Podcasts about Constitutionality

Our show opens with a quick recall of my weekend to include my daughter getting married this past Sunday. I then spend some time on the liars on the Left and how they continuously project their own sins onto their opposition. We also remind everyone about what can and cannot be done with the Big Beautiful bill. Jake Tapper has come to the realization that people like to lie and maybe people in the field of “journalism” might need to be more skeptical. You don't say. To setup some good news, we have to go through some of the bad. Last week there were hearing on The Hill regarding the Covid-19 topic and it's a whole lot of bad. But, the good is today, the C-19 vaxx is no longer on the CDC schedule for healthy kids and healthy pregnant women. The Deep State continues to be revealed as leakers are being purged. We may also have more clarity over who leaked the Dobbs decision from inside the SCOTUS. Let's just say there might be a reason the Chief Justice seems unable to focus on Constitutionality within the court. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – I call it a good start. Not that everything they've done is constitutional, but what they have done is but a drop in the bucket of what we need to do for us to be the land of the free. It's not just the executive branch but also those in the legislative branch. And as much as we've heard about the judiciary impeding progress, there are cases where the courts have...

The Constitution Study with Host Paul Engel – I call it a good start. Not that everything they've done is constitutional, but what they have done is but a drop in the bucket of what we need to do for us to be the land of the free. It's not just the executive branch but also those in the legislative branch. And as much as we've heard about the judiciary impeding progress, there are cases where the courts have...

The American Democracy Minute Radio Report & Podcast for May 16, 2025Pro-Voter Groups Again Challenge ‘Least Change” Congressional Districts in Wisconsin Supreme Court, After Outcome of April's $100M Court RaceAfter the election of liberal-leaning Justice Janet Protasiewicz in 2023, Wisconsin state assembly and senate maps were challenged in the Wisconsin Supreme Court and subsequently thrown out as unconstitutional.  But justices passed on a challenge to the Congressional districts.Some podcasting platforms strip out our links.  To read our resources and see the whole script of today's report, please go to our website at https://AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgToday's LinksArticles & Resources:American Democracy Minute - (2023) Oral Arguments Heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Constitutionality of the the State's Extreme Gerrymandered MapsAmerican Democracy Minute - (2024) After Cleaning Up Gerrymandered State Senate & Assembly Districts, the Wisconsin Supreme Court Passes on Congressional Districts American Democracy Minute - (2024) In a Game of Chicken with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, GOP Legislators Pass Somewhat Competitive Redistricting Maps in Effort to Avoid Truly Fair MapsWisconsin Public Radio - 2 lawsuits challenging Wisconsin's congressional map filed with state Supreme CourtWisconsin Supreme Court (via WPR) - Elias Group Challenge to Congressional DistrictsWisconsin Supreme Court (via WPR) - Campaign Legal Center Challenge to Congressional Districts Groups Taking Action:Wisconsin Fair Maps Coalition, League of Women Voters WI, Common Cause WIPlease follow us on Facebook and Bluesky Social, and SHARE! Find all of our reports at AmericanDemocracyMinute.orgWant ADM sent to your email?  Sign up here!Are you a radio station?  Find our broadcast files at Pacifica Radio Network's Audioport and PRX#Democracy  #DemocracyNews #Wisconsin #FairMaps #WISupremeCourt #SusanCrawford 

3643 – May 14, 2025 – NOW You are Worried About CONSTITUTIONALITY? – President Trump has quite the battle on his hands AS those in Congress, supposedly conservatives fighting for We the People are being quick to nitpick and criticize.  MOST of these expert critics have been in positions for quite some time. Rand Paul is the focus of my ... The post NOW You are Worried About CONSTITUTIONALITY? appeared first on CSC Talk Radio.

Equal Education’s Head of Organising in the Western Cape, Nontsikelelo Dlulani joined Saskia Falken on air to talk about challenging the Western Cape schools' admission policy in court. Views and News with Clarence Ford is the mid-morning show on CapeTalk. This 3-hour long programme shares and reflects a broad array of perspectives. It is inspirational, passionate and positive. Host Clarence Ford’s gentle curiosity and dapper demeanour leave listeners feeling motivated and empowered. Known for his love of jazz and golf, Clarrie covers a range of themes including relationships, heritage and philosophy. Popular segments include Barbs’ Wire at 9:30am (Mon-Thurs) and The Naked Scientist at 9:30 on Fridays. Listen live – Views and News with Clarence Ford is broadcast weekdays between 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) https://www.primediaplus.com/station/capetalk Find all the catch-up podcasts here https://www.primediaplus.com/capetalk/views-and-news-with-clarence-ford/audio-podcasts/views-and-news-with-clarence-ford/ Subscribe to the CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://www.primediaplus.com/competitions/newsletter-subscription/ Follow us on social media: CapeTalk on Facebook: www.facebook.com/CapeTalk   CapeTalk on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@capetalk   CapeTalk on Instagram: www.instagram.com/capetalkza  CapeTalk on X: www.x.com/CapeTalk  CapeTalk on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

3pm: Guest - William Kirk - Washington Gun Law.com //  Breaking down the constitutionality of Washington’s Gun Permit Bill // Debunking the study used to pass the gun permit law // I Stand Correct // Text message batting practice // The KRUD Tattoo April Fools Day Prank

State Senator Byron Pelton and Chuck Miller both joins to talk about the quagmire that the state of Colorado is truly in. When we say that Colorado is at the tip of the spear you will understand that when you listen to this.

