Podcasts about Commerce Clause

Episode 300- Do Not Engage in “Maritime Salvage” Just Yet.  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 11 Gun Lawyer — Episode 300 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun ban, Third Circuit Court, Second Amendment, Judge Friedman, assault firearms, large capacity magazines, Supreme Court decision, July 31 date, mandate, stay of implementation, common use, federal gun laws, interstate commerce, carry permit, socialism. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Speaker 2, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:23 And this is Gun Lawyer. I need to give everyone a warning. Do NOT engage in maritime salvage from boating accidents until given the all clear. Teddy Nappen 00:39 You might find a few bodies in Jersey. Evan Nappen 00:41 Well, the reason for this is, of course, we’re all extremely excited about the Third Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision killing and pronouncing dead the New Jersey 36-year-old ban on so-called “assault firearms” and so-called “large capacity magazines”. (https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/242415p.pdf) I mean, we’ve known it’s a violation of the Second Amendment ever since the day it passed, but finally getting to this day is wonderful. Just a great day for freedom and liberty and shoving it up New Jersey’s butt. It is great. It is great. Evan Nappen 01:26 However, in practical terms, a lot of the key questions that are out there. Are we good to go? Can we buy these guns? Can we buy these mags? What’s the story? What’s the deal? I’m going to explain to you where we’re at with that, and that’s the important thing that I know a lot of you want to know. At the moment, we’ve got to just let the dust settle here because there’s certain formalities and deadlines and procedures that can happen. Yes, we have the win. We have the win. It’s a fantastic win. It’s a decision which was 10 – 5. It was brilliant. We absolutely crushed it. Page – 2 – of 11 Page – 3 – of 11 Evan Nappen 02:07 The decision was written by Judge Freeman, who, by the way, the judge who wrote this magnificent decision was a Biden appointee, and the first female judge of color. That’s right, a woman of color. The first on the Appellate Court and a Biden appointee – who is giving us this fantastic Second Amendment decision, which is restoring freedom and helping to stop oppression of our Second Amendment rights. So, you know, this is important because it’s how it should be. Those that believe in rights, whatever you might think of the bat might be their politics. It’s everybody’s Second Amendment. It’s everybody’s right. And if you’re going to follow the Constitution and you’re going to be a judge that follows the Constitution and does not goes for politics, then this is the right thing to do. So, I take my hat off to Judge Freeman. It is a great decision. Extraordinarily thorough. Evan Nappen 03:27 I understand her background was that in being a public defender as well, and I’m sure that she saw what these laws do to good people and how unfair and unbelievably stupid they are. We now see the results of all the incredible hard work that’s been done over years that got us to this point. So, we’re all just jumping for joy, and it’s really making clear that the so-called assault weapon, assault firearm bans, even across the country, are on their deathbed or are being killed and dying. Even with the U.S. Supreme Court having taken the Viramonti and Grant cases now. We’re going to get a federal Supreme Court decision that’ll come out in June 2027. This New Jersey Appeals Court decision is, of course, going to I’m sure come into play in their decision making there, and it is a great day for us for sure. Evan Nappen 04:37 However, how does it work now that we have that decision? How will it work in practical terms? This is where some patience is necessary. Some important patience is called for. And that’s because you may have heard, and if not, I’m going to mention to you, that there was an email that was sent out to dealers from the State Police Firearms Unit. It went out and it said that that essentially July 31st, July 30-first, they’re going to the this will become effective, meaning the court case effective. It was kind of weirdly written with this date, and it seemed to indicate that July 30-first, everything was going to be free flowing, and we were going to be good to go. But it wasn’t really. It basically put everyone thinking. Okay, July 31 is some kind of key date, and that’s when we’re going to know. Why would they even pick that? Like, what is going on? So let me explain that date and what’s really happening. As a matter of fact, our good friend, John Petrolino, at Bearing Arms, recently had an article that says “NJ AG Backtracks on Date of Gun and Magazine Ban’s Demise”. (https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2026/07/23/nj-ag-backtracks-on-date-gun-magazine-ban-demise-n1233262) Evan Nappen 06:10 The backtracking is as follows. This is what’s going on. That July 31 date, which Bearing Arms and Petrolino got the word from Davenport’s office. Davenport is the Attorney General that is saying. “We have until July 31, 2026 to petition the court for rehearing, and then seven days later on August 7, 2026 is when the decision is effective”. So, that’s where they’re coming from. Are they going to petition for a rehearing now? Just because they petition for a rehearing doesn’t mean that a rehearing is going to get granted, and I frankly think it’s unlikely that it’s going to get granted. Page – 4 – of 11 Evan Nappen 07:08 Now, in addition to this mix, is what’s called the mandate. A good friend and colleague, who was the lead counsel and fought hard on this very case, Dan Schmutter, a great Second Amendment attorney, was speaking to John (Petrolino) and also explained that there’s this mandate. Essentially, what he said is, “The mandate is the actual order . . .” That’s the direction to the lower court to implement the ruling, and that mandate is basically an August 10t date. So, August 10 is going to be a critical date in understanding the practical aspects of when and if these firearms and magazines will again be bought, sold, and possessed in New Jersey. And that’s why we’re putting advice out about not doing any maritime salvage for any boating accidents on recovery until we have an understanding of where we’re at here. Evan Nappen 08:32 Now, there may even be a stay granted, a stay of the implementation of the mandate. That would mean we’d be in a holding pattern until that stay gets lifted. This might, in fact, happen, and then that will ride until we get the (U.S.) Supreme Court rendering its decision. New Jersey also might try to go for (U.S.) Supreme Court review, what we call certiorari, and that may end up bringing it into or making it part of or put on hold with the Supreme Court case pending in Viramontes and Grant. This is all out there in the mix. Evan Nappen 09:15 So, the number one takeaway from all this is – Don’t do anything yet. We have all the reason to be extremely happy, to be joyous, to realize that all our hard work is paying off. But at the moment, don’t take any steps yet, so that you don’t end up in a giant GOFU. And doing something now is the GOFU. That’s this week’s GOFU. This week’s GOFU, even though we normally do it at the end of the show, let me just tell you right now, the GOFU is that. Do NOT do anything different right now. Don’t buy or order magazines. Don’t possess any of the firearms that may fall under the current ban. You may be seeing things online where people are claiming that they’re buying and selling and doing. I wouldn’t be doing that right now. Even though I’m confident in our victory, it still isn’t a done deal. The old “wait till the fat lady sings” deal. Well, it applies here. There’s still the risk. And during that time period, right now, before we have the definitive legal standing, so we can say you have the green light. We’re all good. You’re taking a risk that you don’t want to take. So that is the point. Teddy Nappen 10:48 One of the things in reading the case, Dad, just kind of going through, they outline the full breakdown of using Bruen of how they essentially destroy it with the test, the two-part test. The Second Amendment plain text covers the individual’s conduct, and then clicks to the next one. And also says it must demonstrate the regulations consist of nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They show the combination of this with Wolford as well. Wolford goes into the three subsidiaries where applies, what is people, all members of political community, and then goes into arms. Arms is the game because that was the whole crux was the issue of common use. That was the entire thing that the Left have been trying, the dangerous and unusual. It was clearly outlined in the opinion talking about the idea of common use, both with the AR-15s and assault firearms, but with mags as well. They even highlight that where the I almost read like Scalia, where he used to you know. If you ever read his opinions, he always joked and made like little snide remarks. It was very funny. But with the 24 million AR-15s, this Page – 5 – of 11 is right out of the case, 24 million AR-15s and similar sporting rifles, the classification that can be determined are in common use, lawful purposes, typically common standard. With a 20 to 30-round mag, up to 100 million 30-round mags in the United States, magazines are in circulation. That sets the degree of common use. Evan Nappen 12:38 Let me tell you why that’s so important. Because once common use, you have that, and it actually has a reverse burden from this case. Common use is shown. It’s done. It’s there. We, as those challenging the laws, that burden isn’t on us, and it makes it now so that the State has to demonstrate the Bruen test. So, this is very significant because of how it addresses common use. And, of course, these semi-automatic firearms and their magazines are, it’s undisputable. It’s indisputable that they’re in common use. There’s more AR-15s than there are Ford F-150s out there. So, this is great. And you know the gun rights oppressors realize that their days are numbered, don’t you think, Teddy? Don’t you think they realize that? Teddy Nappen 13:55 Well, not only that, they’re putting out newsletters crying about it. I mean, cut to right now, The Trace. Literally, they just admitted defeat right from The Trace. “New Jersey Just Lost Its Assault Weapon Ban. Here’s Why That Matters for the Rest of the Country.” (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/07/state-assault-weapons-ban-new-jersey/) They admit it. In Delaware. The challenges in Chicago. All the different ones that are currently in play to take out the assault weapon bans. They even go into that it’s been part of. It’s been, they’ve been a synonym, the assault weapons and the gun control debate. Oh, really? It just shows the outlandishness of the debate, really. Evan Nappen 14:39 Yeah. Well, they know it, and this issue for them has been such a magnificent fundraising, pearl clutching, issue for them, and it is going to be bye bye. Across the board on gun laws challenges, they are losing, losing, losing, losing. Teddy Nappen 15:07 The one thing I will say, and I always like reading the dissent. This is the mindset of the Left of how they, and pulling right from the dissent here where they go into it. The rights secured by our founders in the Second Amendment is not unlimited. They always cite that to Heller. It has never been understood that the guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms, to carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever, or for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment allows states to ban certain types of firearms. I don’t remember that in the Second Amendment. I don’t remember those words. Evan Nappen 15:50 Well, here’s a funny little thought that occurred to me about this. Once the dust settles, and ARs and mags and semi-auto rifles and all the, you know, intrinsically evil guns that the oppressors hate. Once they’re all good to go in New Jersey, the definition of assault firearm. That term, assault firearm. That definition is still found in New Jersey law. It’s just that the ban is found to be unconstitutional. The ban, right? The prohibition. But the definition of that term is still in law. That’s found under firearm definitions. It’s found there. The ban itself is found in a different section. That’s under N.J.S. 2C:58-5.(f). It’s a Page – 6 – of 11 different section. That’s where it’s banned. It’s made a crime of the second degree to possess any of these guns without a permit to carry an assault firearm, or it having been registered or rendered inoperable. Right there in the statute. If you don’t have any of those exceptions, then you are a violator. If you violate it, if you’re convicted, you’re looking at up to 10 years in State Prison, with a minimum mandatory three and a half years. It’s draconian and insane. Evan Nappen 17:28 So, the law, the law itself, that is the ban. That’s the 39-5 law. That’s where the ban is. The definition is in 39-1. However. However, what’s very interesting is New Jersey has, under 58-5. That’s N.J.S. 2C:58-5. They have the license to carry and possess an assault firearm. Now that license to carry an assault firearm mandated two things in order to get it. One is that you first have a permit to carry a handgun, and of course, when that law was put in place, you know, there were less than 600 citizens that even had permits to carry a handgun. Now, there’s 100,000 approximately or more that have a permit to carry a handgun. So, that one has already been met. Evan Nappen 18:33 Then the other thing you had to show was that somehow it was in the public interest for you to have this. However, that standard, those standards, even the standard for carry of justifiable need, the standards have been eviscerated by Bruen. You can’t have those standards. You can’t have those standards on a carry. So, what is left in place, my friends, is an assault firearm carry license. Let that sink in. So, in other words, not only by the definition that still exists are these guns there as a list, but New Jersey has a carry permit waiting for you to obtain, so that you can carry those guns. They can no longer ban them, but they have a license to carry them that you can get. And not only will you be able to get it, you’ll be able to get it and have the guns. Because you can’t ban the guns. So, now, their carry permit that they put in to somehow work as an impossible to get exemption can now be turned against them, and can be used so that we can even get licenses to carry the list of guns that they so radically expanded to the features of the ’97 guidelines and anything substantially identical in the list of 67 guns, etc. So, their laws are going to come back, as they are, and bite them in the ass, as it should be. Keep that in mind. Teddy Nappen 20:21 It’ll be really, it would be really funny, Dad. If we somehow could interview Josh Sugarman. Just to ask him, like his literally the thing, the term that he used is now going to codify as the de facto defense to allow people to have and possess the firearms. Evan Nappen 20:39 And not just possess, but to be able to carry. Because New Jersey has a so-called assault firearm carry license. The definition of assault firearm is one statute, and the carry license is another. What the decision is invalidating is the ban, is the ban, and New Jersey has a vehicle in place already in law to apply to carry them. So, there you go. Another little tidbit to consider. Evan Nappen 21:13 And I’ll tell you something else, Teddy. I have a really important case to talk about that may even be more significant, if you can believe it. More significant than this entire battle over assault firearms. Page – 7 – of 11 Because this issue may completely wipe out the key foundation of federal gun laws. I’m gonna tell you about it in a moment. But first I want to tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. Where we get our certifications, where we get our training, and where we love to enjoy our range time. Now WeShoot, as many of you know, has a fantastic pro shop. There are such a great bunch of folks, and they have many different programs, training, and offerings. Evan Nappen 22:12 One of the things they’re offering right now that I want to talk about, that I think is really, really great is they’re offering New Jersey carry certification, CCARE, but specifically they’re offering a course for seniors. For seniors. They have a very welcoming, senior-friendly program designed to make the process simple, comfortable, and easy to understand. With WeShoot’s extremely experienced instructors, they’re able to provide a safe and supportive and a pressure-free environment where you can build your confidence, improve your skills, and gain the knowledge necessary so you can carry responsibly. This course is really a great idea, and it is something that if you are a senior and you are looking to be able to protect yourself, because that is our right, and of course, as a senior, you know you’re not as physically capable as you used to be. Evan Nappen 23:30 This course has basic firearm safety as a component. There’s safe handling and loading, unloading, and storage techniques. They do easy to understand instruction in use of force, how to do holster safely, safety with holsters, and how to properly draw. Then you do the live fire qualification. All this is step-by-step guidance, including through the New Jersey permit application process. So, this is a great service that is being offered by WeShoot. If you or anyone you know is a senior and they want to be able to get their permit to carry, here’s a great opportunity to be introduced and learn properly, correctly, and get the credentials that you need to do it from We Shoot. Check out weshootusa.com. Their beautiful website with fantastic photography. And don’t miss the WeShoot girls when you go on their website. You’ll love it. WeShoot is the place. They’re right there, conveniently located in central Jersey. Conveniently, right off the Parkway there. Check it out. Evan Nappen 24:49 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you have your copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of Jersey Gun Law. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It will guide you through the insane matrix of New Jersey gun laws, and it is something that I’m looking forward to seeing be made smaller, being made a smaller volume. That’d be nice as we keep chopping away the gun laws. But New Jersey still has many of these laws to go, and you need to make sure that you don’t become a GOFU. So, go to evannappen.com, evannappen.com, and get your book today. Evan Nappen 25:37 Now, Teddy, there is a really important development taking place in the Fifth Circuit, and it’s all because of Saint Thomas. That is what we call Justice (Clarence) Thomas, one of the greatest judges on the Supreme Court, of course. He, interestingly, laid out a challenge. He laid out a challenge in the recent Supreme Court decision in (United States v.) Hemani. In Hemani, Justice Thomas said, “The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to ‘regulate or ban possession of any item that has Page – 8 – of 11 ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines'”. Then Thomas wrote. “Otherwise, federal commerce authority becomes “a general police power of the sort retained by the States.” Evan Nappen 26:58 Now that is a fascinating gauntlet thrown down by Judge Thomas, and it has now been picked up by the Fifth Circuit. And a great article on this by Duncan Johnson from Ammoland. The article is: “Fifth Circuit Takes Justice Thomas Up on Challenge to Federal Gun-Control Power”. (https://www.ammoland.com/2026/07/fifth-circuit-squire-922g-federal-gun-ban/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=1fc1371d30-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-1fc1371d30-21268623) And yes, it does. Evan Nappen 27:22 Because what Thomas is doing there is going at the federal power of interstate commerce. Now, let me tell you, folks. There’s only certain powers that the federal government has, and all the other powers out there are reserved to the states. So, what are the powers of the federal government? Well, there’s three primary powers that the federal governments have. And if the laws are not founded within those powers, if the powers aren’t there, then there’s no jurisdiction for the law that the Government has passed. So, the key federal powers are the power of taxation. That’s one power. The military power. And the power of interstate commerce. Those are the powers in the Constitution given to the federal Government. All the other powers go to the states. Evan Nappen 28:24 So, you see that every federal law, every federal law, has to be based on one of those three powers. Otherwise, there’s no jurisdiction for the law. So, originally, way back, the key power that was used by the federal government were two: military and the power of taxation. And you see, the power of taxation that was the first power used to pass a national gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA is based on the power of taxation. That’s why you get a tax stamp. That’s why ATF and all were originally part of Treasury. It’s all based on the Government’s power of taxation. And with the Big Beautiful Bill, the tax was made zero. So, now, in the big beautiful lawsuit, the argument is: if you’re not collecting a tax, then your jurisdiction for this, your power of taxation, doesn’t exist anymore. The law is no longer valid because it’s no longer a tax, and therefore no jurisdiction. Evan Nappen 29:44 Well, that third power, interstate commerce, that’s where you see the greatest amount of federal government abuse and overreach that ever existed. You can trace that back to the Wickard versus Filburn case. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) This case had to do with a farmer growing his own food during FDR’s administration. The farmer was growing his own food for himself and for his own livestock. He didn’t sell a grain of it anywhere. And the government said, “You can’t do that. We regulate what farmers can and can’t grow.” And the farmer said, “Hey, man, this is my farm. It’s for me. It’s not for anyone else. I have a right to do it. And the court said, “Oh, well, the fact that you grow your own and don’t sell it or distribute it affects interstate commerce. Affects it. And man, that opened the door. Because then anything that affects interstate commerce, anything that has traveled in interstate commerce, anything. Broad, broad, broad. This explosion in federal power. Page – 9 – of 11 Evan Nappen 31:00 Thomas, obviously and correctly, sees that this is nuts, and wants to pull it back. And now we have a case in the Fifth Circuit, “United States versus Squire”. Again, en banc, full court, where there was a total remand back, in which the consideration is now going to be a challenge as to whether interstate commerce, whether that power, can affect simply, as in Squire’s case, which involved a felon. A convicted felon, a bad guy. Someone who, you know, is not a nice person, as our president would say. Not a nice person. However, the gun that was found in, I think it was Louisiana, the gun that was found at this guy’s place was not used in a crime. Was not used in a murder. You know, was not the element was not evidence of any offense of that. Evan Nappen 32:14 But he was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The question is, is a gun that merely at some point had traveled through interstate commerce, but was no longer, you know, in interstate commerce at all. It was no longer. Just in this guy’s place, sitting in a state in in Louisiana. Does the federal government’s power of interstate commerce still apply to that, so that they can enforce a federal gun law stopping felons from possessing a gun, or is that an overreach? And this case, my friends, has the potential to remove the very foundation of federal gun laws based on interstate commerce. It is extremely, extremely important. Even the dissent recognizes that this is the case. As a matter of fact, the dissent in the Squire’s case said the court has “welcomed the possibility of finding that Congress’s Commerce Clause authority cannot support 922(g).” That’s the felon in possession prohibition. “Such a decision”, he (Judge Stephen Higginson) said, “would have massive import for federal law.” That’s right. You’re damn right it will. You’re damn right it will. And that’s what they’re afraid of. This is why the Squire case can be absolutely game-changing like no other. So, we will keep a close eye on that. Teddy Nappen 34:14 I would kind of combine that with just, from the political landscape where you see. I don’t know if you saw the Democrat Socialists. They put out that stupid manifesto where they were talking about eliminating the Senate, expanding Congress. They appoint the president. You don’t elect the president. They appoint and just abolishing our system. Evan Nappen 34:37 Oh yeah, they’re basically turning us into a dictatorship, a communist dictatorship. Teddy Nappen 34:44 I feel like that would be the ultimate check on their power. If we could really, really, truly curtail the commerce clause to not allow that much power. Evan Nappen 34:56 Oh yeah, we need to. Yeah, this is all about pulling back the federal government in its overreach. And yet something like national reciprocity, where we’re dealing with a Constitutional right and actually traveling interstate. Well, now we do have interstate commerce going on. We have crossing state lines. We have something that is so plainly a federal issue that falls under it. Whereas, when you start making an inanimate object that at some point just crossed the state line and ends up in somebody’s home. Page – 10 – of 11 They’re not traveling with it. They’re not moving with it. They’re just saying, “Hey, you know, even though it was purchased or acquired in Louisiana, but at some point it had to get to a dealer, you know, and made it to the. I mean, this is so far down the line of having any connection to it. Evan Nappen 35:55 And as Thomas points out, it basically removes the state police power, which is a power that should be reserved to the state. So, this is going to be a fascinating argument to follow, and the threat of communism through the Democrat Socialists. I mean, you know, look at what we’re looking at today, Teddy. When was the last time we saw that, you know, Democrat Socialists? You know, they want national socialism, and they combine it with Jew hate. Gee, those folks used to walk funny. I think, right? Remember them? That’s what they’re basically mirroring right now in America. Teddy Nappen 35:55 Well, it goes back to, Dad, you gotta look at the two biggest propagandist industries. You had higher education, which you know that’s, thank God Donald Trump cracked down on that hard. Where now they’re no longer be going to give out loans to. So you have to get a bat. You can get a bachelor degree in feminist basket weaving, and that’ll cut out a lot. Evan Nappen 35:55 Right, that’s a great move, too. You’re right. Teddy Nappen 35:58 And number two is Hollywood and entertainment, where they also push the socialist movement. That I think, particularly with AI and other and independent projects, are rising above and breaking the stranglehold of Hollywood. At the point now, they’re trying to fund Jersey, where Netflix is building, and you got Paramount and the others are funding it. Trying to turn into the New East Hollywood. But the main thing is McCarthy wasn’t wrong. He went overzealous, yes, but just the levels of it. There were communists in our in the in our works of the government, and here is the fruits of their labor. Evan Nappen 35:58 Well, not only that, you know, during McCarthy’s day, they tried to stay hidden. Now, they’re open about it. They’re open. Teddy Nappen 36:37 They’re proud of it. They’re bragging. They’re proud of it. Teddy Nappen 37:54 They’re wearing it. They’re bragging about it. And this is a complete antithesis to what America is all about, and nowhere ever has communism worked. Look, you know, when that wall came down in Germany, where do you think they wanted to go? You know, you don’t see people escaping. “Escaping” to communism. It’s the reverse. And once you get communism, once you elect it in, you end up having to shoot your way out. So, you know, I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Americans are that foolish. But here’s the problem. The majority of Democrats are because statistically they’re apparently in favor of socialism, which is just, you know, a euphemistic label for communism. Page – 11 – of 11 Teddy Nappen 38:54 Here’s the issue, though, Dad. It’s my generation, the next, where I think the number was like 58% are seen in favor of socialism. That’s that generation. So, you this time period will be fine. But the next generation, that’ll be where like it’s something. This is where we need to do heavy, heavy arms of propaganda. And look, the easiest way to dispel this argument – name me one country where socialism works. Tell me that. They immediately try to say the Nordic country, and then I say, okay. First of all, here’s a deal for you. We’ll completely deregulate oil, just like the Nordic countries. Our immigration policy is about around 3% and reduce the migrant population to about the size of any Nordic country. And then finally to end it all, make sure people have healthy, maintain themselves healthily, and actually watch what they’re actually eating and going into developing healthier habits, like a lot of the Nordic countries. Then get back to me on socialism. Other than that, none of that works. We are a heavily diverse nation. We have a lot of unhealthy issues. So, when I hear it, it’s just B.S., every single time. There is no. They move the goalposts and say there’s never been any true. It hasn’t worked yet because it’s not. It hasn’t been the right version. Evan Nappen 40:18 Yeah, right. Well, I don’t want to be part of that experiment. Thank you. Okay, no thanks. No, thank you. I’ll stick with our Founding Fathers. I’ll stick with the incredible quality of life that capitalism has given us. And there’s a reason why so many people want to come here. There’s a really good reason for it, and it ain’t communism. That’s for sure. Hey, the other thing. This. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 40:43 No, I was gonna say. Here’s the other one. Name me once did communism ever allow for someone to take a loan to get a business started? Name me one faction of that, where someone who came from essentially the small folk being able to rise up and become millionaires and running their own businesses. Yeah, exactly. Evan Nappen 41:07 Maybe recently you heard, I just heard President Trump talking about it, and he summed it up pretty well. He said, “Communism is shit.” That’s exactly what the President said, and then he goes. His wife gets upset when he uses that word, and Reverend Falwell even wrote him once and said to him, you know, we’d prefer if he would try not to use profanity. And then Trump said he told him, the problem is that’s the word that perfectly describes communism. So, I guess if there’s any time to use the word, that’s the time to use the word. So, there you go. Evan Nappen 41:49 Hey, this is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 42:03 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E300_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

