的指控。"The bigger issue here is that social media platforms are manipulating users and abusing personal information", and all of them are doing it no matter where they are from, said Ker Gibbs, an executive in residence with the China Business Studies Initiative at the University of San Francisco. "All the focus is on China, but Congress really should be looking at all the platforms that Americans are using," he told China Daily.旧金山大学中国企业管理研究所驻校高管克尔·吉布斯向《中国日报》表示：“更大的问题是社交媒体平台操纵用户并滥用个人信息。所有社交平台都在这么做，无论它们来自哪里。现在的焦点都在中国身上，但国会真正应该审视的是所有美国人正在使用的平台。”"There's a political case to make because so many small businesses are making money on TikTok, and they will be sorry to see it banned from the US," Gibbs said.吉布斯说：“从政治角度来看是有道理的，因为有很多小商户都在TikTok上赚钱，一旦它在美国被禁，这些小商户会非常遗憾。”In May, TikTok sued the US government to block the controversial law. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law earlier this month, finding the government's national security arguments legitimate.TikTok于5月起诉美国政府，要求阻止这项备受争议的法案。但在本月早些时候，哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院维持了这一法律，认为美国政府关于国家安全的论点是合理的。In response to the ruling, TikTok said that the law "was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people".针对这一裁决，TikTok回应称，该法律“是基于不准确、有缺陷和假设的信息而构思并推动实施的，导致了对美国人民的彻底审查”。"The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on Jan 19,2025," the company said.该公司表示：“除非TikTok禁令被暂停，否则超过1.7亿美国人将于2025年1月19日被迫沉默。”The platform's legal challenge has garnered significant support from several civil rights organizations, who have voiced strong concerns over the constitutional implications of the potential ban.TikTok对该法律的抗议得到了一些美国民权组织的大力支持，他们对这项可能生效的禁令带来的宪法影响表示强烈担忧。A coalition, including the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief on Tuesday, urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of the law.包括美国公民自由联盟（简称ACLU）、电子前沿基金会（简称EFF）和哥伦比亚大学骑士第一修正案研究所在内的联盟于12月17日提交了一份法庭之友书状，敦促美国联邦最高法院阻止该法律的执行。Patrick Toomey of the ACLU's National Security Project called the law "mass censorship" and stressed that the US Constitution "imposes an extraordinarily high bar" on such censorship.ACLU国家安全项目的帕特里克·图米称该法律为“大规模审查”，并强调美国宪法对这类审查“设置了极高的门槛”。"The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm," said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF, in a statement.EFF公民自由事务主管大卫·格林在一份声明中说：“政府不应基于对未来不确定危害的猜测而限制言论，尤其是达到这种程度的限制。”Negative consequences负面后果John Wihbey, an associate professor of media innovation and technology at Northeastern University, warned about negative consequences for US companies operating abroad, expressing concern over establishing a problematic global precedent.美国东北大学媒体创新与技术副教授约翰·维贝警告称这将对在海外运营的美国公司产生负面影响，并担忧这可能会树立一个有问题的全球先例。"My overall take is that there are going to be second- and third-order consequences from this we can't fully anticipate," he told the university's news outlet Northeastern Global News on Dec 6. "I think that's going to be really unfortunate," he added. "I'm worried about the precedent of it as a cascading norm around the world."12月6日，他告诉该校新闻机构《东北全球新闻》：“我的总体看法是，这将带来我们无法完全预见的二级和三级后果。我认为这将非常不幸。我担心这会成为世界各地普遍效仿的先例。”The law is set to take effect the day before the presidential inauguration on Jan 20. President-elect Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok but failed in 2020 during his first term. He changed his stance by pledging to "save TikTok" during his campaign. Trump expressed having "a warm spot" for TikTok at a news conference on Monday. Then he met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.该法律定于1月20日总统就职典礼前一天生效。当选总统唐纳德·特朗普在2020年第一任期内曾试图内禁止TikTok，但未能成功。他在竞选期间改变了立场，承诺要“拯救TikTok”。特朗普在12月16日的新闻发布会上表示，他对TikTok“颇有好感”。随后，他在佛罗里达州的马阿拉歌庄园会见了TikTok首席执行官周受资。The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Jan 10 from TikTok and government attorneys and representatives of app users challenging the ban.美国联邦最高法院将于1月10日听取TikTok、政府律师以及抗议禁令的应用用户代表的口头辩论。The court's swift acceptance of the case signals its recognition of the case's importance. As the final stop for a court case, the Supreme Court typically selects cases involving crucial constitutional questions or those that affect the entire nation.最高法院对此案的迅速受理表明其认为此案关系重大。作为法庭案件的最终裁决机构，最高法院通常只处理涉及关键宪法问题或影响全国的案件。The high court agrees to hear only about 80 cases each year from 7,000 to 8,000 petitions it receives, and it rules on only 1 percent of requests, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts.据皮尤慈善信托基金会称，在每年收到的7000至8000份份请愿中，最高法院只选择审理60至70起案件，并且只对其中1%的案件作出裁决。divestv.卖掉，出售（企业或其中一部分）

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

TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, and Senior Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 16, 2024. Argued by Andrew J. Pincus (TikTok petitioners),  Jeffrey L. Fisher (TikTok creator petitioners), and Daniel Tenny (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case, excerpted from the Brief of the TikTok Petitioners (citations omitted): TikTok is an innovative online platform used by 170 million Americans. These Americans form part of a unique global community with more than 1 billion users worldwide, with whom they create, share, and view videos—“speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.” All that will end on January 19, 2025, when the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (the “Act”) will ban TikTok throughout the country. The Act is unprecedented. Never before has Congress expressly singled out and shut down a specific speech forum. Never before has Congress silenced so much speech in a single act…. Congress provided no justification for banning TikTok by fiat, while creating substantive and procedural protections, as well as unexplained exclusions, for all other companies alleged to pose the same risks. Without findings, the Court is left with statements of individual Members and a single committee report. Many of those Members criticized cherry-picked content on TikTok, merely reinforcing the Act's unconstitutionality. The report invoked national security, pointing to the speculative possibility that TikTok could be misused in the future. But a claim of national security does not override the Constitution…. The First Amendment requires this Court to examine such an extraordinary speech restriction with the utmost care and most exacting scrutiny…. Issues Presented, also from the Brief of Petitioners: Whether the Act violates the First Amendment. Whether the Act violates equal protection. Whether the Act is a Bill of Attainder. Whether the Act effects an unconstitutional taking. Resources: Public Redacted Brief for Respondent CourtListener case docket for TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland Background on United States v. O'Brien The 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

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.