Judges issue gag orders to prevent the release of information that could compromise the fairness and impartiality of a trial. The main reasons a judge might issue a gag order are:To protect the right to a fair trial: By preventing the release of information that could prejudice the jury, a gag order helps ensure that the outcome of a trial is based on the evidence presented in court, rather than on media coverage or public opinion.To protect sensitive information: Gag orders can be used to prevent the release of confidential or sensitive information, such as the identity of a minor, confidential medical records, or classified information in a national security case.To maintain the integrity of the legal process: A gag order can help prevent the spread of false information or rumors that could harm the reputation of the parties involved in the case.To protect the privacy of the parties involved: In high-profile cases, a gag order can help protect the privacy of the individuals involved and prevent the release of information that could harm their reputation or safety.It's important to note that while gag orders can serve an important purpose, they also raise important First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech and the press. As a result, gag orders are subject to strict scrutiny and may be challenged if they are deemed too broad or unjustified.The challenge to the gag order comes from not only the Goncalves family, but from over thirty media networks as well. The parties are challenging the broad scope of the gag order and contend that the bloated scope of order falls outside of the boundaries that were established by the supreme court.Let's check it out.(cocmmercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Gag Order on Idaho Murder Case is 'Likely Unconstitutional', Lawyer Argues (newsweek.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

On today's Quick Start podcast: NEWS: President Trump moves forward with plans to dismantle the Department of Education, returning power to parents and states. FOCUS STORY: Pro-life advocate Kristan Hawkins shares her journey leading Students for Life of America and the challenges she faces within and outside the movement. MAIN THING: Trump's new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is making waves—can Musk's "chainsaw for bureaucracy" even hold up legally? LAST THING: Exodus 20:13 – "You shall not murder." SHOW LINKS JESUS AND THE PROPHECIES OF CHRISTMAS : https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jesus-and-the-prophecies-of-christmas/id1783607035 NEWSMAKERS POD: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/newsmakers/id1724061454 DC DEBRIEF POD: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/d-c-debrief/id1691121630 CBN News YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CBNnewsonline CBN News https://www2.cbn.com/news Faithwire https://www.faithwire.com

Josh Kastenberg UNM law professor to explain the Constitutionality of the Trump deportations on News Radio KKOB See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A second judge is questioning the Constitutionality of Elon Musk's role at DOGE.DHS Secretary Kristi Noem spends a couple hundred million on North Korea-style propaganda to make Trump feel good about failing.There's a new wrinkle in the saga of Donald Trump and Eric Adams.Plus Enrique Tarrio and some of his traitor minions try to bait Michael Fanone and Harry into an altercation. Thanks Marley Spoon. Head to MarleySpoon.com/OFFER/CLEANUP and use code CLEANUP for up to 27 FREE meals!Text CLEANUP20 to 64000 for 20% off your DeleteMe subscription. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/@muellershewrote.bsky.social on BlueskyHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

Avi Soifer, former dean of the University of Hawaiʻi William Richardson School of Law, talks about the constitutionality of President Donald Trump's executive orders; Department of Land and Natural Resources survey entomologist Karl Magnacca shares how a new native bee species was discovered on Molokai

Judges issue gag orders to prevent the release of information that could compromise the fairness and impartiality of a trial. The main reasons a judge might issue a gag order are:To protect the right to a fair trial: By preventing the release of information that could prejudice the jury, a gag order helps ensure that the outcome of a trial is based on the evidence presented in court, rather than on media coverage or public opinion.To protect sensitive information: Gag orders can be used to prevent the release of confidential or sensitive information, such as the identity of a minor, confidential medical records, or classified information in a national security case.To maintain the integrity of the legal process: A gag order can help prevent the spread of false information or rumors that could harm the reputation of the parties involved in the case.To protect the privacy of the parties involved: In high-profile cases, a gag order can help protect the privacy of the individuals involved and prevent the release of information that could harm their reputation or safety.It's important to note that while gag orders can serve an important purpose, they also raise important First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech and the press. As a result, gag orders are subject to strict scrutiny and may be challenged if they are deemed too broad or unjustified.The challenge to the gag order comes from not only the Goncalves family, but from over thirty media networks as well. The parties are challenging the broad scope of the gag order and contend that the bloated scope of order falls outside of the boundaries that were established by the supreme court.Let's check it out.(cocmmercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Gag Order on Idaho Murder Case is 'Likely Unconstitutional', Lawyer Argues (newsweek.com)

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas: Dallas Rep. Jasmine Crockett was a prominent voice yesterday as lawmakers and civilian protestors rallied against Elon Musk's "hostile takeover" of the financial systems of the U.S. Department of Treasury: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/04/democrats-protest-elon-musk-treasury-washington ...Crockett notes that the Trump administration appears to have little regard for the legality or Constitutionality of their opening moves: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5125167-jasmine-crockett-donald-trump-constitution/ Dallas-area freshman Republican U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill has called for collegue Rep. Ilhan Omar to be deported over her advice to her constituents to know and exercise their rights if confronted by ICE officers: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5126520-freshman-texas-lawmaker-calling-for-deportation-of-ilhan-omar/ Operation Lone Star, despite having little to show for the $11 billion that's been blown on it and an uptick from federal border enforcement, appears to remain a popular and very expensive budget goal for Republicans: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/02/05/texas-border-security-immigration-spending-operation-lone-star/ A new survey of Texans of both parties finds that very few Texans want to keep marijuana prohibition as it is, with the majority in both parties supporting the decriminalization of personal-use possession: https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/texas/texas-marijuana-laws-recreation-2025-legislature/285-db2ece8c-f9cf-4b3f-9ac6-320ea6cc075e Next door in New Orleans, NFL crews are busily removing the "End Racism" slogan from the Super Bowl field end zones - a move appearing to appease Donald Trump, who will be in attendance on Sunday: https://www.nbcnews.com/sports/nfl/nfl-will-remove-end-racism-end-zones-ahead-super-bowl-rcna190686 Protesting today? Be aware of your surroundings and keep things legal, peaceful and safe: https://apnews.com/article/50501-protests-project-2025-trump-state-capitols-ddd341171a54ba9b498cbfe7530e18ab The early giving period for this year's Amplify Austin Day has begun! Support Progress Texas at ⁠⁠https://www.amplifyatx.org/organizations/progress-texas-institute⁠⁠. Progress Texas is now ranked in the top 3% of all podcasts worldwide for listenership - thank you! ⁠⁠⁠https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/progress-texas-podcasts-progress-texas-pHdPjbaN-7B/⁠⁠⁠ The merch to match your progressive values awaits at our web store! Grab your goodies at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://store.progresstexas.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. We're loving the troll-free environment at BlueSky! Follow us there at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bsky.app/profile/progresstexas.bsky.social⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Thanks for listening! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Guest Eric Brown, Special Forces and Green Beret, joins to discuss the end to DEI in the federal government, federal government employee walkouts, and the reform of the military and DOD. Discussion of focus on making military strong again, cutting federal programs, foreign policy under Trump, and more.  President Trump signs executive order on women's sports. Discussion of the left wing meltdown, attacks on Elon Musk, and the "Constitutionality" of DOGE.  Democrats use their "document of convenience" to claim violations of law of the land. 