OA1281 - As we wait on the final vote tally for Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche, we take a look at written responses which he recently provided into the record to answer a wide range of Senate questions the day after his hearing concluded. We also take a closer look at how the 5th Circuit is trying to make a recent Clarence Thomas concurrence into law, and how Thomas's retrograde reading of the Constitution's Commerce Clause could end federal firearms charges and potentially take one of the pillars of the entire federal criminal punishment system along with them. Finally in today's footnote: AI in the courtroom hits an unbelievable new low. “Questions for the Record” for Todd Blanche issued after his confirmation hearing, with Blanche's responses (7/17/2026) U.S. v. Hemani (6/18/2026) En banc order from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in USA v. Squire (2026) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:34]Federal Time Control Is Based on the Commerce Clause — the Same Justification Used for the Drug WarThey couldn't prohibit alcohol without a constitutional amendment but wave the commerce clause at everything else; the 10th Amendment was put there to close that loophole.────────────────────────────────────────[00:14:18]Gas Prices Back Above Four Dollars — White House Claims They'll Plummet Once Iran Is DegradedThey said the same thing months ago about Iran having no missiles left; Maria Bartiromo is still bewildered attacks keep happening after Trump declared victory.────────────────────────────────────────[00:19:29]CIA Director Woolsey Laughs on Fox About Rigging Foreign Elections — He Also Played the President in Dark WinterHe admits the CIA rigs elections "for a good cause"; he's the same man who played Trump's role in the pandemic rehearsal two decades before COVID.────────────────────────────────────────[00:43:44]CDC Paid Pfizer $1.2 Billion for More mRNA Shots — the Same Amount Trump Wants for His Entire AI Manhattan Project$600M per year; more goes to pediatric doses than adult; Knight: the same people targeting children with everything else have made kids the primary vaccine target.────────────────────────────────────────[00:57:30]Tamoxifen for Breast Cancer Can Cause Uterine Cancer — Fluoroquinolones Can Cause Permanent Nerve DamageNeither pharmacists nor physicians warn patients; when Lance was damaged by fluoroquinolones, a doctor in their Bible study didn't even know it carried a black box label.────────────────────────────────────────[01:20:47]Pentagon Lied — US Military Casualties in the Iran War Have Risen to Nearly 100Three earlier attacks were never disclosed; Iran's mid-flight speed-changing missiles defeat trajectory-based defense systems; Iran blinded the billion-dollar radar array first.────────────────────────────────────────[01:25:26]Israel Approved a Settlement That Would Destroy 11,000 Predominantly Christian Homes Near BethlehemThe mayor says Christians get under 50 liters of water daily while settlers get over 400; 80% of their land has been taken; he needs permission to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.────────────────────────────────────────[01:38:43]Barry Goldwater in the 1970s: "When Israel Gives a Command, Congress Jumps" — He Called for Cutting All AidOn a Buchanan firing-line segment, every participant agreed Israel was running America; Goldwater said cut the $3B if necessary.────────────────────────────────────────[01:51:37]Houthis Now Threatening a Maritime Embargo on Saudi Arabia — the Last Relief Valve for Global Oil MarketsSaudis redirected millions of barrels through a Red Sea pipeline to bypass Hormuz; blocking it would compound the disruption; two more tankers exploded this week.────────────────────────────────────────[01:57:45]Flock Camera Network Expanded Nationwide Through Secret NDAs With Town CouncilsErin Brockovich found tech companies placed city council members under non-disclosure agreements across the country; residents woke up to surveillance construction with no warning and no vote. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:34]Federal Time Control Is Based on the Commerce Clause — the Same Justification Used for the Drug WarThey couldn't prohibit alcohol without a constitutional amendment but wave the commerce clause at everything else; the 10th Amendment was put there to close that loophole.────────────────────────────────────────[00:14:18]Gas Prices Back Above Four Dollars — White House Claims They'll Plummet Once Iran Is DegradedThey said the same thing months ago about Iran having no missiles left; Maria Bartiromo is still bewildered attacks keep happening after Trump declared victory.────────────────────────────────────────[00:19:29]CIA Director Woolsey Laughs on Fox About Rigging Foreign Elections — He Also Played the President in Dark WinterHe admits the CIA rigs elections "for a good cause"; he's the same man who played Trump's role in the pandemic rehearsal two decades before COVID.────────────────────────────────────────[00:43:44]CDC Paid Pfizer $1.2 Billion for More mRNA Shots — the Same Amount Trump Wants for His Entire AI Manhattan Project$600M per year; more goes to pediatric doses than adult; Knight: the same people targeting children with everything else have made kids the primary vaccine target.────────────────────────────────────────[00:57:30]Tamoxifen for Breast Cancer Can Cause Uterine Cancer — Fluoroquinolones Can Cause Permanent Nerve DamageNeither pharmacists nor physicians warn patients; when Lance was damaged by fluoroquinolones, a doctor in their Bible study didn't even know it carried a black box label.────────────────────────────────────────[01:20:47]Pentagon Lied — US Military Casualties in the Iran War Have Risen to Nearly 100Three earlier attacks were never disclosed; Iran's mid-flight speed-changing missiles defeat trajectory-based defense systems; Iran blinded the billion-dollar radar array first.────────────────────────────────────────[01:25:26]Israel Approved a Settlement That Would Destroy 11,000 Predominantly Christian Homes Near BethlehemThe mayor says Christians get under 50 liters of water daily while settlers get over 400; 80% of their land has been taken; he needs permission to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.────────────────────────────────────────[01:38:43]Barry Goldwater in the 1970s: "When Israel Gives a Command, Congress Jumps" — He Called for Cutting All AidOn a Buchanan firing-line segment, every participant agreed Israel was running America; Goldwater said cut the $3B if necessary.────────────────────────────────────────[01:51:37]Houthis Now Threatening a Maritime Embargo on Saudi Arabia — the Last Relief Valve for Global Oil MarketsSaudis redirected millions of barrels through a Red Sea pipeline to bypass Hormuz; blocking it would compound the disruption; two more tankers exploded this week.────────────────────────────────────────[01:57:45]Flock Camera Network Expanded Nationwide Through Secret NDAs With Town CouncilsErin Brockovich found tech companies placed city council members under non-disclosure agreements across the country; residents woke up to surveillance construction with no warning and no vote. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

The US Constitution is more than two centuries old. For most of that time, its purpose has been to maintain representative government and the peaceful transfer of power. That's started to break down in recent years. Politicians try to win elections by gerrymandering voters, rather than convincing them. More and more power has been consolidated in the executive branch, bypassing traditional checks and balances. Melissa Murray joins host Alex Lovit to talk about the Supreme Court's role in this democratic decline and how the Constitution can be a roadmap to reverse it. Melissa Murray is the Frederick I. and Grace Stokes Professor of Law and the faculty director of the Birnbaum Women's Leadership Center at New York University. She cohosts the popular Supreme Court podcast, Strict Scrutiny. She has written several books, most recently The U.S. Constitution: A Comprehensive and Annotated Guide for the Modern Reader. https://crooked.com/podcast-series/strict-scrutiny/ https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-U-S-Constitution/Melissa-Murray/9781668221938 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

»

Justice Thomas's Hēmāni concurrence may signal the next major Second Amendment battle. Mark Walters explains 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), prohibited persons, the Commerce Clause, and what every gun owner needs to know about the future of federal firearms law.