NCLA has filed an amicus curiae brief in Cigar Association of America v. FDA, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reject the “remand without vacatur” legal doctrine. This dubious practice allows administrative agencies to continue enforcing rules the court has just declared unlawful. The doctrine creates a legal category unknown to the law: Unlawful but enforceable rules. Instead of sending them back, courts must set aside unlawful rules.Mark and Vec discuss the case in this episode. 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

QUESTION PRESENTED: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. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This Day in Legal History: MLK's Letter from Birmingham JailOn April 16, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., a central figure in the American civil rights movement, penned one of the most significant literary pieces in American history—his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." His writing came during a pivotal time for civil rights, following his arrest for participating in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation in Birmingham, Alabama. King's letter was a response to a public statement made by eight white Alabama clergymen criticizing his actions and the protests, calling them "unwise and untimely."In his letter, King eloquently defended the strategy of nonviolent resistance to racism, arguing that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws and to take direct action rather than waiting potentially forever for justice to come through the courts. He addressed the criticism of "outsiders coming in," asserting his rights to be anywhere in the country as a citizen and highlighting the interconnectedness of communities.King's letter not only responded to the specific criticisms of the clergymen but also discussed the broader issues of justice, the pain of racial prejudice, and the urgent need for change. His profound insights included the famous quote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This letter is celebrated for its eloquent language and its poignant call for understanding and empathy toward the struggles of African Americans.The "Letter from Birmingham Jail" remains a cornerstone in the literature on civil and human rights and a seminal piece in American legal and social history. It has been used in university curricula, quoted by scholars, and remains a powerful example of effective communication and advocacy. King's insights continue to be relevant in discussions about justice, equality, and human rights, resonating with audiences around the world and influencing movements for social justice. This day in legal history not only marks a moment of profound individual reflection but also a landmark in the collective struggle for civil rights in America.A judge has dismissed Rudolph Giuliani's attempt to overturn a $148 million defamation verdict awarded to two Georgia poll workers he wrongfully accused of rigging the 2020 presidential election. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, had appealed to the US District Court for the District of Columbia to reverse a December ruling that held him liable for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The judge, Beryl A. Howell, described Giuliani's arguments for a new trial or a reduced award as "threadbare" and indicated that a retrial would likely yield the same outcome.Judge Howell also dismissed Giuliani's claims that the emotional distress suffered by poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss was not directly caused by his actions. Additionally, Giuliani's consistent failures to adhere to court procedures, including discovery and payment of attorney fees, further weakened his case, leading Howell to affirm the substantial judgment against him.Following the ruling, Giuliani, who declared bankruptcy in December, is now struggling to protect his assets, including a $3.5 million condo in Palm Beach and a $5.6 million Manhattan home he plans to sell. His financial disclosures reveal assets of $10.6 million against liabilities nearing $153 million. The ongoing legal battle continues as Freeman and Moss are represented by Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, while Giuliani is represented by Camara & Sibley LLP.Giuliani Loses Bid to Reverse $148 Million Defamation VerdictThe U.S. Supreme Court has allowed Idaho to enforce a ban on gender-transition care for minors, affecting a significant cultural and legal debate over transgender rights. This decision temporarily sets aside a federal district court ruling that had prevented Idaho from implementing the law statewide, with the exception of the two teenagers who brought the lawsuit and can continue their treatment. The majority of justices emphasized that their decision focused more on the scope of the lower court's injunction rather than the legality of the ban itself.Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in separate opinions, addressed the problematic nature of broad injunctions issued by single judges, suggesting a need to reconsider such judicial powers. Kavanaugh, supported by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, hinted at potentially backing restrictions on nationwide and statewide injunctions to reduce emergency interventions by the Supreme Court.This procedural decision represents a setback for transgender-rights advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the two teens, criticized the ruling for disrupting essential care for many families. On the other hand, dissenting Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed that the Supreme Court's intervention was unnecessary at this stage.Idaho's law prohibits various treatments for transgender youth, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, with severe penalties for healthcare providers. The state argues that the law protects children from potentially harmful medical procedures. However, opponents contend that the ban contradicts established clinical guidelines for treating gender dysphoria and violates constitutional rights, including the equal protection clause and parental rights to medical decision-making for their children.This legal battle continues amid broader national discussions, with similar laws in other states facing legal challenges. The Supreme Court's upcoming decisions could further shape the national landscape of healthcare rights for transgender minors.Supreme Court Lets Idaho Enforce Trans-Care Ban for Now (1)The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering the case of Joseph Fischer, a Pennsylvania man implicated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, who is attempting to evade an obstruction charge. This case holds significant implications for the broader federal prosecution, including that of former President Donald Trump. The charge in question involves obstructing an official proceeding, specifically the congressional certification of President Joe Biden's electoral victory, which the rioters aimed to halt.Fischer's defense argues that the obstruction charge should be narrowly applied only to acts of evidence tampering. This interpretation, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could complicate—but not preclude—the application of the same charge against Trump, who faces similar accusations in a case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.Currently, about 350 out of approximately 1,400 individuals charged in connection with the Capitol attack are facing obstruction charges, which can carry a sentence of up to 20 years. However, those convicted on this charge have generally received much lighter sentences.Fischer also faces six additional criminal counts, including assaulting officers and civil disorder. He was involved in direct confrontations with police during the Capitol breach, including charging at officers and pressing against an officer's riot shield. He was in the Capitol for a brief period before being expelled by police.The legal battle over the scope of the obstruction statute follows a reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which countered a lower court's decision that limited the charge to evidence tampering. This ongoing legal debate occurs as Trump, who is also facing other federal criminal charges, continues to declare his innocence and denounce the proceedings as politically motivated. The outcome of Fischer's case could potentially influence the legal strategies in Trump's prosecution regarding his actions surrounding the 2020 election.US Supreme Court tackles rioter's obstruction case, with Trump implications | ReutersMark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta Platforms, recently achieved a partial legal victory when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed several claims against him personally in ongoing lawsuits. These lawsuits involve allegations that Facebook and Instagram, owned by Meta, have caused harm to children. The claims centered around accusations that Zuckerberg, as a public figure and a central voice for Meta, had a duty to truthfully disclose the risks associated with the platforms, especially their potential harm to children.However, Judge Rogers ruled that the plaintiffs could not base their case on Zuckerberg's public prominence or his deeper insights into Meta's operations to establish that he had a personal duty to disclose such risks. She stated that accepting such a premise would unjustly extend a duty of disclosure to any well-known individual.Despite the dismissal of claims against Zuckerberg personally, Meta Platforms still faces numerous lawsuits. These cases, filed by children and their representatives, accuse Meta and other social media giants like Alphabet (Google and YouTube), ByteDance (TikTok), and Snap (Snapchat) of addicting users to their platforms and causing various types of harm, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal behavior.The lawsuits seek both damages and a cessation of practices deemed harmful. The litigation is vast, with many cases still pending that involve multiple states and school districts which have also initiated legal actions against Meta. The outcome of these collective lawsuits could have significant implications for social media regulation and the accountability of tech company executives.Judge dismisses some claims against Meta's Zuckerberg over social media harm | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Canada CreatedOn March 29, 1867, a pivotal moment in legal and political history unfolded as the British Parliament passed the British North America Act, laying the groundwork for a united and independent Dominion of Canada. This act was a monumental step, not just for the territories involved, but for the concept of nation-building and governance in the 19th century. It provided a structured constitution for Canada, which at the time, united the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and the Canada province (which was subsequently divided into Ontario and Quebec) under a single federal government. This legislative move was pivotal in defining Canada's national identity and sovereignty.The British North America Act, also known as the Constitution Act of 1867, is celebrated for introducing a federal system of government, allocating specific powers to the provinces and others to the federal government, a structure that has endured and evolved. It also established the bicameral legislature comprising the House of Commons and the Senate, adopting a parliamentary system modelled after that of the United Kingdom. This act not only marked the legal birth of Canada but also set a precedent for the peaceful transition of power and the creation of new nations through legislative means.The passage of this act was the culmination of a series of conferences and negotiations among the leaders of the British North American colonies, reflecting a mature and collaborative approach to nationhood. It addressed the pressing need for a united front in the face of external threats and internal discord, particularly the Fenian raids and the threat of American expansionism. When the act took effect on July 1, 1867, it did not merely create a new country; it established a framework for democracy, rights, and governance that Canadians continue to build upon. This legislation stands as a testament to the enduring values of unity, cooperation, and self-governance, marking March 29 as a day of significant legal and historical importance in the creation of the Dominion of Canada.The U.S. is facing a growing legal dispute over nuclear waste storage, likely headed for the Supreme Court, following conflicting appellate court decisions regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) authority to license two proposed storage facilities. The most recent decision from the Fifth Circuit Court vacated a license for Holtec International to store spent nuclear fuel in New Mexico, similar to an earlier ruling against a Texas facility by Interim Storage Partners (ISP). These decisions oppose a prior ruling from the District of Columbia Circuit, which approved the ISP facility's license, highlighting a significant legal split.Holtec and ISP, along with government support, are expected to challenge the Fifth Circuit's decisions, suggesting a Supreme Court review could overturn them. This legal stalemate underscores the challenges of finding a solution for the 86,000 metric tons of nuclear waste stored across 33 states. Efforts to establish a permanent site have been stalled, notably with the withdrawal from the Yucca Mountain project, leading to temporary storage proposals. The Supreme Court's potential involvement could resolve the legal impasse and address the broader issue of nuclear waste management in the U.S.US Efforts to Store Nuclear Waste Poised for High Court ReviewSam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the now-defunct FTX cryptocurrency exchange, was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a fraud involving $8 billion stolen from customers, marking a significant moment in his rapid fall from grace. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan imposed the sentence after finding Bankman-Fried guilty of seven fraud and conspiracy charges related to FTX's 2022 collapse, rejecting the defense's claims that customers did not lose money and deeming Bankman-Fried unremorseful. Despite apologizing for the impact on customers and colleagues, Bankman-Fried did not admit to criminal actions and plans to appeal both his conviction and sentence.The sentencing reflects the severe consequences of defrauding investors and customers in the financial industry, underscoring the message from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland about the accountability awaiting those who commit financial crimes. Kaplan highlighted the significant losses incurred by FTX customers, equity investors, and lenders to the Alameda Research hedge fund, founded by Bankman-Fried, totaling over $11 billion in losses. This led to an $11 billion forfeiture order to compensate the victims.Prosecutors had requested a sentence ranging from 40 to 50 years, while Bankman-Fried's defense argued for a significantly shorter term, portraying him as an awkward but non-malicious figure who attempted to recover customer funds post-collapse. Despite efforts to distance Bankman-Fried from infamous fraudsters and emphasize his mathematical decision-making, the court remained focused on the extensive harm caused by his actions.Bankman-Fried's status as a prominent political donor and figure in the cryptocurrency space, known for his commitment to effective altruism and significant contributions to political causes, was also scrutinized. His detention since August 2023, due to concerns over witness tampering, and the judge's recommendation for his incarceration near San Francisco, highlight the gravity of his offenses and the legal system's response to financial malfeasance in the emerging cryptocurrency market.Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years for multi-billion dollar FTX fraud | ReutersTexas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated an investigation into Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc, a key supplier of parts for Boeing, due to ongoing issues with some of these parts. This inquiry comes in the wake of Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun's announcement of his departure by year's end, following a series of concerns raised by regulators and airline customers, notably after a panel detached from a 737 MAX 9 jet in January.Texas attorney general opens investigation into parts supplier for Boeing | ReutersDetails have emerged regarding Facebook's extensive history of spying on its users' encrypted communications across various apps and services, highlighting a broader issue of online privacy exploitation by numerous entities. In 2018, Facebook was discovered using a "privacy protecting VPN" called Onavo as spyware to monitor user activity on other platforms, an operation that had been sanctioned by CEO Mark Zuckerberg under "Project Ghostbusters." This project aimed to intercept and decrypt encrypted app traffic from users of Snapchat, YouTube, and Amazon, effectively conducting a large-scale "man in the middle attack" to spy on users. The strategy involved developing spyware capable of accessing data before encryption, utilizing the Onavo VPN, acquired by Facebook in 2013 and repurposed for espionage without clear disclosure to users.Internal documents from a lawsuit against Facebook's parent company, Meta, reveal that high-ranking Facebook executives were aware of the ethical and security issues posed by such surveillance but proceeded regardless. This revelation is part of a class action lawsuit filed in 2020, accusing Facebook of spying on users and lying about it. The case underscores the lax consumer privacy protections in the U.S. and the vast, loosely regulated ecosystem of data surveillance that compromises personal information for profit, often under the guise of anonymization. Despite numerous privacy scandals, there has been little meaningful action from Congress to address these concerns, particularly when lobbyists for companies like Facebook aim to eliminate competitors like TikTok. The situation raises alarms about the potential for future scandals that could finally prompt legislative action on privacy.Details Emerge Of Facebook's Long History Of Spying On Encrypted User Communications Across Different Apps And Service | TechdirtJoseph Haydn (1732-1809), was a towering figure in the Classical period of Western music, and holds a foundational place in the history of symphonic and chamber music. Born in Rohrau, Austria, Haydn's musical journey began at a young age, leading him to become a choirboy at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna. Despite a challenging start, Haydn's undeniable talent and relentless work ethic propelled him into the circles of the Esterházy family, one of the most influential patrons of the arts in Austria, where he spent much of his career as a court musician.Haydn's contributions to music are monumental, having composed over 100 symphonies, numerous operas, string quartets, piano sonatas, and two celebrated oratorios, "The Creation" and "The Seasons." His work laid the groundwork for future generations, earning him the titles "Father of the Symphony" and "Father of the String Quartet." Through his innovative structures, development of musical motifs, and the exploration of dynamic contrasts, Haydn shaped the Classical style, influencing contemporaries and successors alike, including Mozart and Beethoven.Haydn's legacy is not just in his compositions but in his approach to music as a vibrant, living art form. His ability to infuse his works with wit, humor, and deep emotion speaks to his profound understanding of the human experience, making his music timeless and universally admired.Featured Piece: Symphony No. 77 in B flat major, IV. Allegro spiritosoThis week, we feature the exhilarating final movement, "Allegro spiritoso," from Joseph Haydn's Symphony No. 77 in B flat major. Composed during the zenith of Haydn's career in the late 18th century, this symphony exemplifies Haydn's mastery in orchestrating dynamic contrasts and his flair for thematic development.The Symphony No. 77 is part of Haydn's middle-period works, where he experimented with form and harmony to expand the expressive capabilities of the symphony. The "Allegro spiritoso" movement, in particular, showcases Haydn's skill in creating engaging musical narratives that are both intellectually satisfying and emotionally compelling. This movement is characterized by its spirited tempo and the lively, joyful themes that dance throughout the piece, providing a fitting conclusion to the symphony.Listeners will appreciate the movement's clever use of dynamics, the interplay between the orchestral sections, and the seamless transitions that propel the music forward. It's a testament to Haydn's ability to compose music that feels fresh and invigorating, demonstrating why he remains a central figure in the classical music canon.As we explore "Allegro spiritoso," let us appreciate the genius of Haydn, whose music continues to inspire and delight audiences around the world. Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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.

In a sweeping, legal rebuke, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Donald Trump's appeal for Immunity from Criminal Prosecution. At least temporarily.  “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.” Trump's claim that he was immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to subvert the results of the 2020 election, means he must go to trial on a criminal indictment accusing him of seeking to overturn his loss to President Biden. While this is a significant defeat, Trump is sure to Appeal to the Supreme Court.    

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

One hundred years ago, a bright new age for children was dawning in America. Child labor laws were being passed, public education was spreading, and more. But Adam Benforado says America stopped short in its revolution of children's rights. Today, more than eleven million American children live in poverty. We deny young people any political power, while we fail to act on the issues that matter most to them: racism, inequality, and climate change. That's why Adam is calling for a new revolution for kids. He joins us to discuss his book, A Minor Revolution: How Prioritizing Kids Benefits Us All.   About the Guest Adam Benforado is a professor of law at the Drexel University Kline School of Law and the New York Times best-selling author of A Minor Revolution: How Prioritizing Kids Benefits Us All and Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice. His research, teaching, and advocacy is focused on children's rights and criminal justice. A graduate of Yale College and Harvard Law School, he served as a clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and an attorney at Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C. He has published numerous scholarly articles. His popular writing has appeared in The New York Times, Washington Post, Scientific American, Slate, and The Atlantic. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife and children.   Transcript ADAM BENFORADO: If you're an architect, if you're a plumber, if you are a judge on an immigration court, I want you to think about what your job would look like if you put children first. The reason to do this is because this is good for all of us. It's not just good for kids. It's good for people who don't even like children at all. This is the best path forward as a society, because we all pay the costs of that inattention and those harms that come to kids. BLAIR HODGES: That's Adam Benforado and he's calling for a revolution in the way we all think about childhood. Which is gonna sound a little weird if you think kids today have it easier than ever. And it's true. I mean, they have some luxuries I couldn't even dream of as a kid—like I had to wait until Saturday morning to watch my favorite cartoons. Even then, I had to make the difficult choice between Muppet Babies or Ninja Turtles because they were on at the same time on a different channel. As a parent, Adam Benforado says he cheers for many improvements, but as a professor of law at Drexel University, he says the way children are treated by the courts in the US, economic limits they face, their lack of voting power, their poor access to health care, things like this make kids as vulnerable in America as they've been in 100 years. He wants that to change, not just because it would be better for kids. He says it would be better for everyone. But could the world's major challenges with health, climate change, and public safety really be easier to address by changing the way we treat kids? Adam Benforado says yes, that's why he wrote the book, A Minor Revolution: How Prioritizing Kids Benefits Us All, and he's here to talk about it right now. There's no one right way to be a family and every kind of family has something we can learn from. I'm Blair Hodges, and this is Family Proclamations.   