Clint Bolick, the 44th Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss how the Supreme Court agreeing to take up the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond case, and what it could mean for the future of charter schools and religious education in the United States.

OPINION: Challenges to the constitutionality of 2025 budget | Feb. 4, 2025Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.netFollow us:Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebookInstagram - https://tmt.ph/instagramTwitter - https://tmt.ph/twitterDailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotionSubscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digitalSign up to our newsletters: https://tmt.ph/newslettersCheck out our Podcasts:Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotifyApple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcastsAmazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusicDeezer: https://tmt.ph/deezerStitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sinn Féin's Pa Daly has initiated a High Court challenge to the constitutionality of Super Junior Ministers. Pa Daly joined Pat to explain why he is taking the action and Professor David Kenny of Trinity College Dublin brings us through the Constitution.

Sarah Isgur and David French record live at George Washington University covering the Alito-Trump phone call and new challenges to explicit content age-verification laws. The Agenda: —Justice Alito's phone call with Trump —False statements case —Challenges to Texas' age-verification law —Constitutionality of ID laws —Title IX and Chevron —Questions from GWU students 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 Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's show opens with a return to a Friday favorite, Tara Bull's Top 10 News Items the Legacy/mainstream media didn't cover. I really enjoy being able to quickly run through several news stories before hitting my stack of stuff. The first item I dive into after the Top 10 is word that the Biden White House is busy on more pre-emptive pardons for Dr. Anthony Fauci, Sen.-elect Adam “Lying Piece of” Schiff and Liz “Love going to war” Cheney. This led me to pull up Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Within that clause is power for reducing sentences and pardoning crimes committed against the United States. In fact, the exact line reads, “[The President]...he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This leads me to ask, how can the President provide blanket immunity for unknown or unnamed offenses against the United States? Don't they have to be named? The first DOGE meeting took place and already the unhinged and angry lunatics on the Left are doing all they can to spin it into the worst fearporn they can envision. But, once you understand what is being suggested, all the fear subsides. Even Scott Jennings, CNN, says that's the feedback he is hearing. However, as Rep Tim Burchett (R-TN) notes, it's not a problem finding the fraud, waste and abuse. It's whether or not the Congress will do anything about it? Isn't that always the real question? Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR and TRUTH Social by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. You can also support the show by visiting my Patreon page!!

Welcome back to UNBIASED. In today's episode: Justices React to Constitutionality of Ban on Gender Transition Treatments for Minors (0:51) US Soldiers Arrested in Human Smuggling Operation at Southern Border (8:16) Updates in the Fatal Shooting of United Healthcare CEO; Cryptic Text Engraved on Bullets; Police Gather Evidence; and More (10:22) Quick Hitters: Two Boys Critically Injured in Northern CA School Shooting, Appellate Court Rules Says 'OK' to Doctors Referring Abortions Out-Of-State, Amazon Sued for Excluding Low-Income Areas from Prime, DOJ Finds Memphis Police Dept. Engages in Discriminatory Behavior, Bitcoin Breaks Records, Judge Rejects Boeing's Plea Agreement (12:54) Rumor Has It: Is President Biden Considering Preemptively Pardoning More People Before He Leaves Office? Is This Allowed? (15:34) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Judges issue gag orders to prevent the release of information that could compromise the fairness and impartiality of a trial. The main reasons a judge might issue a gag order are:To protect the right to a fair trial: By preventing the release of information that could prejudice the jury, a gag order helps ensure that the outcome of a trial is based on the evidence presented in court, rather than on media coverage or public opinion.To protect sensitive information: Gag orders can be used to prevent the release of confidential or sensitive information, such as the identity of a minor, confidential medical records, or classified information in a national security case.To maintain the integrity of the legal process: A gag order can help prevent the spread of false information or rumors that could harm the reputation of the parties involved in the case.To protect the privacy of the parties involved: In high-profile cases, a gag order can help protect the privacy of the individuals involved and prevent the release of information that could harm their reputation or safety.It's important to note that while gag orders can serve an important purpose, they also raise important First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech and the press. As a result, gag orders are subject to strict scrutiny and may be challenged if they are deemed too broad or unjustified.The challenge to the gag order comes from not only the Goncalves family, but from over thirty media networks as well. The parties are challenging the broad scope of the gag order and contend that the bloated scope of order falls outside of the boundaries that were established by the supreme court.Let's check it out.(cocmmercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Gag Order on Idaho Murder Case is 'Likely Unconstitutional', Lawyer Argues (newsweek.com)

In this episode, Jason Crawford, Agustin Orozco, and Will Tucker discuss U.S. ex. rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, the recent decision in which a court found the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act to be unconstitutional. The hosts analyze the court's reasoning and consider its potential impact on FCA cases.   "Let's Talk FCA" is Crowell & Moring's podcast covering the latest developments with the False Claims Act.  