Episode 295-Bang and Bong… You just got Both Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 295 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court ruling, Second Amendment, marijuana prohibition, gun rights, NRA, ACLU, Justice Thomas, Commerce Clause, firearm regulation, self-defense, Bruen framework, gun violence, international gun laws, warning shots, New Jersey gun law. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:21 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, just now we just got word of the Supreme Court handing down the ruling in the Hemani case, and this is really quite a startling win. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf) Not necessarily because it was a win, but because it was a unanimous win! What we have is the U.S. Supreme Court in a nine to zero opinion essentially determining the unconstitutionality of marijuana creating a gun prohibitor under federal law. So, for these years you’ve had issues, and we’ve talked about it on the show, where folks that had even a medical marijuana weed card, or they used, or they had any kind of history of prior possession/conviction for misdemeanor marijuana. All that has caused just a lot of folks to not be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights. In the past, we actually coined the term from the show, “Bang or Bong, you can’t have both”. Because of how they, they being the Government, how the Government was interpreting this. To the degree where federal dealers were issued memoranda from ATF telling them that they could not sell to these folks that admitted to using all this regarding marijuana and laid out this as enforceable prohibition. Evan Nappen 02:15 And by the way, this is also the thing that Hunter Biden was prosecuted for. Hunter Biden’s gun case is essentially this issue as well. So, we’re happy to say, and not necessarily for any reason because of Hunter Biden, but because it is a win for the Second Amendment. To see a unanimous decision. Let that sink in, folks. Every judge on the Supreme Court agreeing with an enforcement of the Second Amendment. Just that alone, regardless of the issue, is really great to see. Just that. Here there were interesting bed fellows, as they say. We had the lawsuit challenge, etc., the legal action, joined the NRA and the ACLU on the same side. So, we had both the NRA and the ACLU on the same side arguing for this. To not prohibit individuals from Second Amendment rights. So, this is very significant, and it’s interesting. Page – 2 – of 12 Evan Nappen 03:39 Judge Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court. In the facts of this case, Hemani used marijuana a few times a week, and because of that the Government claimed that he’s automatically banned from possessing a firearm under federal law. And because Hemani admitted that he owns a gun, despite the ban, the Government was now seeking to prosecute him. To imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life. This case here posed that question, whether the Government’s prosecution of Hemani is consistent with the Second Amendment. A unanimous decision found that it was not consistent with the Second Amendment. So, Teddy, what do you think about this decision? Teddy Nappen 04:40 Well, for me, as soon as this case came out, I had to look. What did Judge Thomas say? Because he’s the funniest of them all. Evan Nappen 04:49 Well, that’s true. Teddy Nappen 04:50 I had to go right to his opinion. And of course, Justice Thomas, being the greatest justice to have ever lived, and the fact that he is an originalist to perfection. Of course, he said we did not go far enough! Particularly, and I love how he writes this. “I agree with the Court that 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join it’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents . . .” It appears to exceed Congressional enumerated power and regulate interstate commerce. He attacks the commerce clause throughout this. He even highlights the fact that the Government, if the firearms possession by the drug user had previously traveled through interstate commerce, the commerce clause does not authorize Congress to regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or cross state lines. He cites Alderman. His dissent is on the denial of certiorari, where this conversion of congressional authority under the commerce clause to a general police power is sort retained by the states. Evan Nappen 06:12 You see, this is really important, Teddy. Because what Judge Thomas is doing there is he’s going beyond. He’s looking at the power grab, the overreach of the power of interstate commerce. And ever since the expansion of that Wickard versus Filburn. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/) Ever since the expansion of that, it basically empowered the Government, the federal Government, to do anything it wants, as long as they can make some tenuous argument that it somehow affects interstate commerce. And I’m really glad to see that he’s out there, at least as a voice trying to pull back that insane power grab that occurred back under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Nappen 06:58 As you’re reading through his opinion, too, he takes a bat directly to the congressional authority. He bashes the commerce clause directly of how. How is it that something travels, like, how does that fall Page – 3 – of 12 under interstate commerce when it’s not traveling between the states? He is going at it hard, outlining each bit case by case, showing the abuse by it. He even highlights how, I love this line, the gun possession statute issues in Lopez is not a regulation of economic activity, but a law to combat “crime and violence”, even at the local level. Literally calls it out. How is this economic activity when you’re just doing this for regulating crime? Evan Nappen 07:48 Oh yeah. Well, you know, in the decision, this is very interesting, they, they being the Court, outline their ruling, and why. And I think you’ll find it very interesting here, where they talk about that Mr. Hemani. He admitted his use of marijuana, and he knowingly possessed the gun in his home, being an “unlawful user of the substance”. And if you look at that, it seems to fit exactly what the law is prohibiting. And what the actual holding of the Supreme Court held that the Government’s prosecution of Hermani under 922 unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. And here in the holding it actually says the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, but they had that in quotes to keep and bear firearms for self-defense. So, there’s even an affirmation of the right to self-defense. They are citing Heller with that. Evan Nappen 09:15 Though, like most individual rights, it has its limits to determine when the Government infringes on the Second Amendment. The court begins by asking whether the amendment’s terms cover the conduct in question. If so, the Constitution presumptively protects it. That’s citing Bruen. To overcome the presumption, the Government bears the burden. The Government bears the burden of showing its regulatory efforts are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is the test, and the burden is on the Government to have to show it. The Government need not point to a historical twin or precise historical precursor that’s from Rahimi, that’s the Rahimi case. Instead, the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition. The government may reason by analogy. This is where the battle comes in, in our fight for our Second Amendment rights Evan Nappen 10:35 Now, it says further, the Government accepts this framework, and they proceeded to argue from it. So, this is very exciting in terms of the test being applied. The court looking at the Government’s argument of traditional habitual drunkards losing their rights, and the court, through the opinion, just absolutely distinguishes between this marijuana ban and historical precedent concerning habitual drunkards. Then they also put into play about the decision being narrow. And here’s where, Teddy, what you just said about Justice Thomas, he wants it to be broad. But the decision itself says it’s narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm. Then it also talks about whether individuals convicted of felonies could be prosecuted. So, they tried to contain it narrowly. But if you step back and just look at the big picture in regards to a nine to zero opinion on a gun rights issue, that to me is probably the most outstanding thing about it. We got the whole Court on board. Page – 4 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 12:21 I will say, if you go to Jackson’s “concurrent opinion”, she doesn’t even talk about the case. She literally spends the entire thing bashing Bruen. I was reading through it, and she literally just spends the entire thing in full. She says I write to emphasize my scrutiny. The court applies to the, we adopted Bruen be his “history and tradition metric”, which more rational way of assessing the Constituent’s regulations. Bruen is unworkable, and it creates such a vulnerability of inconsistent, arbitrary application. Oh, like most gun laws? Evan Nappen 13:01 Yeah. Well, keep in mind the politics here. She’s purposely trying to attack Thomas over Bruen. And yet, what she can’t stand is that she’s ruling in favor of the Second Amendment. But in so doing, it means that Bruen is being empowered here. She’s like the computer on Star Trek. She’s going to explode that it’s now affecting the issue of marijuana, and the ACLU is on this side. Yet, how could she actually use, you know, Thomas’s brilliance here, even though it’s what she believes is the right thing to do, but can’t give credit. So, it’s like, you know, she’s just exploding over it. But she still has to side with the full unanimous majority, and that’s why it is that astounding. Because even a justice like her, who is so blatantly politically and hardly viewed as an educated jurist here by comparison to so many of the others on the Court. This is what you see happen. So, it’s pretty good there. Evan Nappen 15:19 Like applying the Constitution instead of, “It’s a living document”, which it isn’t, and start applying that whole. Teddy Nappen 15:41 Fine, just no, just no, fine, fine. No 19th Amendment, got it. Like it’s so ridiculous. So, they only apply it when they choose to. Evan Nappen 15:53 Hey, but even with all that said. It was still nine to zero, in favor of 2A. So, for that we can be happy to see. And of course, we’re now waiting for Wolford, and that is a “sensitive places” decision, which should also be very interesting on how they rule on “sensitive places”. Teddy Nappen 16:14 Do you remember the commemorative for the Heller? The revolver they did. Evan Nappen 16:19 Yes, I have one. Teddy Nappen 16:21 I want, whoever is the top AR maker, I want them to do a commemorative to the case when we finally get the constitutionality on the assault weapon ban, and finally getting those removed. That would be awesome. Like, just seeing that. Who do you think would be making that? Page – 5 – of 12 Evan Nappen 16:39 Yeah, I’m sure there’ll be all kinds of guns. Well, you know, that’s funny. You know I have that Smith & Wesson when Heller came out. Teddy Nappen 16:47 Yeah. Evan Nappen 16:47 And Smith did a limited run of the 38 J-frame Smith and Wessons, and they are engraved on the side with the Heller decision and scales and all. It’s a pretty cool gun, and they came out with it pretty fast, right after the Heller decision. But I actually got Dick Heller himself, the Heller of the Heller decision, to sign the gun. So, I have a Heller commemorative Smith signed by Heller himself. Teddy Nappen 17:23 Don’t you have one for McDonald too, as well? I could have sworn there was a commemorative for that also. Evan Nappen 17:30 Yeah, yeah. I do, yeah. McDonald. But I also have a very collectible commemorative knife, Teddy. It’s a full kitchen knife, and it’s actually signed by Bobbitt. Remember the Bobbitt case? I have a knife that is signed by John Bobbitt there. And what he wrote on the knife, in addition to his name, he wrote “always sleep on your stomach”. Pretty good. Always sleep on your stomach, you know. Signed by Bobbitt. So, it’s a big kitchen butcher-style knife, a big chef’s knife. It’s definitely a great collectible. Teddy Nappen 18:18 I wanted him to write “Mr. Happy Went Missing” from the Weird Al. Mr. Happy. Evan Nappen 18:33 But he wrote: always sleep on your stomach. Okay, if anyone could give that advice, I guess it’s him. So, yeah, well, getting these things signed. Well, Dick Heller signed the gun, Bobbit signed the knife, and I’m not.. Forget it. I’m not going, not doing it, not doing it. So, hey, by the way, Teddy, where’s our favorite ranger that we shoot at? Come on. Teddy Nappen 19:07 Of course it’s We Shoot, obviously. Evan Nappen 19:09 That’s right, we do. We go there. We have a blast, and so will you. WeShoot is an indoor range right in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s conveniently right off the Parkway. A beautiful facility, top of the line, modern. A great place. Great training, great pro shop, great people. It’s where we got our certifications for our carry, our CCARE certifications, and other training as well. You need to check out WeShoot, WeShoot. It’s at wewhootusa.com. Their website is really great. They have beautiful photographs, and they pride themselves in their photography. Make sure you also check out the WeShoot girls. They always have fantastic firearms that they are displaying. And there are sales and specials and deals. Page – 6 – of 12 WeShoot is just great. So, check out weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. It’s a superb resource, you know. We/ve got to really use and protect our ranges, especially in New Jersey, where it’s so crowded and it’s tough to find really great places to shoot. But WeShoot is there filling an important need in protecting our rights. What good is having a gun if you can’t shoot it, man? So, check out weshoot usa.com. Evan Nappen 20:52 Also, I want to shamelessly promote my book on New Jersey gun law, which, by the way, is called New Jersey Gun Law. You can find it at EvanNappen.com. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all question and answer. It is the guidebook, the key resource to helping you not become a GOFU. I’ve taken great pride in that, and I think you’ll enjoy it, too. Those that have it know its value. It’s designed as your easy-to-use reference to the insanity that is New Jersey gun law. Go to EvanNappen.com. EvanNappen.com. Get your copy today. Hey, Teddy, I know that you have Press Checks, and I think there’s a pretty fascinating Press Check story that you are going to share with us. What is this story? Tell me. Teddy Nappen 21:58 Well, we got our first from. Again, Press Checks are always free. This is from “Not the Bee.com”, Joel Abbott. (https://notthebee.com/article/babe-wake-up-british-tourists-are-starting-to-appreciate-the-second-amendment-?from_social=twitter) So, everyone’s been seeing the World Cup. I don’t typically follow soccer or anything on that, but you see all the Europeans coming in. I love that video of the Japanese tourist who brought trash bags and picked up their trash after their game. Evan Nappen 22:25 They’re very conscientious. That’s very, very good. Teddy Nappen 22:28 I know, as opposed to the Knicks fans who decided to burn down a bus, but whatever. Evan Nappen 22:34 Hey, listen. Mom would approve of the trash bag thing, you know that. Teddy Nappen 22:38 Oh, I know. Evan Nappen 22:40 Even just at our house, if we did that. Teddy Nappen 22:43 And the recycling. Can’t forget about that. Evan Nappen 22:44 That, too. Page – 7 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 22:46 But the one thing that seems to be catching on, because you have all the vloggers and people coming to want to experience America as they’re going to see. They’ve been going to gun ranges and to rent a gun places. Evan Nappen 23:00 I know. Isn’t that great? Teddy Nappen 23:01 They’re appreciating our Second Amendment. Evan Nappen 23:03 It’s actually spreading the understanding to these disarmed, oppressed peoples, and they’re suddenly seeing the light. Particularly, we see the UK folks. They’re like, wait a minute. How did we lose this right? Teddy Nappen 23:20 Yeah. Evan Nappen 23:20 How did this happen? Teddy Nappen 23:22 And it’s very interesting. It’s almost like those videos you always see where it’s the liberals going to the range, and they actually like, oh my right, yeah, you see all these people like, why were they’re waiting for, like, wait, you guys can just do this? They’re always shocked and awe from everything. But one in particular, this was a British guy, Spencer Towering. He does videos. We’ve been totally pacified in the U.K. through the removal of our arms, our right to bear arms. It’s caused a big problem for us. Now our Government is basically turning it into an absolute, tyrannical feminine leadership that is gradually eroding our rights, and there’s really not much we can do about it. Well, there’s one thing you can do. You know, just kind of look to the founding of our nation, and then get some ideas. Or they could look to the risings in Scotland, and try not to, you know, go with, try to not to put the Bonnie Prince on the throne. It didn’t work. Evan Nappen 24:22 You know, the British even went after an IT consultant. Teddy Nappen 24:28 Correct. Evan Nappen 24:29 Because he posed with a gun in the U.S. and posted it on LinkedIn. Page – 8 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 24:34 Yep, just for posing with it. Evan Nappen 24:36 For posint with a shotgun, an 870 shotgun. Teddy Nappen 24:40 Yep. Thirteen weeks of hell he went through for sharing a photo of something that wasn’t even taken in the U.K. This is why. Evan Nappen 24:54 This was pointed out by “Not the Bee”. So, “Not the Bee is a pretty cool aggregate on news sources. And this is. Teddy Nappen 25:06 Frankly, far funnier than the article. Evan Nappen 25:09 “Not the Bee” is real stuff that you can’t believe is actually true when it is. As opposed to the “Babylon Bee”, which is parody. “Not the Bee” has real stories in it that you think should be fake, but they’re not. It’s like unbelievable. But this one here is not as outrageous, to be honest, because this is what makes it so great about having rights, you know, and why we got to protect them. We see what it’s like for the folks that live in countries that they claim to make believe are free when they’re not. I mean, we’re still fighting for freedom here, but I mean to think that, you know, claim England is free. The U.K. is free? That’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 26:00 I’ll point it to you right now. The two you always hyped. I’ve got to highlight this to people all the time. Literally, arresting a woman for thought crime. Evan Nappen 26:09 Right! Teddy Nappen 26:09 Arresting a young girl for fighting off a pedophile with an ax and a knife. Going after her. Proven, by the way, that was another article that came out where he was in fact trying to go after minors. He had two prior accounts. But let’s just say the Labor Party didn’t want to mention that part. And the final bit, and I saw this one. For every officer, they’ve arrested like 20, done 20 arrests for hate speech online, whichever, whatever they make up. Like it’s they’re done. They are so gone. Evan Nappen 26:34 It’s a shame, the formerly Great Britain. But maybe this kind of experience of them seeing America and what it’s about. Not just from a slanted media, but from actually coming here and experiencing America. I mean, just in terms of brisket sandwiches that they’re going crazy for. American food. Page – 9 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 27:11 Even that, like just going into Europe. Anyone ever gone to Europe? You turn on the news, and imagine your only news station was CNN and MSNBC. That’s it. Yeah, that is all they have. They have the state-run everything and news networks. There is no alternative voice. There’s no alternative tech. They ban Rumble and other outlets. So, they can just control the media, and this is what it leads to. Just authoritarian states. Evan Nappen 27:35 It’s crazy. So, I was looking at this, and you also indicated to me about kind of a crazy international story, Teddy, Teddy Nappen 27:56 Yes. Let’s just say, you know, at times like this, you should buy a holster. This was in Brazil, where a female suspect, when she was stopped by the military police from Goaz, carried out a body search. Evan Nappen 28:17 Now, this is in Brazil, right? Teddy Nappen 28:19 In Brazil Evan Nappen 28:19 In Brazil. And this is an actual story that is from a “legitimate” news source, right? What’s the source? Teddy Nappen 28:28 Yeah, it’s right from the Daily Star. (https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/moment-female-suspect-pulls-loaded-37287603) Evan Nappen 28:31 Yeah, okay, and they even have video. They’re showing reports. So, this is actually legit. This is not a parody or a joke? What happened here with the woman? Teddy Nappen 28:42 The officers located the pair, carried out a stop and search. They showed the armed passengers struggling to remove the firearm from inside her “intimate area”. Physically trying to pull out a loaded pistol from her vagina. Evan Nappen 28:58 And Teddy, this is not small. They show the gun, and it’s the actual firearm, folks. This is the gun, and they even name the gun, a Taurus 92. That is essentially the Beretta M9, you know, but made by Taurus, a Taurus 92. Basically that 15 to 17 shot, depending on the size of your mag, and that you don’t live in New Jersey. A full size Taurus 92. Or also our military carry gun until the SIG replaced it of the Beretta M9. That full size nine. She pulled it out. How did she? Ouch! Page – 10 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 29:51 You know, I don’t even know how that happened. I don’t think Taurus and Victoria Secret should have partnered up for the Victoria concealed. Evan Nappen 30:02 And I think they mentioned that it got stuck. It was stuck. Teddy Nappen 30:05 Yes, it was stuck. Evan Nappen 30:07 It was stuck, and I can imagine why it was stuck, considering the size of a Taurus slash Beretta 92. Teddy Nappen 30:15 Yeah. Evan Nappen 30:15 And it was loaded as well. Teddy Nappen 30:18 What she should have done was got some rem oil, and that would have helped solve it. Evan Nappen 30:22 Well, you know, New Jersey has a requirement for your holster to have to cover the trigger guard and the frame and all that. Technically, she might actually have been in compliance if she was under New Jersey gun law, given the requirements for a holster. I don’t know. Teddy Nappen 30:41 Well, it has to cover the majority of the firearm and the trigger. So. Evan Nappen 30:49 I mean, this was pretty crazy. Teddy Nappen 30:53 Yeah, pretty crazy. Evan Nappen 30:54 But it makes sense in Brazil that there would be a Taurus, since they’re made in Brazil. So, those would be a Brazilian gun. Teddy Nappen 30:56 You know, I’ll give Taurus credit for the gorilla ad campaign that they. Page – 11 – of 12 Evan Nappen 31:06 Well, Taurus makes other guns, like the Judge. You know, the Judge, the Raging Bull. She didn’t do a Raging Bull. At least she didn’t do the Raging Bull. I mean, it’s bad enough with the Taurus 92. Teddy Nappen 31:21 It might have been easier with a Public Defender, to be honest. Evan Nappen 31:24 Right. That’s what she’s gonna need now. After putting a Taurus, being caught with a Taurus 92 there carrying, carrying illegally, no less inappropriately. Now, she’s going to need a public defender to defend her possession of a Taurus. Teddy Nappen 31:43 and a gynecologist. Evan Nappen 31:46 Uhuh, maybe she could call the consulate. I don’t know what’s going to happen there. That’s a crazy, crazy story. But hey. You know, just think if she had a North American Arms mini revolver or something, that you know, but a Taurus 92. Oh man. Teddy Nappen 32:05 I love the mindset of like, okay, this is a good idea, right? Just on the impracticality of like, okay, if I’m ever like, you know, the deal goes bad, and I need to draw this quickly. Evan Nappen 32:25 I don’t know what. Yeah, where? And then if she was hiding it up there, why did she surrender to the police when she was hiding it? If that was hidden, I mean, do they? I don’t think. Teddy Nappen 32:39 I think at that point she was just looking for the excuse, because it was probably just had enough. Evan Nappen 32:44 This just has got to go. Here, just take it, take it. Oh boy. Well, Teddy, that is definitely something to consider in the news on carry, carry news, in terms of method. Now, we have the GOFU, which is a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Now, I think this last, the last story might qualify as a GOFU, but we need to bring it down to a little bit more of a commonality of things that often happen, and that we often see. That are mistakes made. Teddy Nappen 33:27 Too many times. Evan Nappen 33:28 Too many times. One of the things we want to really be clear as to a GOFU here is the warning shot. Warning shots are basically mythology. You should not be firing warning shots, because the firing of a Page – 12 – of 12 gun is essentially what’s construed as the use of deadly force. If you’re using deadly force, you have got to be justified in using deadly force. So, we do not in any way recommend the warning shot. In New Jersey, the discharge of the firearm without lawful purpose is an automatic virtual per se felony, as Murphy’s new law has declared it essentially. So, you have the discharge law. Then you have the issues of undercutting your own arguments for use of force. If it was a threat that was justified in using deadly force, why are you firing your firearm without using it to stop the deadly force? Where you feel you can fire it as simply a warning, is it that imminent danger, or is it not that imminent? There’s just so many downsides and negatives to warning shots. Evan Nappen 34:59 Plus where is the round going? There are cases where you hear, “oh, it was a warning shot, and that’s why I hit them. You’re trying to excuse either the bad aim or whatever under some guys, a warning shot, not a good idea. So, make sure you get your training. Make sure you learn the rules on the use of deadly force. It’s critical that you do that. You can really get jammed up if you don’t understand that dynamic. It’s critical, and it is often not intuitive because of how bad these things are shown on television all the time. Television is not a good education source for learning when you can and can’t use deadly force. If we’re talking about made-for-TV dramas and TV shows and movies, and all that, not a good idea to learn your gun law from there. Evan Nappen 36:04 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 36:14 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E295_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageHe told America judges are umpires, not lawmakers. Two decades later, Chief Justice John Roberts is still calling balls and strikes, but sometimes it sounds like he's redrawing the strike zone.We dig into the irony and the real-world consequences of Roberts' “institutionalist” approach, starting with one of the most debated Supreme Court decisions of our time: the Obamacare individual mandate in *NFIB v. Sebelius*. We walk through why conservatives thought the Commerce Clause argument was clean, why Roberts initially seemed to agree, and how the case turned on a single reframe: treating the penalty as a tax under Congress' taxing power. That move didn't just keep a law alive, it reshaped how many people trust the Court.Then we hold that up against Molly Hemingway's portrait of Justice Samuel Alito, a justice known less for smoothing edges and more for saying what he thinks, even when it's uncomfortable. From the Citizens United State of the Union moment to Alito's willingness to let dissents stand on the record, we explore what “courage” looks like on a bench that is always being read through a partisan lens.Finally, we connect the same tension to a live controversy over birthright citizenship in Trump versus Barbara, the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Wong Kim Ark*. When Roberts fires back, “it might be a new world, but it's certainly the same Constitution,” we ask what consistency really demands.Key Points from the Episode:• Roberts' confirmation-hearing metaphor and the legitimacy problem  • How the Roberts Court moves law right while Roberts surprises conservatives  • The Obamacare individual mandate and the “penalty as a tax” reasoning  • Molly Hemingway's portrait of Alito as the road not taken  • Alito's “not true” reaction to Obama after Citizens United  • Trump versus Barbara and the Fourteenth Amendment debate over birthright citizenship  • What “same Constitution” means when the stakes are political  Links