LIFELONG INTEREST IN CHILDREN'S RIGHTS (2:15)   BLAIR HODGES: Adam Benforado, welcome to Family Proclamations. ADAM BENFORADO: Great to be with you. BLAIR HODGES: We're talking about your book, A Minor Revolution. And this is about children's rights. I wondered what got you interested in focusing on the legal rights of children. Your background is in law. So talk a little bit about why the rights of children became your focus. ADAM BENFORADO: So I think for me this is really a lifelong project. I think the seeds of this really come from my own childhood. I was really lucky to be born into a family with two really loving, supportive parents who spent a lot of time encouraging me and helping me be independent. But I think all around me, throughout my childhood, I saw a lot of abuse and, honestly, subjugation of children. And it really bothered me, starting when I was in elementary school, seeing the way kids were treated as, you know, not second-class citizens but as just, like, non-entities, I mean, not even like human beings. I think I was also aware of broader forces. I think I was really aware of the impact of wealth. I had a 1,200 square foot house and in my early elementary years I felt like the rich kid. And then I went to a kind of wealthy neighborhood in fourth grade where one of my friend's fathers got a limousine for the fourth-grade birthday party. And suddenly, I was like, “Oh my gosh! Actually my parents have like a beat-up VW Beetle.” And I'm like, “I'm not wealthy, like, I'm actually kind of worried about what my friends might think of my wealth, my family's wealth.” I think I was someone who really thought that I should vote when I was like in sixth grade. I didn't understand, you know, maybe I don't know as much as this other person. But I did know about the world. I have things I care about. Why shouldn't I have a say? I have a say in a whole bunch of other areas of my life. My parents listened when we were discussing things like what we should have for dinner, or whatever. I think it was those interactions and observations which informed my sense of and desire to write about some of the injustices I saw. And I think that carried me to law school, and certainly informed the questions I was interested in looking into, and certainly the way I taught. And in terms of coming to children's rights, the type of legal scholars usually sort of fall into these two camps of either being like general human rights—people who kind of focus over time on children's rights—or they are like practitioners who are working in the child welfare system, and then they come in with this particular angle. And it's funny because honestly, I was writing about all these different topics—like I started out writing about the role of corporations in society, and I teach criminal law. And in each of these subjects I look at things through the lens of children. So I'm very interested in, you know, how corporations manipulate kids to use them as weapons against their parents. I'm very interested in criminal law on juvenile justice issues— BLAIR HODGES: Are you talking about breakfast cereal commercials and toy commercials? [laughter] ADAM BENFORADO: Yes, yes. [laughter] BLAIR HODGES: Like how stores put all the candy and toys right by the checkout so you have to pass through there with your kids. ADAM BENFORADO: Oh, yeah. And that's something now, as a father—I think the cool thing about this project is, the seeds of this project started when I was a kid, but now I'm seeing it from a different perspective. I have two kids and, I tell you, right before I was writing this book, I had this experience with my daughter in Whole Foods. It's one of these times when we've got to go to the grocery store, there's no food, and my daughter looks up in front of the egg aisle, and there's this giant giraffe that costs $100, you know? And my daughter just breaks down, like lying on the ground, sobbing. And I'm like, “What are you doing?” BLAIR HODGES: It's pretty genius really. ADAM BENFORADO: And here's the kicker, one of the Amazon shoppers passing through comes up, looks at me, and goes, “Spoiled.” She shakes her head. And I was like, “Oh my god, this is a set up! This is just like this giant trap.” And what's brilliant about it is that no parents are gonna buy the hundred-dollar giraffe. You're coming in for eggs. But you know, what you might do to stop the embarrassment is buy the ten-dollar little plushie, stuffed animal, just to get out of that awkward social situation. BLAIR HODGES: That's right. I wonder, do you remember an example—you mentioned when you were in elementary school you saw children being treated not even as citizens at all. Do you remember anything in particular that stood out to you? You said you wanted to vote in sixth grade, as an example. Is there anything else like, “Wow, why are we kids being treated like this?” ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah, I mean, I thought about it in many circumstances. In elementary school, learning that my good friend's father spanked him and being like, my friend is really, he's a really smart, really nice person. We're no different. And he messes up in little, tiny ways. But everyone messes up. Adults mess up all the time and no one hits them. And then moving on from that to becoming a law professor and being like, wow, not suddenly being like, “Oh, this all makes sense.” But actually, wait a second, it's criminal law that you can't hit a prisoner. Like someone who's a murderer or rapist, it's prohibited under the Constitution from formally beating people as a punishment. And yet the legal minds, the geniuses, who are on our courts have said, “It's actually okay, it's constitutionally permissible. Kids are different.” And I think the answer to that today is because we don't see kids the way we see adults. We don't see them as full citizens. And I think there were a lot of moments like that. I think the bullying that I saw in junior high school, you know, again, that's what kids do. But what was so frustrating to me was the treating of this by adults, you know. The gym teacher, the math teacher, who saw the same terrible abuse. Like the kids who face this must carry those scars to this day. And doing nothing. There were all these instances where kids end up protected from things they don't need protecting from, where they can actually be empowered. And then actually, on the flip side, exposed to real harms that we could do something about, you know? There were adults who could easily have done things and didn't. And I think that all of those little observations, I kind of filed them back in my mind. And moments of censorship. So, you know, I remember a moment from Junior year—I got into this Governor's School down in Virginia, went away for a month, and it was like, the first time in my life that I was feeling like getting treated as an adult. Like it was all independent. They had college professors teaching this stuff. And you know what? I did all the reading, I read all the poetry. I did all the history. I did it all because I was like, “This is interesting, and I want to be engaged in these conversations.” And I felt this whole month, treated as an adult. And then at the final little party thing—and over the course of the term, there were people at Governor's School who were musicians, and I played in rock bands. So I formed this little band called “Beans and Franks” and we wrote some songs. And I'm about to go up to perform. The band gets to perform at the last thing, and the head of Governor's School comes up to me and is like, “Okay, I'm gonna need to review the lyrics.” And I was like, “What?” Like, I'm 17 years old, like, I've been listening to—Everyone here has heard everything already. Like, you've been treating me like an adult for a month. And now you want to review the lyrics? What? And I thought through like, there aren't even any offensive lyrics. But okay, I'll go through this song that I've written. And there was one line, which I think it was something like—again, it's embarrassing to even say, it was just stupid—It was like, “Smooth like a rubber, bounce it back to your mother.” [laughter] And he's like, “No, no. You cannot do that.” And honestly, as a 17-year-old boy I wrote a few songs with more offensive lyrics. [laughter] BLAIR HODGES: Yeah, you were like, “We were going easy on y'all here.” ADAM BENFORADO: Yes! I was like, “Hey, I've actually cleaned this up for the Governor's School performance.” And it was like, you can't perform this. I just was like, how do you expect me to be prepared to be a member of society? I'm going off to college in a year, and it soured everything else. It was like all the other stuff. You want to control me. You're happy when I'm getting A's in my classes and doing what you say. But as soon as I show some real independence, that's when you're like, “No, you're nothing. I'm the decider.” And it's interesting, I teach this course called The Rights of Children, and actually have my students think back to moments from their childhood. And what I have observed, which is so interesting, is how fresh these incidents are. Like a student, who was now 27 years old, writing about that moment at the eighth-grade dance, where she was going into a strict Catholic school, and they had always had the same dress code. The girls got to wear off the shoulder dresses and the new principal changed it but she organized a petition and had all the teachers sign it, and the principal wouldn't even meet with them. Wouldn't even meet. And she's carried that to law school. She's writing about it just as if it happened yesterday. And I think it's these things that all of us carry, we sort of often kind of later justify it as a rite of passage that everyone should go through as opposed to, “No, that's wrong. And I'm going to change that for the next generation. I want them to experience something different than what I experienced.” As opposed to, “Yeah, it's just part of the experience. You're brutalized and then you get to brutalize when you're an adult, and so it's fair.”   AMERICA'S CHILD WELFARE MOVEMENT 100 YEARS AGO (12:39)   BLAIR HODGES: To get to this point where dress codes and things are the main concern, you actually take us back in time to talk about some of the reforms that happened a century ago. Your book starts back in 1906. There's this Spokane Press article. Here's a quote from it. It says, “When your children are swinging in the hammock, or playing at the park, stop and give a thought to the pale-faced factory boys and girls of the metropolis.” They're painting this picture of child labor and distinguishing between more privileged kids and kids that are basically laborers at this time. What was happening at the turn of the century, what was the child's rights movement like back then? ADAM BENFORADO: So I wanted to open the book with this broader historical context in part because this was this miraculous moment a little over a hundred years ago where, coming out of the horrors of the Industrial Revolution, Americans—and these are really everyday Americans, across the country—came together and said we need to do something about the plight of children. And we need to do something, not simply because this is unfair to kids, but because we are setting ourselves up for failure as a nation. So when we fail to invest in the education of, you know, five to 15-year-olds, that's setting us up to fail in the decades ahead. So people came together—reformers who were often kind of lumped together as this child saver progressive movement, came together to demand changes: building of better public schools, mandatory public education, pushing for health and even things like drug safety measures, building playgrounds, investing in and creating an entirely new juvenile justice system based on rehabilitation rather than punishment. I chose to go back and just pick up kind of a random paper from 1906 to show just how much this energy was pushing into every area of life. So this is a little four-page paper from Washington State. And literally every page has like three different articles about child-focused reforms. And I think what was miraculous was just how much was done. By 1912 President Taft had created the first federal agency focused on the whole child, this Children's Bureau. And the idea, I think, coming out of this was, certainly in the decades ahead, we are going to see this bright new age for children across the country. And unfortunately, I think what we have seen over the course of the 20th century and then into the last couple of decades, is not simply kind of slowing to a trudge, but in some cases, even backtracking on some things. So you started with this example of child labor, this excerpt from this article. Well, what have we seen over just the last couple of months? Exposés in the New York Times about young people working in terrible labor conditions. Working the overnight shifts, just as those kids were laboring in 1906. And the reasons that are given to justify it are just the same as were given in 1906: “It's an economic necessity, coming