This Day in Maine Wednesday, November 13, 2024

Send us a textTax Notes contributing editor Robert Goulder shares his take on the effects of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and common reporting standards on the feasibility of taxing foreign assets.Listen to our previous episodes on taxing hidden assets:The Constitutionality of Penalties on Undeclared AssetsAmerica the Tax Haven? Exploring the U.S. Trade DeficitFor more coverage, read the following in Tax Notes:Trump Vows to End ‘Double Taxation' of Overseas CitizensCourt Tells DOJ No Do-Over in Venture Capitalist FBAR CaseEU, Belgium Say Domestic Bank Secrecy Hinders Tax TransparencyU.S., Switzerland to Exchange Info Under New FATCA Deal From 2027IRS Approves Argentina's Data Security for FATCA ExchangesTransparency Not a Threat to Privacy, Tax Justice Network SaysFor information about our live Taxing Issues event, visit: https://events.taxanalysts.org/tawebinar112024 Follow us on X:Bob Goulder: @RobertGoulderDavid Stewart: @TaxStewTax Notes: @TaxNotes***CreditsHost: David D. StewartExecutive Producers: Jasper B. Smith, Paige JonesShowrunner: Jordan ParrishAudio Engineers: Jordan Parrish, Peyton RhodesGuest Relations: Alexis Hart

Send us a textTax Notes contributing editor Robert Goulder discusses the history of foreign bank account reporting penalties and how two recent court cases could affect the FBAR regime. For more coverage, read the following in Tax Notes:Jury Finds Professor's FBAR Failures WillfulFBAR Penalty Circuit Split Has Potential for Supreme Court ReviewSchwarzbaum FBAR Penalty Dispute Results in Circuit SplitCourt Tells DOJ No Do-Over in Venture Capitalist FBAR CaseNinth Circuit Approves Prejudgment Interest for FBAR PenaltiesFollow us on X:Bob Goulder: @RobertGoulderDavid Stewart: @TaxStewTax Notes: @TaxNotes***CreditsHost: David D. StewartExecutive Producers: Jasper B. Smith, Paige JonesShowrunner: Jordan ParrishAudio Engineers: Jordan Parrish, Peyton RhodesGuest Relations: Alexis Hart

Was the Occupational Safety and Health Administration properly created? Was the grant of authority Congress gave the agency constitutional and valid, or did Congress create an overpowered agency, to micromanage businesses throughout the United States. That is the question in the case Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary of Labor, et.al. Sadly, the Supreme Court decided not to year the case, even if Justice Gorsuch would have and Justice Thomas wrote a dissent.

Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In part one of our oil and gas law episode with Vivek Warrier, we discuss the new Supreme Court decision regarding the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act.  ✨ Read the full episode transcript HERE ✨ Learn more about the topics/cases on the Lawyered website✨ Help to declutter the law on the Lawyered crowdfunding page

In today's news: We reported this week the city of Benton Harbor is allowing some soil borings to take place at Jean Klock Park in preparation for Peninsula Fiber Network's Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure project. But what is the Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure project? A presentation on the Constitutionality of Presidential Succession will headline Lake Michigan College's annual Constitution Day celebration this month.  A new season of the Niles Scream Park begins Friday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today's news: We reported this week the city of Benton Harbor is allowing some soil borings to take place at Jean Klock Park in preparation for Peninsula Fiber Network's Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure project. But what is the Middle Mile Broadband Infrastructure project? A presentation on the Constitutionality of Presidential Succession will headline Lake Michigan College's annual Constitution Day celebration this month.  A new season of the Niles Scream Park begins Friday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Constitutionality of rape and intent in sexual offences act challenged in High Court by Radio Islam

Does modern society have too many laws? Have we complicated legal codes to the point where we're suffocating under them and grinding the government to a screeching halt? Lawyer and author Philip K. Howard is the founder of the nonpartisan coalition, Common Good, which works toward legal and government reform. He's the author of numerous books like, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America and most recently, Everyday Freedom: Designing the Framework for a Flourishing Society. Philip and Greg discuss the balance between rigid rules and human discretion, the importance of human judgment in law, and how legal micromanagement and excessive regulation curtails individual agency and practical wisdom.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:Freedom does not exist without the authority of law02:42: Freedom does not exist except within a framework of the authority of law. And the authority of law requires human judgment by the people in charge of law, judges, officials, and others. What's a safe workplace, etc.? Whether a seesaw is a reasonable risk? Whatever it is, they have to make those judgments so that people have a sense of where they stand. And then you get freedom back, and people can act again. You no longer have gridlock. But right now we have law, not as a kind of outer fence of a corral of freedom. We have law interceding in daily choices. There's almost nothing you can say in the workplace that doesn't have legal implications. Well, is that a free society? I don't think so. Has law become counterproductive?05:53: Today, the law has become, in many areas, counterproductive. I mean, it doesn't make people feel more free; it makes them feel less free, right? And the point of the law is to provide a framework to enhance everyone's freedom, so we're not worried that the water we drink is polluted, that we feel comfortable, that we have free speech, and we can say what we think without getting into trouble. Well, that's not true anymore.The role of law is to enhance freedom32:06: We need to have a clearer sense of what the boundaries of our freedom are, and that requires the enforcement of norms that judges and others were not doing. So we have both too little and too much law. Ultimately, my goal—I think the role of law is to enhance freedom—everyone's freedom, freedom from abuse, freedom from dirty water, and to do what humans are good at doing.Law doesn't work without judgment01:01:23: Law doesn't work without the judgment of the people—of the people in charge applying the norms of law. Law is not a speed limit sign that says 55 miles an hour. It's principles like the reasonable person standard or whatever. It's unreasonable search and seizure, free speech. All these things are principles that have to be interpreted by somebody. They're not self-executed.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Daniel KahnemanMike Rose Alexis de Tocqueville The American Law Institute podcast Joe Klein | Time MagazineIkiruVaclav HavelJeremy WaldronGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Columbia UniversityProfessional WebsiteCommon GoodHis Work:Everyday Freedom: Designing the Framework for a Flourishing SocietyThe Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating AmericaThe Collapse of the Common Good: How America's Lawsuit Culture Undermines Our Freedom The Rule of Nobody: Saving America from Dead Laws and Broken Government Not Accountable: Rethinking the Constitutionality of Public Employee Unions Try Common Sense: Replacing the Failed Ideologies of Right and LeftThe Lost Art of Drawing the Line: How Fairness Went Too Far Life Without Lawyers: Restoring Responsibility in America