This Day in Legal History: The End of Roosevelt's Hundred DaysOn this day in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt signed three pieces of legislation that closed out what the country has been calling the Hundred Days ever since: the Banking Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the Farm Credit Act, with the Home Owners' Loan Act having been signed three days earlier. The Banking Act of 1933 is the one most lawyers know, because the popular name attached to it — Glass-Steagall — has been doing rhetorical work in financial-regulation debates for ninety-three years.Carter Glass of Virginia and Henry Steagall of Alabama, the Senate Banking chair and the House Banking chair respectively, built the statute around two structural propositions: that commercial banks should be separated from investment banking and the speculative securities business that had helped pull the country into the Great Depression, and that depositors at member banks should be protected by a federal deposit insurance scheme so that a panic at one bank did not become a panic everywhere.The deposit insurance piece became the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The separation piece was the part that got partially repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 and then revisited in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The National Industrial Recovery Act, signed the same day, set up the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration and was meant to coordinate industry-wide codes of fair competition; the Supreme Court struck the centerpiece codes provision down two years later in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States in 1935 on nondelegation and Commerce Clause grounds, an opinion that nearly killed the early New Deal and prompted Roosevelt's court-packing plan two years after that. The Farm Credit Act consolidated and refinanced the agricultural lending system that the Great Depression had taken to the brink.The legal point worth remembering is that this last day of the Hundred Days was, in retrospect, the moment the federal regulatory state of the twentieth century stopped being a collection of post-Civil-War commissions and started being the integrated structure of agencies, deposit-insurance funds, securities oversight, labor regulation, and welfare administration that the country has lived inside ever since. The fact that the Schechter Court was waiting in the wings to strike down the most ambitious piece of that day's work is part of the lesson. The constitutional question of how much economic ordering a Congress and a President can do at once was not answered on June 16, 1933 — it was framed.The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up E.D. v. Noblesville School District, a free-speech challenge brought by the parents of an Indiana high-school student whose school district had refused to let her post flyers for her student-run anti-abortion club on classroom and hallway walls. The student, identified in court papers by initials because she was a minor when the case was filed, had been the founder of Noblesville High School's Students for Life chapter. The flyers she wanted posted featured images of demonstrators holding “Defund Planned Parenthood” signs. Noblesville Schools removed the flyers under a district policy giving administrators content-based authority over student materials displayed on school property, and the parents sued under the First Amendment.The Southern District of Indiana sided with the district in 2024, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed in 2025, both applying Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the 1988 case that lets public schools regulate the content of school-sponsored expressive activities if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. The cert denial leaves Hazelwood intact in the Seventh Circuit and everywhere else.The piece worth flagging is Justice Alito's dissent from denial, joined by Justice Thomas, which urged the Court to grant review and use the case to revisit Hazelwood's framework. The dissent argues that Hazelwood was wrongly decided to the extent that it lets schools draw viewpoint-based lines under the cover of pedagogical-concern review, and that the doctrinal distinction Hazelwood draws between school-sponsored speech and Tinker-style independent student speech has become unworkable in the age of student clubs, distributed school messaging, and post-Mahanoy off-campus speech. Two votes are not five votes. But two votes naming a case as the vehicle they wanted are how the next decade of student-speech cases gets queued up. The Court has now told litigants what kind of vehicle it might be looking for. Expect a steady drumbeat of cert petitions teeing up the Hazelwood revisit over the next several terms.US Supreme Court turns away free speech claim by anti-abortion student | Reuters via Maryland Daily RecordThe Supreme Court also turned away on Monday the National Shooting Sports Foundation's challenge to New York's General Business Law § 898, the public-nuisance statute the New York legislature passed in 2021 to let the state and certain private plaintiffs sue firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers for endangering the public through the marketing and distribution of their products.The challenge was supported by Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger, Beretta, Glock, and Sig Sauer, and went up on appeal from a 2024 Second Circuit decision that held the New York statute is not preempted by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the 2005 federal statute that broadly immunizes the gun industry from civil liability arising from the criminal misuse of firearms.The Second Circuit reasoned that the PLCAA's “predicate exception” — which preserves state-law claims when the firearms industry has violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms — covers a state public-nuisance statute that, by its terms, regulates the sale and marketing of firearms. The cert denial leaves the Second Circuit's reading in place, leaves New York's statute on the books and enforceable, and leaves the industry with a litigation exposure it had hoped to neutralize.The strategic part of the case is going to be the copycat statutes. California, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, and Hawaii have all enacted versions of the New York approach since 2021, and other states have similar bills in committee. Each of those statutes is going to invite its own PLCAA-preemption fight in its own circuit, and the cumulative jurisprudence is going to get built case by case until either Congress amends PLCAA or the Court decides one of these cases is the right vehicle to step in. Today's denial was not that vehicle.SCOTUS Upholds NY Law Allowing Lawsuits Against Gunmakers | The Daily SignalThe third notable cert denial on Monday was the end of the road for Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. in its long-running trade-secret fight with DXC Technology — the successor in interest to Computer Sciences Corporation. TCS had asked the Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision that affirmed a $168 million judgment against it for misappropriating CSC's life-insurance-administration software trade secrets and using them to build TCS's own BaNCS platform, which TCS then used to win a $2.6 billion contract with the insurer Transamerica.The Northern District of Texas verdict, returned in 2022, had been $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitives, and the Fifth Circuit upheld the punitives ratio in 2025 over TCS's BMW v. Gore and State Farm v. Campbell challenge to the proportionality of the punitive award and over its Defend Trade Secrets Act extraterritoriality arguments. The cert petition pressed both points and pressed a circuit split on the standard for proving misappropriation by an independent contractor that had been given access to source code under a nondisclosure agreement, but the Court declined.The practical immediate effect is that TCS will recognize a roughly $70 million one-time exceptional charge in Q1 of its 2027 fiscal year and the total exposure on the matter — combining the affirmed judgment with previously taken provisions — settles in around $220 million. The broader effect is doctrinal stability. The Fifth Circuit's analysis on cross-border trade-secret damages and on the extraterritoriality limits of the DTSA stand. Both questions are going to recur, and the next vehicle that brings them up may catch the Court in a different mood, but for now the law is what the Fifth Circuit said it was.US Supreme Court rejects TCS challenge in $168 million trade secrets case | Business Standard This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

California voters approved Proposition 12 by a decisive 63% margin, establishing minimum space requirements for farm animals and restricting the sale of pork, eggs, and veal produced from animals confined in spaces smaller than those standards. For pork producers, the law effectively prohibits the sale of meat from pigs born to sows housed in gestation crates that fail to meet California’s requirements. State regulators and many pork processors have maintained that California’s pork demand can be supplied under Proposition 12, although compliance costs may contribute to somewhat higher prices—much as California consumers often pay premiums for products produced under stricter standards. Opponents of Proposition 12 vowed to challenge the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2023, however, the Court upheld the measure in a closely divided 5–4 decision.Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch concluded that states have broad authority to regulate products sold within their borders, even when those regulations affect producers in other states. The Court rejected arguments that the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause bars statesfrom adopting non-discriminatory laws simply because they impose compliance costs on a national industry. While the Constitution prohibits economic protectionism, the Court held that it does not prevent voters from restricting products they believe are produced through practices they consider cruel or unethical, provided the law applies equally to in-state and out-of-state businesses.Having failed in the courts, opponents have shifted their efforts to Congress. Language included in proposed Farm Bill legislation—often referred to by supporters as the “Save Our Bacon” provision—would limit states’ ability to impose production standards on agricultural products sold within their borders. Critics argue that the provision would effectively overturn Proposition 12 and similar state laws. The debate has attracted national attention. In a New York Times opinion essay titled “America’s Livestock Gulag,” columnist Nicholas Kristof argued that “the pork industry istrying to pull a fast one with this year’s farm bill,” citing polling that found strong public opposition to housing pregnant sows in gestation crates. A common misconception is that gestation crates are necessary to prevent sows from crushing piglets. That concern is generally addressed through the use of farrowing crates, which are used for a relatively short period around birth and weaning. Gestation crates, by contrast, typically confine pregnant sows in narrow metal enclosures for their 114- day pregnancy. Many pork producers in Europe have adapted to alternative housing systemsfollowing restrictions or bans on gestation crates. The question now moves from the courtroom to Capitol Hill: Should Congress override the will of voters and the Supreme Court’s ruling through the Farm Bill, or should states retain the authority to establish animal welfare standards for products sold within their borders?For listeners seeking a broader and balanced discussion of pig housing systems, we also recommend our earlier conversation with Dr. Pete Lammers of the University of Wisconsin–Platteville, who explores the practical, economic, and animal welfare dimensions of providing space for pigs.