out of the pandemic, we've had changes in the job market. We actually need to roll back job protections in our state. Businesses can't compete unless we let 15-year-olds continue to work.” BLAIR HODGES: Or like “families need the money, like this is actually good for families.” Instead of looking at how when people aren't being paid living wages, “Oh, let's make their children work.” ADAM BENFORADO: It's something that I think, you know, we see a little bit in fiction even. I'm halfway through a new book called Demon Copperhead—really great if any listeners are looking for a new summer read—but it traces actually kind of the effects of the child welfare system, but also the fact that kids are picking tobacco in our fields. One of the historical examples that's in this 1906 newspaper is the plight of kids rolling cigarettes in factories in New York City. Okay, well, they may not be doing that in New York City anymore. But down in North Carolina, kids today are picking tobacco in a hundred-degree heat. And they're getting nicotine poisoning, just like kids did a hundred years ago. And often it's the most vulnerable kids. It's migrant kids. It's kids whose parents are desperate for cash. And we're turning our back on them. In a way, unfortunately, I think this is a real indictment of the status quo. I think we're turning our backs more than people did 120 years ago. I think the child labor movement was going in the right direction. There was a lot of work that they ultimately, you know— Some of these child labor laws from a hundred years ago, there were exemptions for farm workers. But they were making a lot of progress. Here? Look at the last couple of months. We're backtracking. In a lot of areas we're repealing labor protections, virtually. BLAIR HODGES: We'll talk about some of the reasons you think that's happening as we go. Just to set the table as we get into some of the rights you're arguing for, I want to point out that your book is not making philosophical arguments, you're arguing about pragmatic benefits. ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah, I think that's one of the things that probably sets this book, and I think my approach, apart from some other rights scholars and rights advocates is I'm not simply arguing that this is a good thing to do for kids, right? It's not “natural rights.” I think that's usually where people start is like, even if there were no benefit to the rest of us, this is the good thing to do. That's how we tend to think about rights. And I absolutely believe that is true for children. But I think that's never going to get us where we want to be. I think we need to make the strong case for why actually putting children first benefits all of us. And that's because so many social problems are best addressed if you focus on interventions, rehab, in childhood. Ultimately, as a society, you always have to pay for things like crime, underemployment, poor health. The question is simply: Are you going to pay pennies on those preventative early interventions? Or are you going to pay many dollars on the backend when problems have already metastasized and hardened? It's a choice. Again, do you want to pay for school lunches for all kids? Or do you want to have kids who can't pay attention in school and don't graduate, and then you have a labor force who is underperforming and underemployed? You're gonna have to pay for that triple bypass. There's no free option. And so really, this is also I think, an answer to those critics who are worried that somehow this is a zero-sum game—that if you invest in kids, somehow you harm older Americans. No! When you invest in kids, you have healthier old people, you have old people who actually have more in their retirement account so they can take care of themselves. So what is the best pathway for us as a society? Invest in kids. I think that's the core takeaway for the book.   ISOLATED PARENTING (20:09)   BLAIR HODGES: Right. And I want people to see that, because this isn't a book for parents, per se, this is a book for all people. And the other point is, everyone's been a child, whether you end up having kids later on, we've all been children, we've all experienced that. And the way children are raised in our society affects everybody, not just parents. And so this isn't a book about parenting. ADAM BENFORADO: That's a great point. And I think, unfortunately, kids and kid's issues and children's rights in this country, have been framed only as a parent's issue. And that's part of that story, that historical story of like, what happened to those early child savers, those early progressives? And one of the answers is over the course of the 20th century, we lost this vision of investing in and empowering kids as a societal endeavor and it shifted to this idea that, “No, raising up kids is solely the work of individual parents.” BLAIR HODGES: It's “Don't Tread on Me” parenting. ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah. It's atomized. So what has happened over the course of the 20th century, this was coming from popular culture. But I think it was also coming from our elite institutions. The Supreme Court is coming out with really these groundbreaking opinions, saying parents are ultimately in possession of a fundamental right to decide the destinies of their children in all of the important matters, whether that's religion, whether that's schooling, whether that's medical care. And one of the consequences of that is this incredible weight which is placed on all parents' shoulders. Now, it's entirely up to you whether your kid sinks or swims. You actually have to be the ultimate decider on everything. You're the one who's asked to decide, now, is my kid going to learn about race history? Not the school. The school isn't going to teach them about these defining historical moments, because they're scared, they don't want the protests and the pushback. And the textbooks are being removed, these references of well, “We've got to leave out the Holocaust. Slavery, let's take that out. We'll leave this, take that. We're not taking a position. It's just up to individual parents to make these decisions.” So suddenly, parents, you have to be a historian. Well, suddenly, you actually have to decide on medical care, too. Don't just take the vaccine schedule from the doctor. No, you do your own research. Oh, you want to protect your kid from, you know, lead and asbestos? Well, you do the research. I will tell you as a parent, it is exhausting. It explains one of the reasons why parent burnout and unhappiness is so high in this country, as opposed to some of the studies that have been done comparatively, parents who have nothing, who face incredible odds in Africa, are much, much, much happier as parents. Why? Because it's a collective endeavor. They don't have to do everything. They're not alone in these struggles. And unfortunately, I think that's the rub of the whole parents' rights movement is, okay, you get to decide, but being a parent, raising kids is so hard. You face so much.   THE EARLY YEARS: A RIGHT TO ATTACHMENT (23:34)   BLAIR HODGES: And there's less and less social support. We'll talk about this in a later part of the interview about early childhood and the “Right to Investment.” But let's start with “The Right to Attachment.” So in the book you've laid out these particular rights for kids, and you kind of rolled them out according to developmental stages of where children are at. You're following the best research on childhood development. In the first years, the “right to attachment” is what you highlight in here. And one of the things some of these earlier child advocates had wrong was the idea that parents shouldn't baby their babies, that they shouldn't coddle them, they should maintain a kind of detachment from them. And then there was this fascinating monkey experiment listeners might have heard of, I think I heard about it as an undergraduate, where they had these monkeys and they had a mother that was like, just this wire cage that would give them milk. And then also a monkey that was like covered in fabric and it was comfortable. And then the baby monkeys would go to the milk mom and eat, but then they would always go back to the comfortable mom, and that's who they would bond with. So the argument became secure bonds, warm bonds, loving experiences, more nurturing-type experiences are important. And you had a big scientific shift here away from this detached parenting style to close parenting, and you're arguing for more of that for kids. ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah, and I argue, hey, this research has continued and now is incredibly robust on the value of early attachment with a primary caregiver. It's actually been supplemented by work even showing intergenerational effects, in the context of these monkeys. If you engage in that early deprivation, it actually can have intergenerational effects on the future monkey offspring. Now, I think we look at the state of the research and then we look at what society has done in response. Well, what society has done in response is work in incredible ways, severing the bonds and failing to support bonds that I think we could really seriously strengthen. What are some examples of that? Well, we're the only wealthy, advanced nation who does not have paid mandatory supported care leave for the parents and adoptive parents of young kids. And again, as I said, that sets us up for failure as a nation. But so many parents go back to work after just a couple of days at home with their kids. And that doesn't make economic sense. More often the argument is, you know, “Economically we can't have businesses giving people six months off.” And everywhere else in the world, they say, “We can't not do that. It's economically stupid not to do that. We're going to just pay more money on the backend if we do that.” Now, I think we obviously can make a lot of progress by really simple guarantees to new parents in terms of care leave. But I think we also have to think about some of the ways we really sever bonds carelessly. One of the biggest ones, I think, is our criminal justice system. Millions of kids have or have had a parent locked up during their childhoods, and that has horrible repercussions downline. Often it's not locked up in prison, it's actually pretrial in jail. What happens to a mom accused of, you know, some theft or a drug crime, when she's waiting trial? Well, trials in the United States take a long time. Bail might be $1,000 or $2,000. For a poor parent, they may not have that. So what happens as a result of that? A single mom is taken out—those three kids are put into foster care. We all pay for that. We pay for locking up the mom pretrial. We pay for those kids going into the foster system. And we pay the lifelong costs of our non-functional child welfare system as well. So we do it there. We do it at the border. Obviously, there was a lot of controversy over the last few years about child separation policies. But we also do it with our child welfare system when it comes to poverty. So how do we deal with parental poverty? Do we help parents? No, what we do is, we take kids away from their parents. A police officer is called, a child welfare worker is called, goes into a house and finds no food in the refrigerator— BLAIR HODGES: An empty fridge, yeah. ADAM BENFORADO: Finds roaches, finds peeling lead paint. What do we do? Do we get that mother into good, stable housing? Do we give her money for food? Do we feed the kids at school? No, what we do is we say, “You're a bad mom, you failed. You're an abomination.” And we take the kids away and often put them in worse circumstances. And if we were guided by that research, that robust set of research on the value of attachment, we would make very, very different choices. We would say, “You know what? This isn't about the mom, ultimately.” And I say this to audiences when I talk, look, sometimes folks are filled with anger at parents who have, in their view, failed to meet their responsibilities. That's an area where I think I'm going to disagree with all the people in which I see these as situational constraints on parents, but let's actually set that to the side. If you want to hate that mom, and think that she's a bad person, go ahead and do that. Let's focus on the kids though. Because we need to do what's best for those kids. Right? And I will tell you, taking kids away from parents who love them, and are poor, is setting us up for failure as a nation. And I think that if we can get into that mindset whenever there's anger at the parents like, “Why should we pay for public school breakfasts and lunches? It's these parents, these deadbeat parents that we're incentivizing.” It's like, hey, there's a kid who is not eating lunch. Focus on the kid. Leave the parents aside. You want to vilify the parents? Okay. I think that's the wrong approach. But let's at least agree that the kid should eat a healthy meal every day.   