On today's show: 1. South Carolina Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of state's 3 death penalty methods - https://abcnews4.com/news/local/south-carolina-supreme-court-upholds-constitutionality-of-states-3-death-penalty-methods-wciv-abc-news-4-lethal-injection-electrocution-firing-squad 2. Coast Guard to hold formal hearings in North Charleston on Titan submersible implosion - https://abcnews4.com/news/local/coast-guard-to-hold-formal-hearings-on-titan-submersible-implosion-in-north-charleston-titan-ocaeangate-wciv-abc-news-4-2024 3. Donald Trump MAGA boat parade will fill Charleston Harbor with giant flotilla this weekend - https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/donald-trump-boat-parade-charleston-harbor/article_03a83f90-4832-11ef-bc68-cb623f88d035.html 4. Court schedules oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's federal sentencing appeal - https://abcnews4.com/news/local/court-schedules-arguments-in-alex-murdaughs-financial-crime-appeal-mrudaugh-murders-wciv-abc-news-4-2024 5. Lawyers for Families of 737 Max crash victims urge court to reject Boeing's plea deal - https://abcnews4.com/news/local/lawyers-for-families-of-passengers-killed-in-737-max-crashes-ask-court-to-block-boeing-plea-deal-boeing-ceo-wciv-abc-news-4-2024 This episode's music is by Tyler Boone (tylerboonemusic.com). The episode was produced by LMC Soundsystem.

There has never been a period in my own lifetime when American people have had so little trust in, or regard for, the nation's government. Witnessing the events of the past four-plus years – or indeed, the past couple of weeks – one might rightly declare that we have reached peak clown show in the realm of governance.So is it time to just cut it loose? Would it be better for states to simply go their own ways, and let the feds continue to flounder? And if so, what are the mechanisms by which they might do this? Would such a move require outright secession, or violent revolution? Or does the very law upon which the nation is founded allow for it?I pose these questions to Mike Maharrey, National Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center.Mike is also a reporter and analyst for Money Metals.You can find Mike on Twitter.He is the co-author of the books "Constitution Owner's Manual: The Real Constitution Politicians Don't Want You to Know About", and "Nullification 101: An Introduction to the History, Constitutionality, and Practical Applications of Nullification."