This Day in Legal History: Black Monday and the End of the NIRAOn May 27, 1935 — a day quickly dubbed “Black Monday” by the press — the United States Supreme Court delivered three unanimous decisions that gutted central pieces of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in a single morning. The most consequential was A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, in which the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act. The case grew out of the prosecution of a Brooklyn kosher poultry slaughterhouse for violating the “Live Poultry Code,” one of the hundreds of industry codes drafted by trade groups and given the force of federal law by the National Recovery Administration. The Court held that the NIRA's code-making scheme was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to private actors and the executive, and that the federal government's Commerce Clause authority did not reach the intrastate sale of poultry to local butchers. Justice Cardozo, concurring, famously described the statute as “delegation running riot.”The same day, in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Court cabined the President's power to remove members of independent regulatory commissions, a holding that would shape the constitutional status of agencies like the FTC, SEC, and FCC for the next ninety years. And in Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, the Court invalidated the Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act as an uncompensated taking from secured creditors. Roosevelt was, by all accounts, furious — and Black Monday became the proximate cause of his 1937 court-packing plan, which failed in Congress but is generally credited with prompting the “switch in time” that produced the more deferential commerce-clause and administrative-law jurisprudence of Jones & Laughlin Steel and the decades that followed. The nondelegation doctrine the Court announced in Schechter has, famously, not been used to strike down a federal statute since — though it has been the subject of growing interest from the current Court's conservative majority, which makes the ninety-first anniversary of Black Monday more than just a historical footnote.Former President Joe Biden has sued the Department of Justice to block the release of audio recordings and transcripts from his interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, the prosecutor who investigated Biden's handling of classified documents and declined to bring charges. According to the filing, Biden argues that releasing the recordings would skirt federal law restricting disclosure of materials gathered in a special counsel probe, and would effectively turn protected investigative material into political fodder. The suit follows a 2024 Freedom of Information Act action by the conservative Heritage Foundation seeking the same recordings, and comes against the backdrop of repeated efforts by the current administration to make Hur-era material public — efforts the Biden team has argued are intended to embarrass the former president rather than to serve any legitimate investigative or oversight function. The transcripts of the Hur interviews were released back in 2024, but the audio itself has been the subject of executive privilege fights ever since. Worth watching for what the court does with the privilege claims, and for how the Special Counsel regulations are treated now that there is an ex-president on each side of these disputes.Former President Biden sues DOJ over release of interview audio | ReutersThe Trump administration is asking a California federal judge to throw out an expanded challenge to its sweeping reorganization of the federal workforce, calling the litigation a “litigation safari.” In a Friday motion to dismiss filed in AFGE v. Trump, the administration urged Judge Susan Illston to toss a supplemental complaint that broadened the case to cover, among other things, the downsizing of FEMA and a set of forward-looking workforce planning documents the administration issued last October. The original suit, filed in April 2025 by a coalition including the American Federation of Government Employees, SEIU, and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and San Francisco, challenged layoffs and reorganizations at more than twenty federal agencies. Judge Illston enjoined the workforce plans last May, but the Supreme Court stayed her injunction in July, and she has since declined to dismiss the case outright.The administration's argument is essentially jurisdictional: that the October planning documents are too tentative to constitute “final agency action,” that there is no specific DHS order behind the FEMA contract lapses the plaintiffs point to, and that individual FEMA terminations must run through the administrative civil-service process rather than land in district court. The “litigation safari” framing — that the plaintiffs are simply “roving the executive branch to explore various employment issues” — is rhetorically catchy but glosses over the more interesting underlying question: how cleanly the Administrative Procedure Act's “final agency action” requirement maps onto a coordinated, rolling, and openly cross-agency reorganization. A ruling on the dismissal motion is expected later this summer.Trump Admin Looks To Ax Expanded Suit Over Staffing Cuts - Law360Billionaire insurance magnate Greg Lindberg was sentenced in the Western District of North Carolina to twelve years in federal prison across two separate criminal cases — eighty-seven months on charges that he tried to bribe the state's insurance commissioner, and 144 months on wire-fraud charges arising from a $2 billion scheme in which prosecutors said he treated the insurance companies he controlled as a personal piggy bank. The sentences will run concurrently. Judge Max Cogburn also entered a preliminary restitution order of $1.6 billion based on a court-appointed special master's recommendation, which Lindberg's defense team described as the largest restitution award in state history.Prosecutors said the scheme harmed more than two hundred thousand victims, most of them elderly annuity holders, at least twenty thousand of whom died before any promised payouts arrived. The bribery case has its own complicated history — Lindberg was first convicted in 2020, had that conviction vacated by the Fourth Circuit in 2022 over faulty jury instructions, and was reconvicted on retrial in 2024. He pleaded guilty to the separate wire-fraud and money-laundering counts in November 2024. Judge Cogburn credited Lindberg's “extraordinary cooperation” with prosecutors and the special master, but also noted, with what reads like real exasperation in the transcript, that Lindberg has continued to file pro se civil lawsuits against the insurance companies he once owned and that the case illustrates how much of our regulatory apparatus can be “bought and sold like sacks of potatoes.” The government had sought roughly fourteen and a half years; Lindberg had asked for four.‘Regretful' Billionaire Gets 12 Years For $2B Fraud, Bribery - Law360The Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a debt buyer suing a consumer must attach to its complaint a non-affidavit writing that actually shows the buyer owns that consumer's debt — not just a generic bill of sale showing that the buyer purchased some bundle of receivables from the original creditor. The case, Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, involved a $671.29 Victoria's Secret credit-card balance that Comenity Bank had sold to Portfolio Recovery in 2018. Portfolio Recovery's complaint attached a bill of sale and an affidavit identifying the last four digits of Wright's account number, and the lower courts found that sufficient under Colorado's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Colorado Supreme Court, in the first opinion authored by recently appointed Justice Susan Blanco, reversed and held the affidavit could not cure a complaint that didn't first satisfy the statute's non-affidavit-writing requirement.The practical consequence is significant: the four largest debt buyers alone filed close to forty thousand cases in Colorado county courts between 2013 and 2015, accounting for around eight percent of the state's county-court civil docket, and many of those complaints have historically relied on exactly the kind of generic bill-of-sale-plus-affidavit packaging the court just rejected. Consumer advocates argue the ruling will help consumers — most of whom never had any relationship with the debt buyer — understand and respond to the suits filed against them; the debt-buying industry will, in the near term, need to retool its pleading practices statewide.Colo. Justices Say Debt Buyer Must Show It Owns The Debt - Law360 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Review Guide: The Constitutional Blueprint Mastering American Constitutional Power: The Source Code of Our Social Contract.This episode unpacks the core architecture of U. S. constitutional law, offering a clear blueprint for understanding the distribution and limits of government power—vital for law students and practitioners alike. Dive into the crucial gatekeepers, the machinery of power, and the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding individual rights through the lens of real-world cases and legal principles.Most constitutional crises aren't just about laws—they're about who holds the actual power. In April 1952, President Harry Truman's bold steel seizure challenged the very source code of American authority. How did he do it, and what does it tell us about the true limits (or lack thereof) on presidential power? If you're curious about the unseen architecture behind executive decisions—and how the courts decide what's legal or not—this episode is your essential guide.We break down Truman's unprecedented seizure of the steel mills and extract the core principles of constitutional law that shape every power struggle today. You'll discover: the precise role Article 3 plays as the court's gatekeeper and why standing is the ultimate prerequisite to even get in the room. We unravel the layered limits on Congress's legislative engine—from the Commerce Clause's reach to the subtle boundaries of preemption and the Dormant Commerce Clause's negative space—and show how states are kept in check through the Dormant Commerce and Federalism doctrines.On the executive side, learn Jackson's famous triad—how presidential power shifts from absolute to uncertain to outright unconstitutional—depending on congressional support. Explore how treaties and executive agreements differ, and why the president's appointment and removal powers are now hotly contested. The episode also reveals how the courts navigate the tricky terrain of federalism, congressional spending, and the nuanced line separating legitimate regulation from coercion.Most importantly, we clarify the powerful scrutiny matrix—how courts decide whether a law treats groups fairly or crosses the line into discrimination or fundamental rights infringement. Whether it's equal protection for race and gender or due process for marriage and personal liberty, mastering these principles is crucial for law students and anyone interested in the real limits of government power.This isn't just theory. It's the blueprint that explains how our constitutional system balances authority, protects individual rights, and responds to crises like Truman's steel seizure. If you want to see the operating manual behind every high-stakes legal showdown—and prepare for your exams or future cases—this episode is your blueprint for understanding the core architecture of American constitutional law.Perfect for law students, legal professionals, or anyone eager to see how power really works in the U.S. government. Hit play and master the hidden code that keeps the system in check.Main Topics Covered:How the judiciary, Congress, and presidency operate within constitutional boundariesThe role of the Supreme Court's judicial review and standing requirementsThe powers and limitations under Article 1 (legislative), Article 2 (executive), and the Supremacy and Commerce ClausesThe impact of the Tenth Amendment and doctrines like preemption and the Dormant Commerce ClauseThe layered scrutiny matrix for evaluating laws' constitutionality, including strict, intermediate, and rational basis reviewThe evolution of individual rights protections through the 14th Amendment, incorporation, and substantive due process

This episode distills the complex landscape of federal legislative power into clear, actionable steps. Whether you're studying for the bar or trying to deepen your understanding of constitutional limits, you'll learn the diagnostic protocol to analyze any federal law or regulation.Most federal laws that seem beneficial or expansive are actually constrained by the limited scope of Congress's constitutional powers—and understanding the boundaries is crucial for any aspiring constitutional lawyer. This episode reveals how the Supreme Court has reined in decades of unchecked federal authority through a series of sharp doctrinal limits, from the boundaries of the Commerce Clause to the critical anti-commandeering principle and the transformative major questions doctrine.You'll discover how the Court differentiates between commercial and non-commercial activity and when Congress can—and cannot—reach into the local, personal lives of citizens. We break down iconic cases like Wickard v. Filburn, which gave Congress astonishing power to regulate local farming activities in the aggregate, and contrast it with Lopez and Morrison, which sharply curbed that reach for non-economic acts like gun possession and acts of violence. You'll learn the modern three-part test to analyze commerce power questions and the strategic use of the safety valves—the taxing and spending powers—that can save laws seen as overreach.We also dive into the complex terrain of administrative law, exploring how the Supreme Court's recent crackdown on agency overreach, especially through the landmark major questions doctrine, guards against agencies wielding sweeping authority without explicit congressional approval. This is most evident in the Court's rejection of the CDC eviction moratorium and OSHA vaccine mandates, which it deemed too major to be justified by vague statutory language.If you're preparing for the bar exam or aiming to master the constitutional limits on federal power, this episode is essential listening. It transforms abstract doctrines into a clear, step-by-step diagnostic protocol—perfect for navigating tricky fact patterns and excelling in exam essays. By understanding where and how Congress's constitutional authority ends, you'll sharpen your legal instinct, avoid common traps, and build a robust framework for tackling any constitutional law question.Whether you're a Law School student, a bar exam candidate, or a constitutional law enthusiast, this episode arms you with the insight and analytical toolkit to confidently decode the federal government's power boundaries—an absolute must for anyone serious about constitutional mastery.

This Day in Legal History: ACA Signed into LawOn March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, marking a transformative moment in American legal and social policy. The statute, widely known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sought to expand access to health insurance and reduce overall healthcare costs. Central to the law was the individual mandate, which required most Americans to obtain health insurance or face a financial penalty. The ACA also significantly expanded Medicaid eligibility, allowing millions of low-income individuals to gain coverage. Another key provision prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, reshaping longstanding industry practices.Almost immediately after its passage, the law faced a wave of legal challenges from states, private parties, and advocacy groups. Critics argued that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by compelling individuals to engage in commerce. The dispute reached the Supreme Court in the landmark case of NFIB v. Sebelius. In a closely divided decision, the Court held that the individual mandate could not be sustained under the Commerce Clause. However, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the controlling opinion that upheld the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power.The Court also addressed the ACA's Medicaid expansion, ruling that Congress could not coerce states into expanding coverage by threatening existing Medicaid funding. This aspect of the decision reinforced limits on federal power under the Spending Clause and preserved a degree of state sovereignty. The ACA continued to generate litigation in subsequent years, including challenges to its subsidy structure and individual mandate enforcement. Despite these legal battles, the law remains a central feature of the U.S. healthcare system. Its passage and judicial review reshaped modern constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding the balance between federal authority and individual liberty.A California federal jury found that Elon Musk committed securities fraud in connection with his $44 billion attempt to acquire Twitter. After roughly 20 hours of deliberation, the jury concluded that two of Musk's May 2022 tweets misled investors about the status of the deal and the prevalence of fake or spam accounts on the platform. In particular, his statement that the deal was “temporarily on hold” while awaiting bot data was deemed materially misleading. The jury also found liability for a later tweet suggesting bots made up at least 20% of users and that the deal could not proceed without proof.However, jurors rejected the broader claim that Musk engaged in an overall scheme to defraud investors. They also declined to find liability for statements he made at a tech conference, determining those remarks were not proven to be fraudulent. The class of affected investors included those who traded Twitter stock or related options between May and October 2022 and claimed they suffered losses due to artificially depressed prices. While the jury did not calculate a final damages figure, plaintiffs' counsel estimated potential damages at about $2.6 billion.The verdict form instead required jurors to assess damages across 98 separate trading days, meaning total compensation will depend on individual trading activity. Plaintiffs' attorneys characterized the decision as a win for market integrity, emphasizing that even high-profile figures must comply with securities laws. Musk's legal team, by contrast, downplayed the outcome and indicated plans to appeal. The case featured testimony from Twitter executives, deal advisers, and co-founder Jack Dorsey, as well as disputes over whether Twitter accurately reported bot activity.Jury Says Musk Defrauded Twitter Investors In $44B Buyout - Law360The White House, under Donald Trump, released a legislative framework urging Congress to override state-level artificial intelligence regulations in favor of a single national standard. The administration argues that a patchwork of state laws creates unnecessary obstacles for innovation and weakens the United States' ability to compete globally in AI development. At the same time, the proposal preserves certain areas of state authority, including laws addressing fraud, consumer protection, child safety, zoning, and state government use of AI.The framework also addresses intellectual property concerns, recommending that courts continue to decide whether training AI systems on copyrighted material violates the law. It suggests Congress consider mechanisms that allow creators to collectively negotiate compensation from AI companies without triggering antitrust issues. Additionally, it calls for federal protections against unauthorized AI-generated replicas of individuals' likeness, voice, or identity, while allowing exceptions for news and satire.Another key focus is infrastructure, with proposals to prevent rising electricity costs from being passed on to consumers as AI data centers expand. The plan encourages faster federal permitting and supports alternative energy solutions to power AI development. It also includes provisions aimed at preventing government pressure on tech companies to censor speech and ensuring that federal data can be used to train AI systems.The proposal has drawn mixed reactions. Industry groups and several Republican lawmakers praised the approach as promoting innovation through lighter regulation. In contrast, consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers criticized it as favoring large technology companies while removing important state-level protections. Some Democrats have introduced legislation to block the initiative and preserve states' authority to regulate AI.White House Pushes Congress To Override State AI Laws - Law360 UKThe U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case involving Mississippi's law that allows certain mail-in ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day but arrive up to five business days later. The dispute stems from a challenge brought by Republican groups, including the Republican National Committee, which argue that the law conflicts with federal election statutes. The Trump administration is supporting this challenge, continuing its broader push to restrict mail-in voting.Mississippi enacted the rule in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with bipartisan support. It applies to limited categories of voters, such as the elderly, disabled individuals, and those temporarily away from home. However, in 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the law likely violates federal law, which it interpreted as requiring ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day. The court concluded that states cannot extend the deadline for receiving ballots beyond that date.The Supreme Court is now reviewing Mississippi's appeal of that decision, with potentially broad implications. Roughly 30 states and Washington, D.C. have similar policies that count ballots arriving after Election Day if they were mailed on time. A ruling against Mississippi could therefore force significant changes to voting procedures nationwide and limit the use of mail-in ballots.The case also reflects ongoing political disputes over election integrity and access to voting. Republicans have raised concerns about the security of mail-in ballots, while critics argue that restrictions could reduce voter participation. The outcome of this case may clarify how federal election law interacts with state authority over voting procedures.US Supreme Court weighs Republican bid to limit mail-in voting | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us Fan MailIn his episode we dive into a major new federal lawsuit, Temple Gun Club v. Bondi, which takes a different approach than most modern Second Amendment challenges. Instead of focusing solely on the Second Amendment, this case targets the very foundation of federal authority — the Commerce Clause. subscribe to my newsletterFollow this link and get $25 in ammo.Fountain Podcast AppFollow me on FountainFollow twitter @JeffDowdleFollow me on Truth Social - @JeffDowdleConvention of States ProjectPresearch search engine sign up.Brave BrowserFind our Representativeemail me at jeff@livetoshoot.comSupport the show

Send us Fan MailThe hosts discuss cannabis legalization frustrations and preview stories for the week ending March 15, 2026, led by a tax court case tied to roughly $1.6B in MSO 280E-related liability, where the U.S. argues cannabis businesses fall “within the meaning” of Schedule I/II for 2016–2017 tax years, despite the ongoing rescheduling push. They note a Ninth Circuit decision that the dormant Commerce Clause does not apply to cannabis, contrasting with East Coast rulings and a continuing circuit split after the Supreme Court declined review. State updates include Texas's March 31 ban on smokable hemp/THCA flower sales, Tennessee “pot for potholes” messaging, Virginia's new micro-vertical licensing framework and regulator setup, Alabama's medical rollout delays due to litigation, Florida's ballot initiative setbacks and political hypocrisy, and Verano's $195M loan amid ongoing MSO expansion.Support the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu

TPPF's Derek Cohen talks with Chance Weldon, Director of Litigation at the Center for American Future, to break down a new lawsuit challenging the federal machine gun ban.Second Amendment aside, does Congress even have the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to ban machine gun possession? Find out how a win could reshape federal regulation far beyond firearms.1:09 – Overview of the Fifth Circuit case & Judge Willett's unique concurrence1:52 – National Firearms Act (NFA) structure: bans, taxes, registration2:22 – Why this challenge is Article I / Commerce Clause (not Second Amendment)4:41 – What the Commerce Clause actually allows (channels, instrumentalities, substantial effects)5:58 – Post-New Deal expansion & pushback: Lopez (1995), Morrison, Raich7:42 – Substantial effects test & aggregation (Wickard wheat example)10:05 – Would Texas residents suddenly buy machine guns? State vs. federal power12:16 – Government's strongest counterarguments & old Fifth Circuit precedent14:23 – Why this Supreme Court might limit Commerce Clause overreach (Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts)17:19 – Broader implications: eviction moratorium, OSHA vaccine mandate, corporate reporting18:51 – Why non-gun owners should care: unlimited federal power threatens liberty & federalism

Last week's Supreme Court ruling on Trump-era tariffs didn't declare tariffs unconstitutional.They didn't say the President lacks trade authority.They didn't say Congress delegated too much power.Instead…They said they were “uncomfortable.”And in doing so, they may have quietly replaced constitutional separation of powers with something far more dangerous:

Send me feedback!The Constitution delegates naturalization, not immigration, to Congress, and states handled arrivals for the nation's first third of existence. This episode examines Federalist 42's narrow focus, the Commerce Clause "pivot" in 1875, and why even USCIS admits federal oversight didn't begin until 1891.SUPPORT THE SHOWGet a 10% discount by using the code LibertyDad at Black Guns Matter shop.OR, use the referral linkFIND ME ELSEWHERELinktreeSHOW NOTESUS ConstitutionChy Lung vs Freeman (1875)Henderson vs Mayor of New YorkFederalist 42USCISTenth Amendment CenterSupport the show

Aughie and Nia discuss the Whie Court, ears 1910 - 1921. Edward Douglass White was the first Associate Justice to be elevated to the position of Chief Justice. The White Court was slightly less conservative than the previous Fuller Court, choosing to favor regulations under the Commerce Clause and upholding the federal income tax.