EARLY CHILDHOOD: THE RIGHT TO INVESTMENT (29:46)   BLAIR HODGES: This is where it connects to the next chapter on early childhood, “The Right to Investment,” and you're arguing that children deserve a right to investment in good schools, in their quality of health care, in the housing they have available to them, in mentorship. You introduce us in this chapter to Harold, this is a Black man from Philadelphia, and what his story suggests about the right to investment. He's an interesting example because he's someone the system did sort of invest in. But as you know, they would put him in particular programs, help him get schooling and things, but as a Black man, he witnessed this and saw himself sort of, as he kind of won the lottery. ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah, he describes himself as a unicorn. BLAIR HODGES: Yeah, a ton of other Black kids didn't get these kinds of investments. And so he's like, wait a minute, the system is doing this on an individual level, a kind of band-aid solution, but not changing the overall system. Harold had mixed feelings about how he was invested in. ADAM BENFORADO: I think this was one of the most powerful interviews I did. It was just eye opening, in some ways for both of us in this conversation. But he remarked early on about this defining moment in his childhood where his parents, they'd just gotten kicked out of their house, and they were basically are homeless. And they're in downtown Philadelphia, where I currently live, standing on a street corner. He's six years old. He's just trying to figure out like, what are they going to do? Like, where are they gonna sleep, get food, all this stuff. They're on a street corner. And he said he just saw a white guy with his briefcase and like, everything about it was just so perfect. There's the Rolex and everything, that perfect suit and all this stuff. And he said, this was the first moment when he was like, “How is it that we're in the same city on the same day, and my family has nothing? And this person has everything? How is that?” I think there was this innocence and also profound insight in that moment of like, wait a sec, all of us walk by this all the time. We're the country with the most billionaires in the world. And we also have, like, one in six or seven kids living below the poverty line. Like that's like 11 million kids. We have, like 700 billionaires. And our Fortune 500 Companies made something like $16 trillion in revenue. We have like 11 million kids living in poverty. And again, that's not simply a moral abomination. That's setting us up for economic and social failure in the years ahead. And I think, as you point out, one of the really fascinating things about Harold's account of his life is that he was being held up as he moved through childhood as a success story, right? So the local news wanted to do a profile, and it's like, this is great. The kid from the ghetto has made it out against the odds. And he was like, “You are telling a story about your own failure, because there was me, but then there were all of my classmates, who you neglected.” He struggled with this, honestly. It's like, “Why me?” BLAIR HODGES: It's a survivor's guilt. ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah, it was. It was very much a sense of like, “Wait, why me, though?” Like, why is it that we only invest in the diamonds in the rough? And we even see this, I think, in some academic work on inequality, is this idea of like, we need to figure out the diamonds in the rough. And I think my argument, certainly Harold's insight is, no, we need to help all children, not just the ones who end up at Harvard, or Wharton, or who end up being inventors. All of these kids could benefit from our investment. But we see that both in early childhood and we see that at the end, even some of the debates about—you know, we can talk about this later—but student loan forgiveness and all that. We need to invest in kids also who do not go to college. And I think even liberals get really worked up about like, “Hey, we need to pay for college.” Well, some people aren't going to go to college. And we really heavily subsidize, even without any actions by Biden, we really heavily subsidize people going to college. We do virtually nothing for kids who aren't. And that sets us up, again, for failure as a nation.   LATE CHILDHOOD: A RIGHT TO COMMUNITY (34:15)   BLAIR HODGES: It's a rising tide lifts all boats kind of approach, right? So again, in this chapter, “Right to Investment,” you're looking at ways early education can be better invested in, health care opportunities, housing, as I mentioned. So those are just some of the areas you talk about in “Right to Investment.” Let's look at the next chapter on late childhood. And this is where you talk about “A Right to Community.” We've touched on this a little bit already. This is where you really emphasize the parental rights movement and what that's done. You introduce us to an extreme example here of how dedication to parental rights can lead to trauma and abuse. This is an Amish family who basically gifted their children to this predatory abuser. And as parents, they could just make these kinds of decisions that put their children at extreme risk. You talk about how this is similar to, or connected to homeschooling—not that you're condemning homeschooling. But you're connecting it to these other issues where parents have control over their children's relationships, over how their education is, how their healthcare and medical care is. And parents get the final say in a lot of these things. Tell us about how that connects to this “Right to Community.” ADAM BENFORADO: I chose this example, ready to acknowledge it's an extreme example, of literally gifting your daughters to a predator and thinking that was actually a completely legitimate thing to do. And I argue that comes from our culture, which really treats children as property. And in some ways—again I like to trace history here, if you go back to ancient Roman republic, coming across into the early modern period in England, and then being brought over to the colonies, this consistent idea of kids belonging to their parents, and their labor belongs to their parents, and their bodies belong to their parents, and then tracing the effects of that. BLAIR HODGES: I was shocked by the custody thing. You point out that the word “custody” is used for prisoners who are in custody, property as in custody, and custody of children. It's a property thing. ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah. And I think it's something that works out just fine for a lot of kids whose parents make good decisions and you know, it's fine, they often love you very much, they try to make good decisions. The problem is if you don't have those good parents under the law in the United States, you honestly can be completely isolated from all of the advances in medical care, from all of the knowledge we have accrued over thousands of years, from all of the valuable social connections. Your parents really can keep you locked on their compound with no access to education, with no access to medicine, with no access to human contact, legally, in the United States. And so the extreme example is to say, wait a second, those kids don't simply have rights as human beings, but we all will pay the consequences when those kids grow up with those depravations. We will pay the moral consequences; we will pay the economic and social consequences of that. I argue we need to stop thinking about kids as belonging to their parents and more think about ways we can cultivate this sense of belonging. And that's not to say that parents don't have a role as, not gatekeepers, but sort of facilitators of these exchanges. I certainly do that a lot with my kids, talking to them about the information that they're receiving, protecting them from certain things, and certainly facilitating access to relationships and medical care. But I think the idea that this is all on parents' shoulders is really bad for kids who face these depravations. And it's bad for all of us. I think when kids don't learn about the history of this country, I think that's bad for all of us.   PARENTAL RIGHTS AND CHILDREN'S VOICES (38:25)   BLAIR HODGES: You talk about how this cuts across into medical care—when it comes to COVID, for example, vaccines. Some parents want to have the right to refuse vaccines for their children. And how that can be a health risk, or the right to refuse medical care for children is a big issue. ADAM BENFORADO: I mean, I think one of the things that really surprises even some criminal law students is some of the legal regimes which have been instituted across the United States which actually protect parents who choose prayer over adopting the most basic medical care to treat preventable conditions. And the fact that actually, you know, in a number of states—I look at Idaho in particular. I mean, there are kids who are dying of things that we have known how to treat for decades, because their parents don't believe in it. And again, we could have conversations about, you know, what if a 16-year-old kid wants to refuse medical care for a genuinely held religious belief? But that's not really the question. I mean, this is really when a 12-year-old is desperate to go to the doctor because she has a ruptured esophagus and her parents say no. Or a kid who has a broken arm and the bone's poking out and the family doesn't take them to the emergency room to treat these easily addressed medical conditions. And again, I think we have a reason to intervene for those kids, but I think we have a reason to intervene on behalf of all of us. It's not good for any of us when kids are suffering and carry the weight of these treatable childhood conditions later in life. BLAIR HODGES: It's tricky, this chapter, because I think parental rights, as you point out, are sacrosanct across the political spectrum. This is an issue that conservatives and liberals and everybody in between is kind of united on, this idea that parents should make the choice and sort of be in charge of all these things. ADAM BENFORADO: It's really interesting. I think the Republican party has decided that parents' rights may be their pathway back to the White House and capturing State Houses. There was certainly success with both in Virginia and in Florida with politicizing parents' rights, and the response of a number of leading progressives, including political folks has been, “Okay, we need a matching liberal parents' rights movement.” So if Republicans are saying parents have a right to know every single school book and read every sentence of every lesson plan and to protect their kids from learning about gay people or whatever, then liberals step up like, “No, I have a right to allow my kid to read this book. I have a right as a parent to have my kid learn in school that gay people exist or have a bathroom that anyone can use.” And personally, I'm like, wait a second, progressives. As a parent, I share the concern when I learned about censorship in my school library, and I get upset too. But let's talk about kids' rights. Like I want to talk about it and frame it around, hey, high school students, maybe they should have a say about what they're learning about the history of race in the United States. I want to stop using kids as props, like you know when DeSantis comes out and signs a bill. That's the only time we actually see kids. And guess what? I want to hear from them. And I think that's the path forward for liberals is, like, let's actually involve kids in these questions. You brought up one of the examples of the vaccines. And again, I think parents have a lot to weigh in here. What is frustrating though, the story I give is of this teenager who this is in the earlier days of the pandemic, who wants to get vaccinated because she just wants to be with her friends. She wants to be allowed to engage with this public life. And she's like, “Hey Mom, this is what I want.” And her mom's just like, “No.” It's like a 16-year-old kid who wants medical care. That, to me, it's like crazy that the kid has no voice in that situation. And the same thing of like, why is it that a 17-year-old should have no say in the books they're reading in English class? That's not preparing them to be successful citizens. And none of this is to say that parents shouldn't have rights. I think parents absolutely should have rights. It's just the kid should have rights too. And I think the conversation would be a lot more enriched; I think we'd make better decisions on a lot of these things about a lot of these things. It's not to say that there aren't dangerous things or there's not inappropriate material. I think there are inappropriate things. I think there are things that are really harmful to kids, and upsetting. I certainly was upset by some of the books and things that I read. But I think an approach that says the only people who have a valid opinion here are adults, is just the wrong approach.   