On today's episode of the podcast Jake looks back at the most influential North Carolina DWI cases of the past year. Abstracts of the cases are found below.   CHECKPOINTS   State v. Alvarez, 894 S.E.2d 737, No. 278PA21 (N.C. 2023)   Facts: Rowan County Sheriff's Office set up a checkpoint. The checkpoint was purportedly in response to a high-speed fatality accident that had occurred at that location two days earlier. No officers on scene were checking speeding. Defendant's passenger side wheels came off the road and onto the grass prior to stopping at the checkpoint. One of the officers on scene testified that this behavior led him to believe the Defendant might be driving while impaired.   Procedural History: Both the trial court (superior court) and the Court of Appeals (State v. Alvarez, 860 S.E.2d 45, 2021-NCCOA-375 (2021) (unpublished) found the checkpoint did not have a proper primary programmatic purpose. The Court of Appeals appears to call into question a checkpoint set up for “all chapter 20 violations” as possible general crime control.   Holding: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals finding that there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle due to the lane violation but did not address the findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the Constitutionality of the checkpoint. Use the Court of Appeals opinion to attack a checkpoint based on the lack of a proper primary programmatic purpose.   REASONABLE SUSPICION   Sate v. Peak, 892 S.E.2d 925, No. COA23-312 (N.C. App. 2023) (unpublished)   Facts: Stopping officer was highly specialized in DWI investigations. Defendant delayed for 10-seconds at a traffic light after it turned green. There were two open bars within a quarter mile radius of the stop location. Defendant crossed over the yellow lines with both left tires into the opposite lane of travel. Defendant was travelling at one to two miles per hour.   Holding: Reasonable suspicion existed to stop Defendant.   PROBABLE CAUSE   State v. Woolard, 894 S.E.2d 717, No. 208PA22 (N.C. 2023)   Facts: Officer saw Defendant cross centerline six or seven times. Officer active blue lights and Defendant quickly stopped his vehicle. Upon initial approach, Defendant “seemed normal” to the officer. After asking about the driving, Defendant told the officer that there were bees in his truck that he was trying to get out. As they spoke, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol, flushed cheeks, and red and glassy eyes. Defendant seemed coherent to the officer. Defendant admitted to having “a couple beers earlier.” Officer administered two PBTs, but these were excluded from consideration because they were not performed correctly. Officer also administered the HGN test, during which he saw six of six clues. Officer placed Defendant under arrest for DWI.   Procedural History: Defendant was granted a preliminary indication that no PC existed in District Court. The State appealed to Superior Court where the Defendant again prevailed and the case was sent back to District Court for a final order granting suppression. After the District Court entered its final order the State filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals which was denied. The State then filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Supreme Court which was granted. There was no transcript of District Court proceedings or record on appeal for the Supreme Court to review.   Holding: The Supreme Court found it had discretionary authority to rule on the merits of the case and found probable cause.   EXPERT TESTIMONY   State v. Williams, 891 S.E.2d 499, No. COA22-1015 (N.C. App. 2023) (unpublished).   Holding: It was not error for the trial court to allow a DRE to offer testimony about a DWI investigation that the DRE was not involved in, when the DRE stated that she could not testify (i.e. give an opinion) as to whether the Defendant was impaired.   Practice Tip: This case is from Buncombe County, where the State routinely calls a DRE that has not done a real time DRE evaluation in a particular case to give after-the-fact analysis and opinion at trial. Here's the beef: There is no opinion being offered by investigating officers [State v. Lewis, 2022-NCCOA-887 (2022)] or by the DRE that the Defendant is impaired. Point out that no officer involved in the investigation or brought in as an expert to bolster the State's case can give an opinion of drug impairment.   BREATH TEST   State v. Forney, No. COA23-338 (N.C. App. 2024)   Facts: During chemical breath testing, the officer noticed Defendant had gum in his mouth, and had Defendant spit out the gum between the first and second breath tests, both of which resulted in a .11 BAC. The chemical analyst did not restart the observation period or seek an additional breath test. Both the State and the Defendant had experts testify at trial on whether breath testing might be impacted by foreign objects in the mouth.   Burden of Proof: The Court noted that as the proponent of the breath test evidence in an impaired driving case, the State bears the burden of proving compliance with the “observation period” requirement set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. 20-139.1.   Holding: The provisions of the Department of Health and Human Services requiring an observation period by the chemical analyst were violated in this case and a new fifteen-minute observation period should have occurred after the Defendant spat the gum out of his mouth before taking breath samples. The results of the breath test should have been suppressed, but the Court concluded that in this case the admission of the BAC results was harmless error.   Practice Tip: The Court in dicta noted “the Intoximeter estimates alcohol in the blood (BAC) based on a measurement of alcohol in the breath—a ratio which in reality varies amongst different people—by using a single specific ratio to standardize the testing of all subjects.” If you are using Henry's Law to characterize the breath result as an estimate in a .08+ case, you can read this language to give credence to your argument.   BLOOD DRAW   State v. Burris, 289 N.C. App. 535, 890 S.E.2d 539, No. COA22-408 (2023) (unpublished)   Note: Case is currently pending appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court.   Relevant Facts: Single vehicle accident. Officer found Defendant lying trapped under a steel fence outside of a vehicle that had sustained extensive damage. The Defendant was unresponsive and bleeding excessively. The officer noted that Defendant smelled of alcohol and found beer cans both inside and outside the vehicle. The Defendant was taken to the hospital, still unconscious. The officer obtained a warrantless search of Defendant's blood while Defendant was unconscious.   Holding: Based on Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2525 (2019) the Court of Appeals found that exigent circumstances almost always exist to conduct a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver. This opinion is at odds with State v. Romano, 369 N.C. 678, 800 S.E.2d 644, No. 199PA16 (2017). Both Romano and Burris were in Buncombe County.   Practice Tip: Use the Court's findings in Romano to craft your explanation as to why exigent circumstances do not exist in your case. Also, look at Judge Tyson's scathing dissent in Burris.   State v. Russell, 891 S.E.2d 502, No. COA22-1059 (2023) (unpublished)   Holding: The Confrontation Clause is not violated where a substitute expert from the SBI testifies (and is subject to cross-examination) using another SBI agent's previously generated report, which otherwise may be inadmissible, in forming an independent expert opinion.   SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE   State v. Burris, 289 N.C. App. 535, 890 S.E.2d 539, No. COA22-408 (2023) (unpublished)   Note: Case is currently pending appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court.   Relevant Facts: Single vehicle accident. Officer found Defendant lying trapped under a steel fence outside of a vehicle that had sustained extensive damage. The Defendant was unresponsive and bleeding excessively. The officer noted that Defendant smelled of alcohol and found beer cans both inside and outside the vehicle. The Defendant was taken to the hospital, still unconscious. The officer determined that the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle and found no evidence of any other occupant.   Holding: The State presented sufficient evidence of driving to survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the officer describing the Defendant at trial as “the driver” without personally observing the same was admitted without error due to the Court giving a curative instruction.   Practice Tip: Distinguish the facts of Burris and use State v. Ray, 54 N.C. App. 473, 283 S.E.2d 823 (1981), State v. Eldred, 815 S.E.2d 742, No. COA17-795 (2018), and State v. Kraft, No. COA18-330 (2018) (unpublished) to argue for lack of sufficiency of the evidence in your case.   State v. Jones, 894 S.E.2d 290, No. COA23-254 (2023) (unpublished)   Facts: Defendant admitted to being in a minor traffic accident. During the accident investigation, the investigating officer noticed an odor of alcohol in Defendant's car (where he was sitting), slurred speech, and Defendant admitted to drinking. Defendant blew positive on a PBT, showed six of six clues on HGN, and refused chemical testing after arrest.   Holding: In the light most favorable to the State, the State introduced substantial evidence that could prove Defendant was appreciably impaired and the trial court did not err in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss at the close of the State's evidence.   PRE-TRIAL RELEASE & KNOLL   Pretrial Integrity Act – This act, in part, limits the authority of a magistrate judge to set conditions of pre-trial release for a person charged with DWI if the offense occurs while the defendant was on pretrial release for another pending proceeding. Only a district court judge has the authority to set the conditions of pretrial release for the first 48 hours following the defendant coming into custody for an alleged DWI offense if the defendant was on pre-trial release at the time of the newly alleged DWI.   Practice Tip: This new release procedure is hard to square with State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535, 369 S.E.2d 558 (1988). Consider these concluding statements to the Supreme Court's decision in Knoll: “Each defendant's confinement in jail indeed came during the crucial period in which he could have gathered evidence in his behalf by having friends and family observe him and form opinions as to his condition following arrest. This opportunity to gather evidence and to prepare a case in his own defense was lost to each defendant as a direct result of a lack of information during processing as to numerous important rights and because of the commitment to jail. The lost opportunities, in all three cases, to secure independent proof of sobriety, and the lost chance, in one of the cases, to secure a second test for blood alcohol content constitute prejudice to the defendants in these cases. That the deprivations occurred through the inadvertence rather than the wrongful purpose of the magistrate renders them no less prejudicial.” (emphasis added)   State v. C.K.D., 895 S.E.2d 923, No. COA23-204 (2023) (unpublished)   Note: Case is currently pending appeal to the N.C. Supreme Court.   Facts: Defendant was arrested a registered a .17 BAC. Defendant was transported to the Iredell County Magistrate's Office where the magistrate set a $2,500.00 unsecured bond and detained defendant until he was sober or a sober responsible adult was willing to assume responsibility. The magistrate filled out a detention of impaired driving form and found “by clear and convincing evidence” that Defendant's condition of “BAC .17, Red Glassy Eyes, Slurred Speech, Odor of Alcohol” presented a danger “of physical injury to the defendant or others or damage to property” if he were released. Defendant declined to use a phone to call his wife because he did not want to wake her, or their young children. He also checked the box indicating “I do not wish to contact anyone for the purposes of observing me at the jail or administering an additional chemical analysis.” Defendant asked officers if he could call a cab to take him home and that he had funds to pay for a cab. Defendant testified that he could be home in approximately 25 minutes if he had been allowed to take a cab home. Defendant remained in Iredell County Jail for approximately 11 hours prior to his release. During this time he was checked twice by jail staff and told he would be released when he blew a .00.   Holding: The trial court did not err in dismissing the DWI charge against Defendant based on State v. Knoll, 322 N.C. 535, 369 S.E.2d 558 (1988). “Even if defendant waived his right to have someone observe him at the jail, he did not waive his right to have friends or family observe his condition outside the jail, which is what would have occurred had he been permitted to call a taxi and return home to his wife.”   Note: The Court ruled that the magistrate's findings of “BAC .17, Red Glassy Eyes, Slurred Speech, Odor of Alcohol” were not sufficient to support a conclusion that Defendant was a threat and should not have been released.   PLEA AND SENTENCING   State v. Harper, 894 S.E.2d 798, No. COA23-206 (N.C. App. 2023)   Holding: The trial court erred by failing to arrest judgment on Defendant's conviction for DWI, as it is a lesser-included offense of serious injury by vehicle for which Defendant was also convicted.   State v. Smith, No. COA22-621 (2024) (unpublished)   Procedural Posture: Defendant brought what the Court interpreted as the functional equivalent of a post-sentencing MAR due in part to her attorney not advising her of the collateral consequences on her out-of-state driver's license.   Holding: The Court rejected the Defendant's attempt to analogize her attorney's lack of explanation regarding the collateral consequences of her license to the immigration collateral consequences addressed by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010).   Practice Tip: For any client with an out of state driver's license refer them to an attorney in the client's home state to discuss licensing consequences. Consider using the National College of DUI Defense Member Directory.