The Tug of War: Congress vs. PresidentThis conversation delves into the intricate dynamics of power between Congress and the President within the framework of the U.S. Constitution. It explores the historical evolution of federalism, the implications of key constitutional clauses such as the Necessary and Proper Clause, Spending Clause, and Commerce Clause, and the limitations imposed on federal power to protect state sovereignty. The discussion also covers the scope of executive power, the Unitary Executive Theory, and the balance of authority in foreign affairs, culminating in a comprehensive framework for analyzing federal power.In the heart of the American constitutional framework lies a dynamic tension between Congress and the President, a balance of power that has shaped the nation's governance since its inception. This blog post delves into the historical and legal intricacies of federalism and separation of powers, exploring how these principles have evolved through landmark Supreme Court cases and legislative actions.The Evolution of Federalism: Federalism in the United States has undergone significant transformations, from the early days of dual federalism, where state and national powers were distinct, to the cooperative federalism of the 20th century, characterized by collaboration and federal financial influence. The shift towards contemporary federalism saw a resurgence of state rights, influenced by Supreme Court decisions that reined in federal overreach.Key Supreme Court Cases: The blog highlights pivotal cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, which established the supremacy of federal law, and United States v. Lopez, which marked a turning point in limiting Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. These cases underscore the ongoing judicial role in defining the boundaries of federal and state authority.Congressional and Executive Dynamics: The interplay between congressional powers and executive authority is a cornerstone of American governance. The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Spending Clause have been instrumental in expanding congressional reach, while the President's powers are often tested in the realm of foreign affairs and executive orders. The Youngstown framework provides a critical lens for analyzing presidential actions, ensuring they align with constitutional mandates.As the nation continues to navigate complex legal and political landscapes, the principles of federalism and separation of powers remain vital in maintaining the balance of authority. Understanding these frameworks is essential for interpreting the Constitution's role in contemporary governance and ensuring that power remains checked and balanced.Subscribe Now: Stay informed on the latest constitutional insights and legal analyses by subscribing to our newsletter.TakeawaysThe enduring tension between Congress and the President defines American governance.Federalism has evolved through distinct historical phases, impacting state and national power dynamics.The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to extend its powers beyond those explicitly enumerated.The Spending Clause enables Congress to influence state policy through conditional funding.The Commerce Clause has undergone significant interpretation, affecting federal regulatory power.Post-Civil War amendments expanded congressional authority to enforce civil rights.The anti-commandeering doctrine protects state sovereignty from federal overreach.Executive power is limited by the need for congressional authorization and the Take Care Clause.The Unitary Executive Theory argues for broad presidential control over the executive branch.Checks and balances rely heavily on Congress to assert its legislative powers against presidential overreach.federalism, separation of powers, congressional authority, executive power, commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, spending clause, constitutional law, state sovereignty, checks and balances

Notes and Links to Timothy Welbeck's Work     Timothy Welbeck, Esq., is an affiliated faculty member in the Department of Africology and African American Studies, where he previously served as an Assistant Professor of Instruction. There he teaches an array of popular courses, including a course he developed entitled Kendrick Lamar and the Morale of the m.A.A.d city. More broadly, Timothy's scholarly work focuses on contemporary issues of racial identity in America, the intersection of racial classifications and the law in the American context, contemporary African American culture, and hip-hop as a microcosm of the Black experience. Timothy has also written several peer-reviewed journal articles including “We Have Come Into This House: The Black Church, Florida's Stop W.O.K.E., and the Fight to Teach Black History.” He also authored “Specter of Reform: The late Sen. Arlen Specter's Criminal Justice Reform, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and its Role in Expanding the Modern Prison Industrial Complex,” explores the impact of the infamous 1994 Crime Bill in providing the infrastructure for mass incarceration within the United States. The research, funded by the Arlen Specter Center fellowship, examines how the federalization of criminal law, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, has led to expansive growth in federal law enforcement, imprisonment, and thus setting the foundation for the modern carceral state. Timothy's article “People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths to Rhythms: Hip-Hop's Continuation of the Enduring Tradition of African and African American Rhetorical Forms and Tropes,” examines hip-hop's continuation of centuries-old African cultural norms and aesthetic values. As an attorney, Timothy has long been an advocate for justice, using his legal expertise to defend society's most vulnerable individuals, including survivors of human trafficking, survivors of police brutality, and the indigent. He has also provided crisis management, guidance, and legal counsel to churches and nonprofit organizations across the globe. In that capacity, Timothy is the Chair of the Board of Directors for The Witness Foundation, and an Advisory Board member of For the Future Organization. Timothy has also served as the Civil Rights Attorney for the Philadelphia Chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), where he defended the constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties of those who experience discrimination and harassment based on their faith, race, ethnicity, and/or national origin, particularly members of the Muslim community within Pennsylvania.  As a hip-hop artist, he has released four full length recordings, shared the stage with national and international acts (Janelle Monáe, Jidenna, EPMD, Dead Prez, and Immortal Technique), won songwriting contests (Session 1 Grand Prize in 2010 John Lennon Songwriting Contest), garnered high compliments from hip-hop legends, industry taste-makers (Sway) and record executives (VP of A&R at Def Jam, Lenny S).  His latest work, entitled ‘Trane of Thought, is a live recorded hip-hop album that melds songs from his first two albums the musical style of John Coltrane. Timothy presently serves as the Pastor of Formation and a Teaching Elder at Epiphany Church of Wilmington, bringing over twenty years of ministry experience. He fosters spiritual growth through expositional and topical preaching, community engagement, trainings, workshops and spiritual counseling. In his role, he equips Epiphany members to live out their faith practically in their communities and prepare others to do the same. Timothy's work as an attorney and scholar has allowed him to contribute to various media outlets, such as: Axios, BBC Radio 4, CBS, CNN, The Huffington Post, NBC, The New York Times, NPR, The Philadelphia Inquirer, REVOLT TV, The Washington Post, VOX, and 900 WURD AM. He has lectured nationally and internationally at esteemed institutions like: Magdalen College of Oxford University, Georgetown University, Swarthmore College, and provided invited keynote addresses at major corporations like 1Hotels, Campbell Soup, and Merrill Lynch. As a contributing writer, Timothy has bylines in The Huffington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, WHYY, and RESPECT Magazine.  He earned his J.D. from Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and his B.A. from Morehouse College, where he graduated cum laude and was awarded the Corella and Bertrand Bonner Scholarship. Timothy finds his greatest joy and fulfillment at home with his wife and three children.     Timothy Welbeck's Website Video: “Kendrick Lamar and the Morale of m.A.A.d City Hiphop Course | Prof. Timothy Welbeck Explains”   Video Conversation with Georgette from XXL: “Inside the Kendrick Lamar College Course Created to Study His Lyrics and Life” At about 2:50, Timothy highlights some “surreal moments” in his hip hop career and advocacy At about 4:20, Timothy responds to Pete's question about declining or rising advocacy in contemporary hip-hop  At about 6:30, Timothy reflects on the balance between a democratization of hip hop and old models of record company control At about 9:05, Timothy talks about his reading background, including a Tim Follett read (!) and other formative works At about 12:10, Timothy talks about being a “late bloomer” in his hip hop exposure At about 13:25, Timothy cites Nas, Lauryn Hill, Blackstar, Outkast, The Roots as some of his favorite rappers and groups At about 14:45, Timothy talks about friends The Remnant and how they helped him to “understand the power of [his] own voice” At about 15:30, Timothy responds to Pete's question about how he listen to music now that he has written about and taught classes so extensively about hip hop  At about 17:00, Timothy breaks down his process for listening to music that he will be writing/teaching about  At about 17:50, Timothy explains the different ways of ordering Kendrick Lamar's albums/mixtapes, and expands on the class' contours  At about 20:30, Timothy talks about the class on Kendrick Lamar's seeds, calling it "serendipitous"  At about 23:10, Timothy talks about the class structure, including the foundation established at the beginning of the class At about 26:30, Timothy talks about how he goes about establishing Compton as an entity in itself, while at the same time showing its similarities to other casualties of government neglect and racism  At about 28:25, Timothy talks about the "compelling" way in which Kendrick Lamar is both popularly respected and critically-acclaimed  At about 31:55, Pete and Tim discuss an early Kendrick Lamar concert At about 32:25, Pete and Tim reflect on Kendrick Lamar's love of Black culture and for important music legends, particularly the way in which he featured titans on To Pimp a Butterfly At about 34:30, Tim describes the great insights  At about 36:05, Marcus J. Moore's The Butterfly Effect and Cole Cuchna and his Dissect Podcast are shouted out by Timothy as experts on Kendrick and his work, and DJ Head as well and Curtis King are highlighted as close colleagues of Kendrick's At about 38:00, Timothy shares some of his favorite bars from Kendrick Lamar At about 41:15, Pete and Timothy fanboy over Kendrick's verse on “Nosetalgia” and Timothy gives kudos to Cole Cuchna's breakdown of the numerology of the verse At about 42:10, Timothy talks about a few songs that might be best representative of Kendrick Lamar's music        You can now subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, and leave a five-star review. You can also ask for the podcast by name using Alexa, and find the pod on Stitcher, Spotify, and on Amazon Music. Follow Pete on IG, where he is @chillsatwillpodcast, or on Twitter, where he is @chillsatwillpo1. You can watch other episodes on YouTube-watch and subscribe to The Chills at Will Podcast Channel. Please subscribe to both the YouTube Channel and the podcast while you're checking out this episode.       Pete is very excited to have one or two podcast episodes per month featured on the website of Chicago Review of Books. The audio will be posted, along with a written interview culled from the audio. His conversation with Jeff Pearlman, a recent guest, will be up at Chicago Review in the next week or so.     Sign up now for The Chills at Will Podcast Patreon: it can be found at patreon.com/chillsatwillpodcastpeterriehl      Check out the page that describes the benefits of a Patreon membership, including cool swag and bonus episodes. Thanks in advance for supporting Pete's one-man show, DIY podcast and extensive reading, research, editing, and promoting to keep this independent podcast pumping out high-quality content!    This month's Patreon bonus episode features an exploration of children's literature on standout writers from the show, including Robert Jones, Jr. and Javier Zamora, as well as Pete's cherished relationship with Levar Burton, Reading Rainbow, and libraries.    Pete has added a $1 a month tier for “Well-Wishers” and Cheerleaders of the Show.     This is a passion project, a DIY operation, and Pete would love for your help in promoting what he's convinced is a unique and spirited look at an often-ignored art form.    The intro song for The Chills at Will Podcast is “Wind Down” (Instrumental Version), and the other song played on this episode was “Hoops” (Instrumental)” by Matt Weidauer, and both songs are used through ArchesAudio.com.     Please tune in for Episode 319 with Farah Ali, writer of the novel The River, The Town, and the short story collection People Want to Live. Her fiction has been anthologized in Best Small Fictions and the Pushcart Prize where it has also received special mention. She is the cofounder of Lakeer, a digital space for writing from Pakistan, and reviews editor at Wasafiri. Her novel Telegraphy is out on January 16, from CB editions, and the episode airs on Pub Day.    Please go to ceasefiretoday.org, and/or https://act.uscpr.org/a/letaidin to call your congresspeople and demand an end to the forced famine and destruction of Gaza and the Gazan people.  

Get ready for the February 2026 Georgia Bar Exam with my wildcard essay predictions! In this episode, I'm focusing on two subjects that could surprise test-takers: Constitutional Law and Remedies. For Constitutional Law, I break down the testing patterns from recent Georgia bar exams and explain why I think Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause (including takings) are prime candidates. I walk through the historical testing dates and show you exactly which past questions to review in the Bar Exam Drills app, skipping the religion-focused questions from recent exams that are less likely to repeat. On the Remedies front, I'm predicting a crossover question with either Contracts or Property. I dive into specific performance, unique items (remember those special orange carrots from law school?), injunctive relief, and contract damages. Using the app, I trace through the pattern of remedies questions from 2016 through 2019 to show you why this makes sense as a wildcard topic. This isn't about predicting every possible essay—it's about identifying the topics that could catch you off guard. I'm calling these wildcards because the patterns and timing suggest they're due to appear. Study smart by focusing on these specific areas, and you'll be better prepared than most test-takers walking into that exam room. Download Bar Exam Drills to access all the past Georgia essay questions I reference in this video, organized by subject and date. Leave a comment below to discuss these predictions or share your own thoughts on what might appear. Good luck on your February 2026 Georgia Bar Exam!

Notes: https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.htmlUnderstanding Federalism: Navigating the Complexities of State and Federal PowerThis conversation delves into the complexities of constitutional law, focusing on federalism and state power. The discussion covers key doctrines such as the anti-commandeering doctrine, preemption under the Supremacy Clause, sovereign immunity, and the dormant commerce clause. Each topic is explored in depth, providing insights into how these legal principles interact and affect the balance of power between state and federal governments. The conversation aims to equip law students with a framework for analyzing federalism issues, particularly in preparation for exams and the bar.Federalism is a cornerstone of the United States' constitutional framework, embodying the delicate balance between state sovereignty and federal authority. This intricate dance of power is not just a historical artifact but a living, breathing aspect of American governance that continues to evolve. In this post, we delve into the nuances of federalism, exploring key doctrines and landmark cases that define the boundaries of state and federal power.The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: At the heart of federalism lies the anti-commandeering doctrine, a principle that prevents the federal government from commandeering state governments to enforce federal laws. This doctrine was solidified in cases like New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of state autonomy and accountability. The doctrine ensures that states remain independent entities, not mere administrative arms of the federal government.Preemption and the Supremacy Clause: The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. However, the application of this principle is not always straightforward. Preemption can be express, where federal law explicitly overrides state law, or implied, where federal regulation is so pervasive that it leaves no room for state action. Understanding the nuances of preemption is crucial for navigating the legal landscape of federalism.The Dormant Commerce Clause: The Dormant Commerce Clause is an implicit aspect of the Commerce Clause, preventing states from enacting legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This doctrine aims to maintain a national economic union, free from protectionist state policies. However, its application often involves complex judicial balancing, as seen in cases like Pike v. Bruce Church and Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines.Federalism is a dynamic and complex system that requires constant negotiation and interpretation. As we continue to grapple with the balance of power between state and federal governments, understanding these foundational doctrines and their implications is essential. Whether you're a law student preparing for exams or a citizen interested in the workings of government, federalism remains a vital and fascinating area of study. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest developments in constitutional law.TakeawaysLaw students often struggle with applying the correct test in complex fact patterns.The anti-commandeering doctrine preserves state sovereignty by preventing Congress from forcing states to enact federal laws.Preemption ensures federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws, based on congressional intent.Sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent, emphasizing state dignity.The dormant commerce clause prevents states from enacting laws that discriminate against interstate commerce.Understanding the distinction between express and implied preemption is crucial for legal analysis.constitutional law, federalism, state power, anti-commandeering, preemption, sovereign immunity, dormant commerce clause, legal analysis, bar exam, law school

This Day in Legal History: Morgan v. VirginiaOn December 3, 1946, the NAACP filed the pivotal case Morgan v. Virginia, challenging state-enforced segregation on interstate buses. The case arose after Irene Morgan, a Black woman, refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling from Virginia to Maryland in 1944. Arrested and fined under Virginia law, Morgan appealed her conviction with the support of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first Black Supreme Court Justice, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.The legal argument hinged on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress—not individual states—the power to regulate interstate commerce. Marshall argued that Virginia's segregation law placed an undue burden on interstate travel and was thus unconstitutional. In a 7–1 decision issued in June 1946, the Court agreed, holding that states could not impose segregation on interstate passengers.Though the ruling did not end segregation on all public transportation, it was a critical legal breakthrough. It limited the reach of Jim Crow laws and marked one of the earliest Supreme Court victories for the civil rights movement. The decision also served as a foundation for future rulings, including Boynton v. Virginia (1960), and inspired direct action like the Freedom Rides of the early 1960s.Morgan v. Virginia helped establish a constitutional framework for challenging racially discriminatory laws under federal authority. It demonstrated the NAACP's strategy of incremental legal challenges and the importance of judicial victories in the broader civil rights struggle.A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a law that would strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood and similar organizations in 22 states. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the provision, part of the Republican-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, likely violates the Constitution's Spending Clause by retroactively imposing ambiguous conditions on state Medicaid participation. The law bars Medicaid funding for nonprofit reproductive health providers that offer abortions and received over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023.Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, temporarily halting the law's enforcement in the states that sued, including California, New York, and Connecticut, along with the District of Columbia. However, she stayed her ruling for seven days to allow the Trump administration time to appeal. The judge warned that enforcing the law would increase healthcare costs and reduce access to preventive services like birth control and screenings.Planned Parenthood welcomed the ruling, calling the law unconstitutional and harmful. The organization reported that at least 20 health centers have closed since the law began taking effect in September. States argued the law forced an unexpected change to Medicaid operations and undermined their authority to choose eligible healthcare providers.US judge blocks Trump from cutting Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood in 22 states | ReutersThe Trump administration has dismissed at least seven immigration judges from New York City's immigration court, located at 26 Federal Plaza, a central site for immigration enforcement and protests. This move is part of a broader pattern under President Trump's second term, with over 100 immigration judges reportedly removed nationwide since January, according to the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Critics say these firings are worsening backlogs at a time when arrests and deportations are increasing.Immigration judges operate under the Department of Justice, not the independent federal judiciary, and are considered inferior officers who can be dismissed by the president or attorney general. The Justice Department declined to comment on the terminations. Among those fired was Amiena Khan, the court's assistant chief immigration judge and former president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, who had previously opposed efforts to dismantle the judges' union.Khan and six other judges, all women, had their names removed from the court's staff directory, with five appointed by Democratic administrations and two during Trump's first term. These dismissals follow similar firings in San Francisco, Boston, and elsewhere. One former judge in Ohio has filed a lawsuit, alleging her termination was due to discrimination based on sex, national origin, and political beliefs.Trump administration fires numerous New York immigration judges | ReutersRahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect in a deadly Washington, D.C. ambush that killed one National Guard member and critically injured another, pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance. He participated remotely from a hospital bed and was ordered held without bond due to the violent nature of the attack, which occurred just blocks from the White House. The judge cited the “sheer terror” of the incident in denying release.Prosecutors allege that Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, traveled from Washington state to D.C. with the intent to carry out the shooting. He reportedly opened fire while shouting “Allahu akbar,” fatally shooting 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom and injuring 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe, both West Virginia National Guard members deployed to aid law enforcement. Lakanwal was subdued by military personnel and a Secret Service officer after being shot.He faces four charges, including first-degree murder and assault with intent to kill while armed. Lakanwal's defense highlighted his lack of criminal history, but prosecutors emphasized the premeditated nature of his actions. His immigration status has drawn political attention—he entered the U.S. under a resettlement program launched during the Biden administration and was granted asylum under Trump, making the case a focal point in renewed debates over immigration policy.Washington shooting suspect pleads not guilty to murder, ordered detained | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Notes: Constitution Law 2025 – Full Outline (https://thelawschoolofamerica.com/ConstitutionLaw2025.html) Understanding Federal Legislative Power: A Deep Dive into the Commerce Clause This episode traces how federal power in the United States expanded and then hit its modern limits through the Commerce Clause. We follow the story from Gibbons v. Ogden to Wickard v. Filburn, and into the era of Lopez, Morrison, and the Affordable Care Act decision, NFIB v. Sebelius. You will hear how the Court went from a broad vision of “commerce” as interstate intercourse, to the aggregation theory that let Congress regulate even a farmer growing wheat for his own family, and then to the modern doctrine that pulls that power back and demands a real connection to economic activity. What we explore in this episode Gibbons v. Ogden and the early, expansive definition of commerce. Wickard v. Filburn as the high-water mark of federal regulatory power. How the Civil Rights Act relied on the Commerce Clause to survive review. United States v. Lopez and Morrison drawing lines around noneconomic activity. NFIB v. Sebelius and why the individual mandate failed under commerce but survived as a tax. Quick Takeaways You need the full “movie” of how Commerce Clause power grew and then contracted. Regulating a farmer feeding his own family was the absolute high watermark of federal power. The Court's logic: if everyone did that, the national market would be distorted. Modern exams turn on recognizing when the pendulum swings back and applying the limits from Lopez and Morrison. Keywords: Commerce Clause, federal power, Gibbons v. Ogden, Wickard v. Filburn, Lopez, Morrison, NFIB v. Sebelius, aggregation theory, legal history, constitutional law.