BLAIR HODGES: So that's what you're trying to get readers to do is like think about how younger folks can be involved in this decision making and their voices can be heard.   ADAM BENFORADO: Right, be part of the community.   EARLY ADOLESCENCE: THE RIGHT TO BE A KID (43:45)   BLAIR HODGES: Let's talk about the next chapter: “The Right to Be a Kid.” This is framed around early adolescence. And this really zooms in on the criminal justice system, a passion of yours, and the ways childhood can be erased there. You include the story of a man who was convicted of murder when he was a teenager, and how he was tried as an adult even though he was a teenager, despite what we know about brain development, about the ability of him to make decisions, or what it was like to be an adolescent and make that kind of decision. What did that story do for you in this chapter? ADAM BENFORADO: My last book, Unfair, was about injustice in our criminal justice system and it focused on different biases and things that come into every stage of the normal criminal case. I was very familiar with wrongful convictions and sort of the injustice that can come from that. And this conversation I had with this now middle-aged man, I talked to him when he was in his forties, reflecting back. I think it really reveals a different type of injustice. So this man, Ghani, is very forthright about the fact that he did the crime. He killed another boy when he was an adolescent. And yet I think the justice story doesn't stop there. What was so profoundly unjust about this was failing to understand what brought this young man to commit this atrocious act. And he readily acknowledges the harm that came from that and the failure to understand that people change. That, yeah, the person who is fifteen is not the same person as the person who is 45. And the harshness of giving up on someone and condemning someone for what they do, anything that they do, when they're fifteen. This young man was given, in Pennsylvania, life without the possibility of parole. He was basically condemned—“You are going to live in a box until you die”—at age fifteen or sixteen. We are a country that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It's right there in the eighth amendment. And yet, we said to this young man—who basically was a prisoner of a drug gang locked in a crack house, dealing crack through the mail slot—“We've given up and we're gonna put you in a box, nine-by-seven box, until you die decades in the future.” And it was only because the Supreme Court changed the legal landscape that he was eventually released, when the Supreme Court said actually someone who commits a crime before age eighteen cannot get a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole. He was released decades later. And what I want us to realize in this chapter is that children have a right to remain a kid, to enjoy that halo of childhood, even when they make terrible mistakes. And that's hard for us. But I think if you look at the data from what comes out of psychology and neuroscience, you start to see what adolescence is. It's a necessary step. But it's a challenging one. It's one where our brains are developed in certain ways, but not in others. And so we can make mistakes. And what we need to do as a society is try to allow for those mistakes, that's part of growing up, in ways that are less devastating, to prevent young men from joining drug gangs and killing people, but also that mitigate the harm of treating one mistake—again, a very bad mistake—as a reason to condemn an individual for the rest of their life. And I go back to some of the mistakes I made, that luckily did not have life or death consequences.   CHILDHOOD AND RACISM (47:44)   BLAIR HODGES: Same. But you and me are both white guys, too. You talk about how that makes a difference—how racist this system often is, people being prosecuted as adults. ADAM BENFORADO: I mean, I think about one of the smartest guys I know, I met him my first day at Harvard Law School, he grew up in Pennsylvania. And we were talking early in the first semester of law school about an experience he had. And, again, he was just the most charming, brilliant guy, went to Harvard undergrad. And he was coming home, I think it was Pottstown, one day from football practice, and he had all his football gear in a bag over his shoulder. And I think he'd already gotten in early at Harvard. He's running home because he's late. And he's the nicest guy. He's probably running home to get home early for, you know, dinner or something. Cops pull up, chase him down, throw him up against the chain link, because there's been a burglary. And in that moment, that could have been it. That could have been it. That experience never, ever happened to me as a kid, and the simple answer is, I have white skin. Did I run with bags? Was I wearing hoodies? Yes, all of those things were true of me. We could go back to my poor fashion choices as a teenager. All those things are true, but that never happened to me. And that aligns with the research that shows how young Black kids do not enjoy that halo of childhood. They are “adultified” very early on, and that has consequences where, you know, misbehaving at school. White kids— BLAIR HODGES: Are more likely to be suspended. More likely to have repercussions. ADAM BENFORADO: Yeah, and then if it's a more serious thing, intervention of the police. And once you're into the police system, you get a lot harsher treatment. And this is true of girls too, right? So we see, actually, it can be a real problem with girls who have been sexually trafficked. A white girl is treated as a victim. Black girls? Well, you're a prostitute. And that means how the police treat you, that means how even courts will treat you, and I think we need to really think hard about ways we can ensure all children are treated as kids. BLAIR HODGES: Yeah, you talk about like these juvenile courts where kids are involved in the process. ADAM BENFORADO: To me, that's one of the ways that we can move forward, is getting back to that early 20th century idea that, hey, kids are different, and we should really focus on rehabilitation and on diverting kids to a different system that's focused on kids are changeable, they make mistakes, they may need to have changes in their lives. And we can do that because kids are really malleable in this period. And I think that's one of the reasons I throw my support behind diversion programs and some of the cool new ideas to try to make interventions on kids whose lives are starting to go down paths that can lead to very serious consequences.   LATE ADOLESCENCE: THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD (50:43)   BLAIR HODGES: In your “Right to Be Heard” chapter you talk about actual court systems where juveniles get to be part of the process, judging their peers. It's a real jury of their peers. ADAM BENFORADO: In this next chapter the focus here—If the previous chapter was on ways that I think we “adultify” kids in circumstances and treat them as adults in circumstances where they're ill-prepared for that and we really need to protect them, this is a chapter about other ways in which we infantilize kids when they actually really have the ability to do a lot more than we give them credit. And again, I am driven by the psychology neuroscience literature here. I think there's this really interesting thing. We tend to think about the brain as this balloon that kind of just gets bigger and bigger and bigger over the course of development. But what we now know is different areas of the brain mature at different rates. And that, actually, areas of the brain that focus more on the  old cognition moments develop much faster than those that are involved in that kind of control of impulses— BLAIR HODGES: Assessing risk— ADAM BENFORADO: Yes, risk, and dealing with peer pressure. Yeah, those are later developing things really into people's 20s. There's a really strong argument that we actually need to figure out ways to empower kids much earlier. So I focus, yes, on the ability of kids to serve as jurors, but I also focus on extending the right to vote to young people and allowing young people to run for office, serve on school boards. And I think this is supported, certainly, by the mind sciences research. But I also think it's likely to lead to much better outcomes for us as a society. Sometimes when I talk to audiences about this, I have someone raise their hand and it's like, “Oh, well, this is going to distort the system, you're taking power away from adults.” And I'm like, the current system is biased. We are making decisions which are too old-focus and too conservative. One of the things we know from the psychology of literature, is that sometimes as people get older, they make much more conservative decisions on things, they're too risk averse. And while risk aversion can be beneficial, under certain circumstances, it actually can be the most dangerous thing you can do, particularly when things are rapidly changing and you have new problems. I often get the pushback when I talk about this, “Well, okay, maybe that's true that kids actually do have the capacity to deal with these things, but they don't have the life experience.” And I'm like, “What do you think are the most pressing issues today?” Okay, well, it's like, you know, how to regulate social media, and trans rights, and racial justice, and climate change. I stop them like, okay, hold that thought. Let's think about the average 15-year-old. Okay, so social media. They are on TikTok. They know so much more than my octogenarian father-in-law. Trans rights: my octogenarian father-in-law, he doesn't have any trans friends or gay friends. Racial justice: the youngest generation is the most diverse multicultural generation America has ever seen. Let's talk about climate change. Well, that 85-year-old is going to be long dead as the worst effects of climate change ravage the United States. That 15-year-old is going to be living through those floods and forest fires, and the civil unrest around the world that is coming down the pipeline and has no ability to choose the leaders who will make decisions today that will affect them for the rest of their life. And I think, again, that's not democracy. Democracy is about people who have a stake in the decisions, political decisions, having a say in those decisions. BLAIR HODGES: Right. And so you talk about extending the franchise to young people, like at least local elections or school boards. And I don't find you to be an absolutist in the sense of saying, like, here's this fundamental right, they need to just have every, you know—You seem to be willing to negotiate and willing to talk about how this unfolds. ADAM BENFORADO: I think there are many different pathways here. One of the things we're seeing around the world is lowering the voting age to sixteen. Over the last several decades we've had more and more countries— BLAIR HODGES: It's been proposed here, hasn't it? Didn't you say someone's proposed it in the US? ADAM BENFORADO: It's been voted on in the House. We are seeing more municipalities, we have a handful now of municipalities where 16-year-olds can vote. But we have a number of countries—and these are like, you know, it's like Austria and Brazil. I mean, these are big countries. BLAIR HODGES: I didn't know any of this until I read your book. I don't understand how I missed it. I listen to NPR. I'm an avid news reader. I don't know how I missed it. ADAM BENFORADO: It's a really interesting phenomenon. And I think what we've seen is all the horrors, the fears of like, this is going to destroy society, don't happen. And I think what we will see, in my opinion, as we extend this right, we're gonna see a lot more engagement. And I think this, in some ways, a solution out of some of the gridlock. I think bringing in new voices and new voters is a great way to actually move forward on some of these intractable problems we have. I think young people can actually help us move away from this period of political polarization, in part because I think young people are more changeable and are less doctrinaire on a lot of these issues. I interviewed this young man who, because of a loophole in the law, ran for governor in Kansas. And what I think was just fascinating about talking to him was, he was running as a Republican. But one of the issues where he was just different was gun control. And that's because he was like, “Hey, I go to a public school. And this is something I'm really worried about, school shootings.” BLAIR HODGES: And he's been through drills. Getting under his desk and stuff. ADAM BENFORADO: He's like, “I'm in favor of sensible gun control.” One of the people who interviewed him on TV was like, well, that doesn't align with the party. And he was like, “Yeah, I'm proud of that.” Old people running for office on the Republican platform would never say that. He would say that because he actually believes it. And I think that's on the liberal side, too. I think there are issues where some young new Democrats may not toe the party line on something. And you know what? I personally am comfortable with that. I think we need to break out. BLAIR HODGES: I think that's why it won't happen, though. [laughs] Because the people that get to make the decision about letting it happen are gonna do the calculus of, will this help me politically, yes or no? And that's the question they'll ask in order to make it legal. ADAM BENFORADO: I think young people have got to stop asking and start demanding. I wrote a piece in Rolling Stone a couple of weeks ago, where I said, it was after the latest gun shooting, and I was like, you know, it's great. The March for Lives folks, and all these folks out being politically active. But my argument is: stop marching to try to get adults to act on gun control or act on climate change and get out there marching for the right to vote. The adults are not going to save you. You need to exercise that protest power to demand power. Because until you have power, those in power are not going to listen to you. And so, again, I think this is something—I'm optimistic. I think this is something where we're going to see a lot of changes in my lifetime. This is one of the areas I'm most excited about is lowering the voting age. BLAIR HODGES: Well, you have my hope. And, you know, I'd love to see it. But time will tell. ADAM BENFORADO: We can talk more on the show in twenty years. [laughter]   ON THE CUSP OF ADULTHOOD: THE RIGHT TO START FRESH (58:36)   BLAIR HODGES:  Wow. Cool. All right. We're talking with Adam Benforado about the book, A Minor Revolution: How Prioritizing Kids Benefits Us All. And Adam also mentioned the book Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice. That's also a great one. Adam is a professor of law at the Drexel University Klein School of Law. All right, let's talk about on the cusp of adulthood, this is “The Right to Start Fresh.” This chapter has a lot to say about how economic conditions are harder for younger folks today than they were even just a few decades ago. People are economically less well-off right now. The economy is looking harder, wages are stagnating, inflation is happening, college debt is ballooning. But back in the 50s, or 60s, there might be a guy who could marry his partner and be the sole breadwinner and have kids and buy a house really early and do all these things. These opportunities aren't on the table anymore. So this chapter talks about trying to get younger people off on the right foot at this cusp of adulthood when it comes to job choice, when it comes to mobility, when it comes to inheritance. ADAM BENFORADO: I think this really focuses on the popular perception that childhood maybe is tough because you belong to someone else, but once you become an adult suddenly the shackles are off, and you're free. The world is your oyster, and especially in America, you are the freest of the free. BLAIR HODGES: You've got bootstraps, you can pull ‘em. ADAM BENFORADO: Yep. Live where you want, control your destiny, do what you want, marry who you want. And what I look at is all of the ways we actually have locked young people in. We've already determined the trajectory of their life before they even get to that. And so I look at the ways how we capitalize, or fail to capitalize, people's professional development. We could make a decision as a society that, hey, you're a future worker in the United States of America and so we will pay for your training and your education until you are finished and you're ready to work. That's the bargain that we make. But instead, we say, no, no, no, no, you who have no money will self-finance your education, to the tune of $100,000, $150,000 and you will pay that off for the rest of your life. Maybe actually, you'll do it by joining the military and paying it off that way. But somehow, you're gonna start life in the red. And actually, I had this moment, I think I cut it out of the book, but it was actually right before I went to law school. I finished undergrad, I got into law school, and I wasn't quite ready to go and I took a deferment for a year and I went over—my then girlfriend, her parents had bought this 16th century farmhouse outside of London. And I was like, “I'm gonna go and kind of work renovating this house.” And there were some professional builders who were also doing things that year. And I remember being out and I was cleaning off bricks to fix up this like rental with this guy. And we started talking. It's like, hey, so you're going to law school? Oh, you're going to Harvard? And he was like, “So how much is that going to cost?” And I was like, “I don't even really know. I think it's like, you know, $50,000 or $60,000 a year.” And he suddenly was like, “Adam, you cannot do this. Let me tell you, I'm 50 years old. Like, there's so many things that come up in life. People get sick, you know, you get someone pregnant. You can't start life in the red. That's madness.” Honestly, I had gotten into law school. Everyone up to that moment had just been like, “This is the best thing. Everything's great. Of course, everyone goes into debt.” And that was the only person who was like, this is crazy, what a stupid system, because of the things life throws at you. And the truth is, he was speaking the truth. It is mad to put people down, you know, to have the weight of hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt to start out life. And it's particularly unfair, as I point out to do this, based on sort of the different economic situations people find themselves in. One of the areas I focus on is not simply how we lock people in with that, but also how we lock them in geographically. Because coming out of college, you cannot take that job in San Francisco unless you already have existing family wealth. Why? Think about how much money you need. You need the money for the first and last month's rent and the security deposit. And that means you need like $8,000 starting out. A lot of young people who are from poor families, they can get the job, they went to the good college and can get the job, but they cannot move there. And that's really different, I think from previous generations. It wasn't just a myth, the idea that you move where the opportunity was, that was a reality in America, right? You move where the jobs are. “Go West, young man.” People really did do that. But they cannot do that now. And again, that's bad for America. We need workers where the jobs are. We don't need workers stagnating in areas of the country where there are no jobs. We need them moving out to the Bay Area where the jobs are, that increases our GDP. But they cannot do that, based on the choices, and a lot of those choices are things that seem to have nothing to do with young people. They seem to be things like zoning laws. Like okay, it makes sense that any new construction in the city needs to have parking. Well, what does that do that limits housing for those young people, and that means that they do not move there? And that keeps those houses for those older people, skyrocketing property values. But you think about, you know, some of the rules about licensing. So many jobs now, you know, it's like, farmer, hairdresser, you have to have special licenses. And again, that also prevents— BLAIR HODGES: Which are state-dependent too, right? ADAM BENFORADO: Yes. And geographic mobility, even things like, traditionally, law licenses. What is the main reason we have these state bars, I am very skeptical that it's to protect the public. I think it's to protect the monopoly lawyers have in each of these states to prevent new entrants into the market. And I think that hurts all of us. And so I want to focus on ways we can make young people freer at the start of life. Let's stop with different legal regimes that lock in things for old people and think more about ways we can free up young people, because that's going to be best for us as a country. BLAIR HODGES: You talked about inheritance and dead hand laws when it comes to that as well, the right of older folks to be able to lock in wealth in particular ways. ADAM BENFORADO: So I give this example—I really love art and I'm lucky enough to live really near one of the most amazing art collections in the world, which is housed at the Barnes Foundation in downtown Philadelphia. It has an amazing post-Impressionist collection. And one of the funniest things is, or the amazing thing is, thousands of people now visit every year, and that might never have come to be had the law originally been followed. So this guy Barnes, who made basically trillions of dollars in gonorrhea treatments around the turn of the century and bought up all this art, he stipulated in his will that this collection of art was going to be housed in his house out in Lower Merion. And that, you know, only a certain number of people could visit every week and all these rules. And that's how it would have been for all eternity if he had left enough money to preserve it in that way. But the fact of the matter is, he didn't. He didn't leave enough money. And so to the court system, this amazing collection was moved to downtown Philadelphia. It was placed in this, in my opinion, much better space. And now thousands and thousands more Americans and people around the world get to see this groundbreaking work. I think this is an area where we need to focus more on the benefits to living than the rights of the dead. And this is actually not a new notion. I have this wonderful quote from Thomas Jefferson in the book in which he said the same thing. And he was fighting down in

The DC Circuit Court has ruled against Donald Trump's claim of immunity regarding charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election defeat. The court decided that the former president does not have immunity from these charges, marking a significant step toward a potential criminal trial. The unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit emphasized that the office of the Presidency does not place its former occupants above the law indefinitely. This ruling rejected Trump's claim that he cannot be prosecuted for actions related to his official responsibilities as president, highlighting that any executive immunity that may have protected him from criminal charges while in office "no longer protects him against this prosecution."Trump has vowed to appeal the ruling, arguing through a campaign spokesperson that the ruling "threatens the bedrock of our Republic" by suggesting that a president would be unable to function without complete immunity. The case is paused until at least Monday to give Trump time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling also delves into the implications of Trump's immunity claim, suggesting that it would grant presidents unbounded authority to commit crimes, thus undermining the fundamental check on executive power — the recognition and implementation of election results.This decision follows an argument by Trump's lawyers that former presidents are entitled to sweeping legal protections and cannot be criminally prosecuted for official actions unless first impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate. Trump's attempts to assert this immunity have already delayed the start of his trial, which had been scheduled to begin on March 4 but has now been removed from the court calendar pending a new start date

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- 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 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- 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.

Listen to the second half of Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (December 11, 2023). Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.

Listen to Special Counsel Jack Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari before judgement to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in United States, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump (December 11, 2023). Listen to audio of Supreme Court opinions on What SCOTUS Wrote Us wherever you get your podcasts.