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 10:06)SCOTUS Takes Up Case on Transgender Youth: SCOTUS Will Hand Down Ruling Next Year on Constitutionality of One of the Biggest Issues of Our AgeA surgeon outed a Texas hospital for treating trans kids. Now he faces federal charges. by USA Today (Nicole Russell)Part II (10:06 - 12:57)Democrats' Ad Campaign Targets SCOTUS: The Future of the Supreme Court is On the Line in Every ElectionOn Dobbs Anniversary, Democrats Look to Make the Court a Campaign Issue by The New York Times (Nick Corasaniti)Part III (12:57 - 14:44)Democrats are Pumping Enormous Money into Abortion Push: The Future of the Democrats' Platform is Death Backed By Big FundsAbortion rights interests plow money into US election races by Reuters (Stephanie Kelly)Part IV (14:44 - 26:03)What Does It Mean to be a Voice of Libertarianism? The Life and Legacy of David Boaz Raises Big IssuesDavid Boaz, a Leading Voice of Libertarianism, Dies at 70 by The New York Times (Sam Roberts)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – The state became the first in the country to make such a law, and immediately, questions started to arise about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. On Monday, nine Louisiana families filed a suit challenging its constitutionality. Their suit alleges that the new law “substantially interferes with and burdens” the parents' First Amendment right to raise their kids in whatever religion they want...