Mastering Constitutional Law: A Deep Dive into America's Legal FrameworkThe conversation delves into the fundamental conflict in constitutional law, emphasizing the balance between government power and individual liberty. It highlights the dual role of the Constitution as both a framework for government authority and a protector of personal freedoms. The discussion encourages listeners to analyze legal issues through the lens of this core conflict, asking critical questions about the source of governmental power and the rights it may infringe upon.Imagine stepping into a conversation that has been ongoing for over 200 years—a dialogue about power, liberty, and identity. This is the essence of constitutional law, a subject that is as dynamic as it is foundational. Whether you're preparing for a law school exam or seeking a comprehensive review, understanding constitutional law is crucial.The Blueprint of Power: At its core, the Constitution serves as both a structural blueprint and a charter of liberties. It delineates the distribution of power among the three branches of government—Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary—and between the federal government and the states. This division is intentional, designed to prevent the concentration of power and ensure a system of checks and balances.Judicial Review: A pivotal concept in constitutional law is judicial review, established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison. This principle empowers courts to declare laws unconstitutional, ensuring that the Constitution remains a binding framework rather than a mere suggestion.Federalism and the Commerce Clause: Federalism describes the division of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause, granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, has been a focal point of constitutional interpretation, reflecting the tension between national uniformity and state autonomy.The Charter of Liberties: The Constitution also serves as a charter of liberties, protecting individual rights through the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. These rights, including free speech, due process, and equal protection, are the shields against governmental overreach.Constitutional law is not static; it evolves with society, shaped by text, history, and judicial interpretation. As you delve into this subject, remember that you're not just learning rules—you're engaging in a national conversation about the values that define our democracy. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest insights in constitutional law.TakeawaysIt all boils down to one single core conflict.A tug of war between two massive opposing forces.The big showdown is government power versus individual liberty.The Constitution is a blueprint for creating a powerful government.It also serves as a charter of liberties that limits that power.Every fact pattern in law is about this clash.Always ask where the government's power is coming from.Consider what right is being infringed upon.Understanding this concept makes constitutional law clearer.This duality is essential for analyzing legal issues.constitutional law, government power, individual liberty, Constitution, legal principles, civil rights, constitutional conflicts

What does a federal firearm prohibition and a hate crime have to do with the Commerce Clause? Sarah Isgur and David French look at the constitutionality of two cases and whether the Supreme Court will accept a challenge to the law. Plus: Jonathan Karl, author of Retribution: Donald Trump and the Campaign That Changed America, joins the pod to discuss Donald Trump's legal challenges during the 2024 campaign. The Agenda:—Ken Burns' latest documentary—United States v. Lopez—U.S. appeals court upholds hate crime convictions—Reason: Is the Federal Prohibition on Felon Firearm Possession Constitutional?—The final act of the Trump Show—The New York indictment as Trump's campaign stage We're running a listener survey, which you can find at thedispatch.typeform.com/podcast. Show Notes:—Listen to our Dispatch Podcast interview with Jonathan Karl, Steve Hayes, and Declan Garvey Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the third episode of our ongoing series breaking down the U.S. Constitution.This month, Roman and Elizabeth dive into Article One, Sections 8 through 10, which spells out what Congress can and cannot do. They unpack everything from the Commerce Clause to the taxing and spending powers, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and even a few long-forgotten quirks like letters of marque and reprisal.Then, Senator Elizabeth Warren joins to talk about Congress's “power of the purse,” how it's being challenged under President Trump, and what it means for the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches.San Francisco! Come to a screening of Drop Dead City followed by a conversation with Roman on Monday, Nov 3. Info and tickets.  Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of 99% Invisible ad-free and a whole week early. Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

 Nia and Aughie talk about the fifth U.S. Supreme Court's Chief Justice, Roger Brooke Taney.  Taney's Court lasted from 1836 - 1864, notably presiding over the Dred Scott case as well as cases that further defined the Commerce Clause and set into stone the idea that the Court should consider the Political Question Doctrine when taking a case. 

The benchmark diesel price, which has now declined for a fifth consecutive week, reaching $3.708/gallon for a total drop of 10.4 cents since late July. This downward trend is linked to relative oil price stability, even as Midwest refinery issues impact gasoline prices without significantly affecting diesel. Korean Air has made a significant order for eight Boeing 777-8 freighter aircraft, part of a larger $50 billion deal that helps Boeing compete with Airbus in the next-generation widebody freighter market. This strategic acquisition highlights a push for efficiency in air cargo, as the new freighters promise 30% better fuel efficiency and 25% lower operating costs per ton. The rail merger debate heats up as CPKC advocates against further Class I rail consolidation, asserting that such mergers are unnecessary and could trigger an undesirable industry restructuring. Instead, CPKC champions interline partnerships, citing its collaboration with CSX on the Southeast Mexico Express service as an example of achieving benefits without integration risks. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) warns California, New Mexico, and Washington, threatening to withhold millions in federal highway funds for allegedly failing to enforce federal English proficiency standards for truck drivers. This action follows a fatal accident involving a driver with reported language issues and a history of non-compliance, with states given 30 days to rectify the situation. Explore the Trump administration's challenge to California's Clean Truck Check (CTC) rule, with the EPA proposing to disapprove its application to out-of-state trucks due to concerns about the Commerce Clause and the Clean Air Act. While the rule remains in effect for California-based vehicles, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) views the EPA's move as illegal interference, signaling a potential legal battle over state versus federal authority. Also don't miss the FreightWaves Q3 2025 Carrier Rate Report, sponsored by Trimble, offering a comprehensive review of Q2 performance and forecasts for the coming months. This valuable resource combines carrier survey responses with SONAR data to provide essential intelligence for strategic planning, covering supply, earnings, and demand forecasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

California's agricultural and transportation sectors are once again in the spotlight as state and federal policies clash, pests resurface, and long-delayed water projects inch forward. On today's AgNet News Hour, hosts Nick Papagni and Josh McGill broke down the latest developments impacting farmers, truckers, and communities across the state. EPA Pushes Back on California Trucking Regulations The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it is moving to block California's latest heavy-duty vehicle inspection and maintenance rules for out-of-state trucks. The proposal argues that California's requirements conflict with the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and the federal Clean Air Act. While the EPA's move may protect out-of-state truckers, California-registered fleets remain subject to the state's stringent standards. The hosts noted that this could accelerate a trend of trucking companies relocating to border towns like Reno, Nevada or Yuma, Arizona, where operating costs and regulations are far lighter. “Business is leaving California every day, and we're seeing the impact across industries,” Papagni warned. Imperial Valley vs. Yuma Lettuce Claims Listeners also weighed in on the ongoing debate between Imperial Valley and Yuma over winter lettuce production. While Yuma promotes itself as producing 90% of the nation's winter leafy greens, growers in Imperial Valley point out that much of the produce is still grown in California. Packers relocating across the Arizona border, they argue, are skewing the numbers. Medfly Quarantine in Santa Clara County In pest control news, officials detected two Mediterranean fruit flies in San Jose, triggering a quarantine in Santa Clara County. Medflies pose a devastating threat to fruit and vegetable crops, and the state is deploying a sterile male release program to contain the spread. The discovery highlights the ongoing vigilance needed to protect California agriculture from invasive species. Sites Reservoir Funding Boost Finally, there was a rare bit of good news for water storage. The Sites Reservoir Project received an additional $218.9 million in funding, raising its total eligibility to $1.094 billion. While construction is not expected to begin until 2026, with operations projected for 2032, the move signals renewed confidence in expanding storage capacity under Proposition 1, first approved by voters in 2014. Papagni summed up the sentiment shared by many farmers: “It's good to see progress, but California needs common-sense leadership to turn voter-approved projects into real water on the ground.”

The benchmark diesel price, which has now declined for a fifth consecutive week, reaching $3.708/gallon for a total drop of 10.4 cents since late July. This downward trend is linked to relative oil price stability, even as Midwest refinery issues impact gasoline prices without significantly affecting diesel. Korean Air has made a significant order for eight Boeing 777-8 freighter aircraft, part of a larger $50 billion deal that helps Boeing compete with Airbus in the next-generation widebody freighter market. This strategic acquisition highlights a push for efficiency in air cargo, as the new freighters promise 30% better fuel efficiency and 25% lower operating costs per ton. The rail merger debate heats up as CPKC advocates against further Class I rail consolidation, asserting that such mergers are unnecessary and could trigger an undesirable industry restructuring. Instead, CPKC champions interline partnerships, citing its collaboration with CSX on the Southeast Mexico Express service as an example of achieving benefits without integration risks. The Department of Transportation's (DOT) warns California, New Mexico, and Washington, threatening to withhold millions in federal highway funds for allegedly failing to enforce federal English proficiency standards for truck drivers. This action follows a fatal accident involving a driver with reported language issues and a history of non-compliance, with states given 30 days to rectify the situation. Explore the Trump administration's challenge to California's Clean Truck Check (CTC) rule, with the EPA proposing to disapprove its application to out-of-state trucks due to concerns about the Commerce Clause and the Clean Air Act. While the rule remains in effect for California-based vehicles, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) views the EPA's move as illegal interference, signaling a potential legal battle over state versus federal authority. Also don't miss the FreightWaves Q3 2025 Carrier Rate Report, sponsored by Trimble, offering a comprehensive review of Q2 performance and forecasts for the coming months. This valuable resource combines carrier survey responses with SONAR data to provide essential intelligence for strategic planning, covering supply, earnings, and demand forecasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SummaryThis lecture discussion explores the evolution of the Commerce Clause, located in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes. Initially intended to prevent economic fragmentation among the states under the Articles of Confederation, the clause has since become a cornerstone of federal legislative authority. The lecture traces the doctrine's development from early cases like Gibbons v. Ogden, which established a broad interpretation of interstate commerce, through periods of judicial contraction during the Lochner era, and into its expansive use during the New Deal era with cases like Wickard v. Filburn. It also covers the modern Court's retrenchment in United States v. Lopez and Morrison, reaffirming limits on federal power. The lecture concludes with analysis of Gonzales v. Raich, the Affordable Care Act case (NFIB v. Sebelius), and the interplay between the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, providing students with a framework to understand the clause's reach and limitations in contemporary constitutional law.Key TakeawaysCommerce Clause Authority: Congress has the power to regulate channels, instrumentalities, and activities substantially affecting interstate commerce.Early Interpretations: Gibbons v. Ogden broadly defined “commerce” and Congress's authority over it.Judicial Contraction: Cases like E.C. Knight and Hammer v. Dagenhart restricted commerce power by excluding manufacturing and production.New Deal Expansion: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wickard v. Filburn upheld federal regulation of intrastate activities with substantial economic effects.Civil Rights and Commerce: Heart of Atlanta Motel and Katzenbach v. McClung affirmed Congress's authority to address racial discrimination through commerce power.Modern Limits: Lopez and Morrison reasserted that non-economic activities and areas of traditional state concern fall outside commerce power.Necessary and Proper Clause: Raich shows Congress may regulate intrastate activity if essential to a broader regulatory scheme.Tenth Amendment Constraints: Federal power under the Commerce Clause cannot commandeer state governments (New York v. United States, Printz).Affordable Care Act: In NFIB v. Sebelius, the individual mandate exceeded commerce power but was upheld under the taxing power.Doctrinal Framework: The three-category test for Commerce Clause regulation guides constitutional analysis post-Lopez.

Lecture One introduces foundational concepts in Constitutional Law, addressing federalism, separation of powers, and core individual rights (Due Process, Equal Protection, and the Commerce Clause). It explains federalism's distribution of authority between federal and state governments, highlighting key Supreme Court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden. It also discusses the essential separation of powers principle, reinforced by landmark decisions such as Marbury v. Madison. Critical individual rights are examined, specifically procedural and substantive due process rights, equal protection standards, and the extensive interpretation of the Commerce Clause through landmark cases.The lecture also covers fundamental professional responsibility topics guided by the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, focusing on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and attorney-client privilege. It emphasizes the ethical duties and obligations attorneys have toward their clients and the legal system. The lecture concludes with practical preparation strategies for the MBE and introduces structured methods for writing effective MEE essays, including sample questions and essay analyses.Key Takeaways:Constitutional Law:Federalism: Federal government powers are enumerated explicitly; states hold reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment.Separation of Powers: Legislative, executive, and judicial branches have distinct roles to prevent abuses of power.Due Process: Protects individuals from unfair government deprivation of life, liberty, or property.Equal Protection: Requires equal governmental treatment and scrutiny standards to evaluate discrimination.Commerce Clause: Grants broad authority to Congress over activities significantly affecting interstate commerce.Professional Responsibility:ABA Model Rules: Set ethical standards for legal practice; adopted widely by state bar associations.Conflicts of Interest: Attorneys must avoid or mitigate conflicts that impair professional judgment or client interests.Confidentiality: Lawyers have an expansive duty to protect client information, with limited exceptions.Attorney-Client Privilege: Specifically safeguards confidential communications meant to secure legal advice.Exam Preparation:Regularly practice MBE-style questions to build accuracy and analytical skills.Employ the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method systematically for MEE essays.Understand ethical dilemmas deeply to clearly articulate duties in professional responsibility essays.These key concepts form the foundation for your continued bar exam preparation.