#TexasValuesReport with special guest David Covey, Texas Leader, and host Jonathan Saenz, President & Attorney, Texas Values Breaking! Supreme Court Will Decide if Biden Administration Can Sex-change Kids, Constitutionality of Texas' SB 14 Argued https://txvalues.org/breaking-supreme-court-will-decide-if-biden-administration-can-sex-change-kids-constitutionality-of-texas-sb-14-argued/ Breaking! TX Children's Hospital & Biden DOJ In Medicaid Fraud Scandal on Child Gender Trans Issue https://txvalues.org/breaking-tx-childrens-hospital-biden-doj-in-medicaid-fraud-scandal-on-child-gender-trans-issue/ Register for Texas Values 7th Annual Faith, Family, & Freedom Forum Sept. 13-14! https://register.txvalues.org/policyforum2024 Texas Values University. Graduate to an advanced level of citizenship. Stay up to date on our launch! https://txvalues.org/texas-values-university/ Help us build our channel so we can maintain a culture of Faith, Family, & Freedom in Texas by interacting with us; like, comment, share, subscribe! For more about Texas Values see: Txvalues.org $200,000 matching grant in place, now through June 30 donate.txvalues.org/GivetoTexasValues

Hunter Biden was found guilty of a felony. What's next?How is Trump handling his felony conviction as he awaits sentencing?Plus, Asha really nails it.Questions for the pod?https://formfacade.com/sm/euYIPJdVeTrump Court Cases Cheat Sheethttps://asharangappa.substack.com/p/your-trump-court-cases-cheat-sheet?r=3od4c&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post Subscribe on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@Its.Complicated/ Follow Asha on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_Asha's Substack: https://asharangappa.substack.com/Follow Renato on Twitter: https://twitter.com/renato_mariottiFollow Asha on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asha.rangappa/Follow Renato on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/renato.mariotti/Follow Renato on Threads: https://www.threads.net/@renato.mariotti Opening Theme and Bumper music provided by eitanepsteinmusic / Pond5

This hour, Scoot talks about the Constitutionality of Gov. Landry requiring that Louisiana public schools display the 10 Commandments. 

Unions in California, much like the unions here in Washington, are working to re-classify every independent contractor as an employee in an effort to swell the dwindling union ranks. https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/opinion/opinion-the-constitutionality-of-california-proposition-classifying-gig-workers-as-independent-contractors-to-be-decided-by-the-california-supreme-court/ #opinion #columns #commentary #MarkHarmsworth #WashingtonPolicyCenter #CaliforniaProposition22 #classifyinggigworkers #dwindlingunionranks #independentcontractors #WashingtonStateLegislature #WashingtonState #VancouverWa #ClarkCountyWa #ClarkCountyNews #ClarkCountyToday

Seg 1 - The Cost of Election – Biden's Promises Mount UpSeg 2 – Are Trump Cases A House of Cards?Seg 3 – The Constitutionality of Trump Gag OrdersSeg 4 – Alvin Bragg Rolls the Dice with Trump Witnesses

Aughie and Nia discuss the origin of blue laws, laws that generally prevent some purchases on Sundays. Aughie showcases several instances where the SCOTUS has supported the Constitutionality of blue laws.

Judges issue gag orders to prevent the release of information that could compromise the fairness and impartiality of a trial. The main reasons a judge might issue a gag order are:To protect the right to a fair trial: By preventing the release of information that could prejudice the jury, a gag order helps ensure that the outcome of a trial is based on the evidence presented in court, rather than on media coverage or public opinion.To protect sensitive information: Gag orders can be used to prevent the release of confidential or sensitive information, such as the identity of a minor, confidential medical records, or classified information in a national security case.To maintain the integrity of the legal process: A gag order can help prevent the spread of false information or rumors that could harm the reputation of the parties involved in the case.To protect the privacy of the parties involved: In high-profile cases, a gag order can help protect the privacy of the individuals involved and prevent the release of information that could harm their reputation or safety.It's important to note that while gag orders can serve an important purpose, they also raise important First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech and the press. As a result, gag orders are subject to strict scrutiny and may be challenged if they are deemed too broad or unjustified.The challenge to the gag order comes from not only the Goncalves family, but from over thirty media networks as well. The parties are challenging the broad scope of the gag order and contend that the bloated scope of order falls outside of the boundaries that were established by the supreme court.Let's check it out.(cocmmercial at 7:44)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Gag Order on Idaho Murder Case is 'Likely Unconstitutional', Lawyer Argues (newsweek.com)

Sarah and David invite District Judge Vince Chhabria on the pod to explain the state of multidistrict litigation and answer the question: Why does he listen to Advisory Opinions? The Agenda: —Justice Breyer's jurisprudence —Judging vs. personal value judgments —David's cringe a cappella group name —Constitutionality of magistrate judges —How to fix forum shopping —MDLs, explained —The pros and cons of MDLs —How to become a judge —Judge Chhabria's clerk hiring process Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this fifth episode of America on Trial, your host Josh Hammer takes us "around the horn," focusing on the now-formally delayed trial start date in Washington, D.C. and the possible plea deal in NYC for longtime Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. Josh then does a deep dive on the recurring, and now once again roiling, constitutional debate over the 1973 War Powers Resolution and the interplay of congressional and executive powers in foreign affairs and warmaking—sparked by President Biden's latest military strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of America on Trial with Josh Hammer!

A three-judge appellate court panel heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the gag order Judge Tanya Chutkan placed on Donald Trump in an attempt to prevent him from endangering witnesses, court staff, prosecutors and their family members. In a very spirited 2.5-hour argument, the judges had pointed questions for both the prosecution and the defense. Glenn reviews the appellate court's arguments from the perspective of someone who was inside the courtroom watching it live as it happened.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts and mission, you can becoming a Team Justice patron at:https://www.patreon.com/glennkirschnerFor our Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at glennkirschner.comFollow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a Second Amendment case, United States v. Rahimi. This case asks whether the federal government can ban guns for people subject to domestic-violence restraining orders. In this episode, we break down the arguments in the case and explore the future of the Second Amendment. Clark Neily of the Cato Institute and Pepperdine Law Professor Jacob Charles join Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, to discuss.     Resources: United States v. Rahimi, Oral Argument (C-SPAN)  NY State Pistol and Rifle Assn. v Bruen (2021)  Judge Kavanaugh dissent, D.C. v. Heller (D.C. Cir. 2011)  Clark Neily, Brief in Support of Respondent, United States v. Rahimi   Jacob Charles (et al), Brief of Second Amendment Scholars in Support of Petitioner, United States v. Rahimi     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.