This lecture outlines the foundational principles of federalism in the United States, explaining the division of power between the federal government and individual states. It defines federalism by contrasting it with unitary and confederate systems, then details how the U.S. Constitution establishes this structure through enumerated powers for the federal government and reserved powers for the states via the Tenth Amendment. The lecture also highlights crucial constitutional clauses like the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and the Commerce Clause, discussing their impact on the balance of power and examining their interpretation through landmark Supreme Court cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden, and United States v. Lopez, showcasing the evolving nature of federal authority.Federalism as a Core Principle: The lecture emphasizes that federalism is not merely a theoretical concept but is "at the very core of the United States constitutional system." It represents a "sophisticated division of powers" between the national government and the individual states, designed to achieve a "balance between national unity and the preservation of state autonomy." This system contrasts with unitary systems (centralized power) and confederations (states retaining dominant sovereignty).Constitutional Basis for Federalism: The document outlines the specific constitutional provisions that establish and delineate federalism:Enumerated Powers (Article One, Section Eight): The Constitution lists specific powers granted to the federal government, such as regulating interstate commerce, coining money, declaring war, and raising armies. These are presented as a "carefully selected set of responsibilities deemed essential for the national government to effectively function."Implied Powers (Necessary and Proper Clause, Article One, Section Eight): This clause grants Congress the power to enact laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its enumerated powers. It is described as a "vital source of flexibility," allowing the federal government to adapt and effectively exercise its responsibilities.Reserved Powers (Tenth Amendment): This amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This reinforces the principle of limited federal power and affirms the states' broad authority over matters not specifically assigned to the national government, including "health, safety, welfare, and morals" (police powers).Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause Two): This clause establishes the hierarchy of law, declaring the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." It ensures that "federal law will prevail" in cases of direct conflict with state law and prevents states from undermining valid federal laws.The Significance of the Commerce Clause: The Commerce Clause (Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three), granting Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," is highlighted as a "most significant and frequently litigated sources of federal authority." Its interpretation has "profoundly influenced the balance of power between the federal government and the states," reflecting "evolving societal needs and philosophical perspectives."Landmark Supreme Court Cases and their Impact: The lecture reviews key cases illustrating the evolution of federalism and the interpretation of federal power:Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

This lecture explores the concept of federalism and the division of powers between the federal government and the states, highlighting constitutional provisions, landmark Supreme Court cases, and ongoing debates surrounding the balance of power. It emphasizes the practical applications of federalism in areas such as civil rights and environmental regulation, while also addressing criticisms and proposals for reform.TakeawaysFederalism is a system where power is divided between national and state governments.The Constitution enumerates specific powers for the federal government.The Necessary and Proper Clause allows for implied powers.The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as the highest authority.The Commerce Clause has been interpreted in various ways by the Supreme Court.Landmark cases like McCulloch v. Maryland shaped federalism.Debates continue over the balance of power between state and national governments.Sovereign immunity limits individuals' ability to sue states.Federalism can promote local solutions but may also entrench inequality.Reform proposals include re-examining sovereign immunity and federal power limits.Federalism, Division of Powers, Constitutional Law, Supreme Court, State Sovereignty, Commerce Clause, Judicial Review, Implied Powers, Sovereign Immunity, Civil Rights

This Day in Legal History:  Schecter Poultry Corp DecidedOn May 27, 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, delivering a major blow to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. In a unanimous ruling, the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), a cornerstone of Roosevelt's economic recovery plan during the Great Depression. The case centered on the Schechter brothers, who ran a poultry business in Brooklyn and were charged with violating fair competition codes established under NIRA. The Court held that the NIRA unlawfully delegated legislative power to the executive branch without clear standards, violating the nondelegation doctrine.The justices also found that the federal government had overreached its authority by regulating purely intrastate commerce. The Schechters' business operated entirely within New York, and the Court concluded it had only an indirect effect on interstate commerce—placing it beyond Congress's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, writing for the Court, emphasized the need for separation of powers and warned against unchecked executive authority.This ruling sharply curtailed New Deal programs that relied on broad executive discretion and forced the Roosevelt administration to reconsider its legislative strategies. It also marked one of the last major uses of the nondelegation doctrine to invalidate federal legislation. While the doctrine has since faded in use, the decision remains a potent symbol of judicial limits on federal power. The Schechter case underscored the constitutional requirement that Congress, not the president, must make the laws, and that those laws must respect the boundaries of federalism.The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court's order that would have required the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created by President Trump and closely associated with Elon Musk, to turn over records and allow a top official, Amy Gleason, to testify. Chief Justice John Roberts granted the administrative stay without comment, giving the Court time to consider whether a longer pause is warranted. The case, brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hinges on whether DOGE qualifies as a federal agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which would subject it to transparency requirements.The Trump administration argues DOGE is not covered by FOIA and has pushed back against efforts to obtain discovery—evidence and testimony—from the office. A federal judge had previously authorized limited discovery to help determine DOGE's legal status, which led to the administration's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department claims this process threatens the separation of powers by exposing a presidential advisory body to scrutiny.CREW contends the administration is trying to bypass judicial review and shield the office from public accountability. Though Elon Musk is seen as the public face of DOGE, the administration denies he holds any formal role. The Court's intervention pauses imminent deadlines for DOGE to release records and participate in depositions, but a full ruling on the core legal question remains pending.Supreme Court Pauses Order for DOGE Records and Testimony - BloombergA federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to help a gay Guatemalan man, identified as O.C.G., return to the United States after he was wrongfully deported to Mexico. The man had fled Guatemala due to threats linked to his sexuality and was granted protection by an immigration judge. However, just two days after that ruling, U.S. officials mistakenly deported him to Mexico, where he had previously been raped and kidnapped.U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, based in Boston, issued the order after the Justice Department admitted it had no evidence that O.C.G. was ever asked about fears of being sent to Mexico, contradicting earlier claims. The judge called the situation a "horror" and emphasized that the man had been denied his constitutional right to due process. The case is part of a broader class action challenging the administration's deportation practices, particularly efforts to send individuals to third countries without assessing safety concerns.Murphy had already ruled that deportations under such conditions violated due process protections. The ruling also follows similar failures by the administration, including the wrongful deportation of another protected individual to El Salvador. O.C.G.'s legal team, now working on a return plan, said he chose to return to Guatemala and went into hiding after facing long asylum wait times in Mexico.US judge orders Trump administration to facilitate return of Guatemalan deportee | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week dives into a deceptively boring topic that's quietly poised to become a compliance headache: killing the penny. On the surface, it's a monetary housekeeping item. But as I argue, the downstream effects—particularly for state sales tax systems—are anything but trivial.The central problem isn't emotional attachment to small coins. It's rounding—specifically, how states choose to round transactions in a penny-free world. If states start rounding tax amounts instead of total amounts, or worse, do it differently depending on whether someone pays in cash or by card, they're walking straight into a legal buzzsaw. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) bars discriminatory treatment of electronic commerce. And no, that doesn't only apply to online transactions—if digital payments consistently produce higher tax totals than cash ones, that's arguably “discrimination,” and litigation will follow.The fix? Simple enough: keep tax calculations exact to the penny, round only the total cash transaction due to the nearest nickel, and let the retailer absorb the difference. It's not pain-free—retailers lose a few cents here, gain a few there—but it keeps digital systems intact and legal risk low. Rounding the tax itself may feel “efficient,” but it's a compliance trap that opens states to lawsuits and chaos in point-of-sale systems designed for one-cent precision.And that's before we even get to the technical debt. E-commerce platforms, credit card processors, and small business systems have no concept of nickel rounding. Forcing them to adapt would mean software rewrites no one asked for—and in many cases, from vendors who no longer exist.The upside here is policy gold: rounding only at the total level nudges more transactions toward cards and mobile payments, where amounts are exact and sales tax compliance is tighter. Fewer paper trails, fewer “zappers,” and fewer discrepancies in audit.So yes, the penny is obsolete. But if states mishandle the transition, they'll find out just how expensive abolishing it can be. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of. The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.”  Watch this episode https://www.youtube.com/live/sww0QMst_SY-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/ http://tstradio.info/https://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.com EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of.  The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.” *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/https://x.com/TST___Radio https://www.facebook.com/thesecretteachingshttps://www.youtube.com/@TSTRadioOfficialhttp://tstradio.infohttps://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.comEMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

For many, government can inadvertently or purposefully get in the way of doing business. In this largely unknown Supreme Court decision, the court majority had some rather unusual and fantastical imaginations for justifying an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. Learn how this case could justify government regulations for the most absurd and improbable hypotheticals.Support the showVisit georgewashingtoninstitute.org to sign up for our e-mail list! The site is the one-stop shop of all things Friends & Fellow Citizens and George Washington Institute!JOIN as a Patreon supporter and receive a FREE Friends & Fellow Citizens mug at the $25 membership level!IMPORTANT NOTE/DISCLAIMER: All views expressed by the host are presented in his personal capacity and do not officially represent the views of any affiliated organizations. All views presented by guests are solely those of the interviewees themselves and may or may not reflect the views of their affiliated organizations, the host, Friends & Fellow Citizens, and/or The George Washington Institute.

Send us a textEnjoy this episode? Please share it with at least ONE friend who you think needs to hear it!Sovereign law expert, author, and legal researcher Brandon Joe Williams reveals shocking truths about U.S. citizenship, hidden legal definitions, and the contractual traps shaping your identity in episode 193 of the Far Out with Faust podcast.A seasoned legal expert and advocate for personal sovereignty, Brandon specializes in unraveling the complexities of the legal system. He is the author of Don't Get Fooled Again and founder of the Amnesty Coalition, where he educates individuals on reclaiming their rights within the U.S. legal framework. His work delves into how birth certificates, social security numbers, and hidden clauses in the legal system redefine the concept of personal freedom.In this episode, Brandon and Faust take a deep dive into the true meaning of U.S. citizenship, uncovering the legal sleight of hand that classifies individuals as entities within the corporate framework of the government. They explore the 14th Amendment, the implications of the Slaughterhouse Cases, and the financial structures that turn individuals into unwitting participants in a system designed for control. Brandon also sheds light on the concept of doing business as a foreign entity, the influence of artificial intelligence in legal contracts, and the overlooked legal mechanisms that dictate modern life.Topics include:• The hidden legal meaning of U.S. citizenship• How the 14th Amendment redefined personal identity• The Slaughterhouse Cases and their impact on sovereignty• Are U.S. states under federal jurisdiction, or are they sovereign entities?• The legal status of U.S. territories and their relationship with the federal government• How birth certificates and social security numbers create corporate entities• The role of the Commerce Clause in personal finance and taxation• The legal loopholes surrounding taxation and business identity• AI contracts and their potential to exploit personal likeness• How legal definitions shape government authority and personal rights• Understanding domicile vs. residence in the eyes of the law… and much more! Gain a new perspective on the legal framework that controls modern life and discover how to navigate it with informed awareness.

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest running podcast in compliance. In this episode, Tom welcomes back Corporate Transparency Act expert and maven Jonathan Wilson for a look at judicial insights and recent developments in the Corporate Transparent Act (CTA) litigation.  Tom and Jonathan discuss the recent developments, including a preliminary injunction by Judge Kernodle in the Smith v. Treasury case, and its implications on CTA enforcement. Important differences between this injunction and previous ones, such as the Texas Top Cop Shop case, are highlighted. Wilson offers insights into the constitutional debates, particularly regarding the Commerce Clause, and reviews key decisions from federal district courts, including the persuasive Boyle decision from the District of Maine. They also touch on upcoming appeals and the potential impacts on the CTA's nationwide enforcement. Key Highlights  ·       Current Status of the Corporate Transparency Act ·       Judge Kernodle's Injunction and Legal Arguments ·       Supreme Court's Involvement and Implications ·       Analysis of the Boyle Decision ·       Procedural Updates and Future Outlook Resources Jonathan Wilson on LinkedIn FinCEN Report Tom Fox Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn For more information on the Ethico Toolkit for Middle Managers, available at no charge by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest-running podcast in compliance. In the first episode of the 2025 FCPA Compliance Report, Tom welcomes back Jonathan Wilson, founder and CEO of the FinCEN Report, to discuss recent legal machinations surrounding the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). They delve into a December court ruling by the Eastern District of Texas, which issued a universal injunction against the CTA, claiming it oversteps Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit stay panel initially stayed this ruling but was later reinstated by the merits panel, leading the government to appeal to the Supreme Court. The episode also covers historical context, potential impacts on businesses, and predictions for future court actions regarding the CTA. Key highlights: Texas Top Cop Shop Case Overview Court Rulings and Injunctions Supreme Court Involvement Government Response and Filing Process Implications of Administration Change Resources: Jonathan Wilson on LinkedIn FinCEN Report Tom Fox Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn For more information on the Ethico Toolkit for Middle Managers, available at no charge, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Jay Scott as he uncovers the Anti-Federalist group that stood against George Washington, the Federalist, and the Constitution in the 1780's!  Natural Freedom, Equal Treatment, Right to Bear Arms, Accountability, and Limits to Power were some of the key points the Anti-Federalist group rallied for. They saw similarities of an Aristocracy rule in the first Constitution. VERY DANGEROUS!  Also important, no clear declarations of individual human rights were written. (Thank these guys for The Bill of Rights we have now.) Learn how these Hero's put their neck on the line for true freedom at a delicate moment in the beginning stages of the USA. You will never think of our origins the same again! Disclaimer: For legal reasons... !!! This show is for entertainment purposes only !!! ~ ENJOY! ____________________________________________________ ❤️Help -keeping it REAL- by being a supporter of the podcast! Support is as simple as giving whatever you feel the show is worth to you. I will always be dedicated to bringing you value. Please consider returning some value in return! Even a like, comment, or share helps. You have my gratitude.

We were going to take up the transcendent matters appropriate for the climax of Advent, but the headlines won't let us! The dam started breaking this week about Joe Biden's unfitness for office, which, as the Wall Street Journal reported, began during the 2020 campaign. Just who has been president for the last four years? And aside from the perfidy of the complacent and compliant (to Democrats) news media, should there be a serious congressional investigation into what is clearly one of the greatest coverups in American history. Biden's senior staff and cabinet should have to answer uncomfortable questions about this, and perhaps face charges for decisions and actions they may not have had legal authority to make.We also review the drama of the last 72 hours over the Continuing Resolution to avoid a "government shutdown," with Steve arguing the outcome was a minor victory for conservatives, but needs to be followed up with more serious steps in the new Congress.From there, we note the important of Fani Willis getting her fanny handed to her, and then take up briefly some listener reaction to our mid-week show, especially Hadley Arkes's long note about what we missed about the Commerce Clause and the nearly forgotten case of Hammer v. Dagenhart. We ran out of time for a complete consideration, so next week!

This Day in Legal History: Alcohol Control Administration CreatedOn December 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Federal Alcohol Control Administration (FACA) by executive order, a pivotal moment in the transition away from Prohibition. This action came under the National Industrial Recovery Act, as part of Roosevelt's broader New Deal agenda aimed at economic recovery. FACA was designed to regulate the burgeoning alcohol industry, which was reemerging after years of prohibition, ensuring it operated within fair competition guidelines. The administration focused on creating voluntary codes for brewers, distillers, and wineries to prevent monopolistic practices and maintain equitable market conditions.FACA's creation coincided with the formal repeal of Prohibition under the 21st Amendment, which took effect later that month. However, the agency's lifespan was short-lived. By August 1935, it was replaced by the Federal Alcohol Administration (FAA) through new legislation. The FAA consolidated alcohol regulation within the Treasury Department, laying the groundwork for modern alcohol oversight. Today, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), a successor to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), continues to fulfill the regulatory role first envisioned by FACA. The establishment and swift evolution of alcohol regulation reflect the complexities of ending Prohibition and integrating alcohol back into the economy under federal oversight.A federal judge in California dismissed Hunter Biden's tax case but criticized the presidential pardon issued by President Joe Biden. Judge Mark C. Scarsi expressed skepticism about the validity of the pardon, noting that it was supported only by a press release and could be interpreted as covering actions beyond its signing date. He questioned the argument that the charges against Hunter were politically motivated, highlighting that the investigation was conducted under the supervision of the President's own Department of Justice.The judge also pointed out inconsistencies in statements by the President, who claimed his son was treated unfairly compared to others with similar tax issues. However, Hunter Biden had admitted to evading taxes while sober, contrary to claims of addiction-related leniency. Despite these critiques, Scarsi determined that the part of the pardon covering Hunter's past conduct required dismissal of the charges in his Los Angeles tax case. The case underscores the legal and political complexities surrounding Hunter Biden's prosecution and the implications of presidential pardons.Judge Slams Hunter Biden Pardon but Tosses California Tax CaseCoinbase CEO Brian Armstrong issued a warning to law firms that hiring former government officials involved in crypto enforcement could result in losing Coinbase as a client. In a Dec. 2 post, Armstrong criticized Milbank LLP for hiring Gurbir Grewal, the former SEC enforcement director who led numerous actions against crypto companies, including Coinbase. Armstrong called this move a mistake, stating Coinbase would never work with Milbank as long as Grewal was there.Paul Grewal, Coinbase's general counsel, supported Armstrong's stance, emphasizing the importance of holding former government lawyers accountable for their actions while in office. He hoped the statement would spark a broader conversation about the “revolving door” between Washington and private law firms. Armstrong's post aims to influence firms not yet on Coinbase's roster to consider the implications of their hiring choices. At a legal panel, Gurbir Grewal defended his actions at the SEC, denying any bias against the crypto industry but acknowledging frustrations with the agency's strict enforcement. Legal experts noted that public ultimatums like Armstrong's are rare, though private client concerns about hiring conflicts are common. Coinbase continues to navigate regulatory tensions, having been charged by the SEC in June 2023 for operating without proper registration and filing its own legal challenges against the agency.Coinbase CEO Threatens Law Firms Over Government Hires (1)A federal court in Texas has issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which requires U.S. businesses to report their beneficial owners to the Treasury Department. Judge Amos L. Mazzant III ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, including a firearms retailer and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, who argued that the law exceeded Congress's constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause by targeting all incorporated entities, even those not engaged in commercial activity.The CTA aimed to combat anonymous shell companies and deter financial crimes like money laundering and terrorism financing. However, Judge Mazzant criticized the law as a "quasi-Orwellian statute" that oversteps constitutional limits, asserting that Congress cannot mandate such disclosures solely for law enforcement purposes. He emphasized that the act does not directly regulate commerce, undermining its constitutional basis.The injunction affects an estimated 32.6 million businesses required to comply by 2025. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the ruling. The plaintiffs were represented by S|L Law PLLC and the Center for Individual Rights in the case Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland.Corporate Transparency Act Blocked Nationwide by Texas CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear a pivotal case on the rights of transgender minors, focusing on a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming medical care such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy for those under 18. The Biden administration argues that the law violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by discriminating based on sex and transgender status. This case represents a critical examination of individual rights and the role of government in regulating personal healthcare decisions.Tennessee defends the law as a measure to protect minors from what it calls "risky and unproven" medical treatments, citing international debates and instances of treatment regret. However, major medical associations counter that gender-affirming care is effective and can be life-saving for individuals experiencing gender dysphoria, which is linked to higher suicide rates if untreated.The law has significant consequences for families like that of plaintiff Brian Williams, whose 16-year-old transgender child depends on this care to thrive. Advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, argue that the law unjustly targets vulnerable youth, while Tennessee officials claim it safeguards children.The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, will decide on the legality of this ban by June. This decision could set a precedent for similar laws in 23 other states, highlighting critical questions about equality and healthcare access for transgender individuals.US Supreme Court set to hear major transgender rights case | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe