Judicial institution with authority to resolve legal disputes
POPULARITY
Categories
347 episodes with courts
456 episodes with courts
387 episodes with courts
153 episodes with courts
135 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
30 episodes with courts
37 episodes with courts
70 episodes with courts
80 episodes with courts
47 episodes with courts
31 episodes with courts
41 episodes with courts
78 episodes with courts
32 episodes with courts
117 episodes with courts
25 episodes with courts
16 episodes with courts
21 episodes with courts
15 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
19 episodes with courts
31 episodes with courts
27 episodes with courts
19 episodes with courts
26 episodes with courts
38 episodes with courts
22 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
86 episodes with courts
18 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
24 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
20 episodes with courts
22 episodes with courts
23 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
13 episodes with courts
7 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
10 episodes with courts
8 episodes with courts
17 episodes with courts
9 episodes with courts
9 episodes with courts
11 episodes with courts
TRANSparental is not a compliment. It is one parent crossing into the other parent's office and running both while that other parent is still alive, still named, or still on the court paper. Necessity can start it. Pride finishes it. The child grows up under a government that will not stand for review. Some of that government is triage. Fists. Needles. A man or woman who never came. A child who refuses that person is not your trophy. That child is reporting a crime scene. Steal that report, dress it as “he just wants his daddy,” and you are doing the abuser's paperwork. The rest is occupation. You took the vacant shift. Then the shift took your name. Then the child's loyalty became how you sleep. Then warmth toward the living predecessor became betrayal. Courts never bought Gardner's syndrome as medicine. They still see the campaign. Dead phones. Erased photos. Drop-off speeches in your cadence. A kid fluent in your wound and starved of their own hours. Resentment is the fuel. You are not “triggered.” You are parenting the breakup through a body that did not choose it. Happy weekends get colder rules. The face at the door does the sentencing before the mouth does. Pawn-ograhy is the method. Spy. Messenger. Confidant. Stand-in. Trophy. Midnight audience. The child is footage so you can finish a fight you would not finish with an adult. Family systems already caught you. Triangulation. Coalition across generations. Parentification. Enmeshment. You promoted a kid or kept a kid small so you would not have to be one grown person in a room with another grown person. Gatekeeping is not only locking out danger. It is starving a usable parent until they look useless, then pointing at the corpse you made. Fathers run the same play with money and myth. A check is not a father. A slogan is not a mother. Poverty and court delay dress monopoly as fate. High conflict between houses can wound worse than the empty chair. The strong-mother hymn can sanctify a throne. The discarded-father hymn can bless a quit. Nonresident parents who actually stay in cut harm. An excellent solo parent still does not cancel the hunt. Age arrives. The child can smell adults without your narration. A new partner applies for a job that was never posted. You call it protection. The child calls it later, when they cannot hold a partner without managing them like a parent. The spiritual charge is theft. You assigned a child to complete a romance and a gender office they did not apply for.
Has Trump created Farmageddon? Rising fuel and fertilizer costs due to the war with Iran, tariffs on goods because of the trade war with Canada, and a Farm Bill stuck in Congress have created a perfect storm of pain for American farmers. This week Alex speaks to 5th generation Iowa farmer Joshua Manske, to get a real accounting of how the President's red state agricultural base is feeling. Then she breaks down the big picture implications for Republicans ahead of the midterms with Brian Beutler, founder and author of the Substack newsletter Off Message, and the cohost of the Politix podcast.Pre-order Alex's new book, The Steal: Four Right-Wing Hard-Liners, One Republican Presidency, and The Raid On America's Courts and subscribe to her Substack here. Hate listening to ads? Become a Friends of the Pod subscriber for ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, Pod Save the World, Lovett or Leave It, Runaway Country, Offline with Jon Favreau, and more—plus exclusive content, including bonus episodes of Pod Save America. Subscribe now at crooked.com/friends, on Apple Podcasts, or through the Pod Save America YouTube channel.You can request a transcript by emailing transcripts@crooked.com. Include the podcast name, episode title, and air date. Please allow 48 hours for delivery.
September 2, 2026Some pundits interpreted Trump's 2024 win as a permanent political realignment, Others disagreed, seeing the swing toward Trump as due to anti-incumbent feelings, Republicans set out to redistrict states to guarantee control of Congress after the 2026 midterm election, The redistricting may have backfired, Anti-incumbent feeling has turned against the Republicans, In January voters flipped a seat in the Texas Senate from Republican to Democratic in a historically Republican dominated district in Tarrant County, Now Republicans are panicking, Trump is talking about nationalizing voting, rigging the election, sending armed officers to the polls, but every effort has been blocked by the courts or failed in Congress, Courts blocked Trump's attempt to use the USPS as a gatekeeper to stop ballots from being delivered to voters, but the plan has continued in spite of the court order, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is not ruling out sending ICE agents to the polls although federal law prohibits it, In Tarrant County Texas the Republicans are cutting the number of polling places, in spite of voter outrage. Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe
This episode is sponsored by Revelation Gold Group – Democrats in Congress opposed a resolution to set the number of US Supreme Court justices at the current nine seats. But they also oppose expanding the court while Repubicans are in control of the House, Senate, and White House. So, it seems like they are actually looking to pack the court when they take control of those branches of government. Which made me wonder: Does Roy Cooper support this? We don't know because his website makes no mention of it. And reporters don't ask. Also, does he support socialism? His fellow Democrats also opposed that resolution this week. Maybe a reporter could get around to asking that, too.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast My preferred podcast platform: SpreakerCheck out my preferred gold & silver company: Revelation Gold GroupHelp support Pete's Walk to End Alzheimers here.All the links to Pete's Prep are free! Plus get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com
Austin Bell shoots basketball courts—thousands of them—mostly from above. Using a drone and a flat-lay approach, he's documented more than 6,500 courts across 28 countries, including every single example to be found across Hong Kong's variegated landscape. In 2024, Bell's self-described "nonchalant obsession" became Shooting Hoops, an exhibition and monograph that maps the city through color, geometry, and concrete. In today's show—our first full video release in our in-house studio—Austin describes the complex logistics involved in finding and photographing every last court, while also elaborating on his ingenious system for organizing all the data in a color-coded map that he can store on his phone. We also touch on AI, as Austin shares details about the machine-powered analytics that helped him assemble all his New York-area courts into a magnificent rainbow-colored grid. Austin's latest undertaking is to update his collection of "concrete crop circles" across the five boroughs, with a plan to feature the top 10 courts from each borough on a deck of cards. Austin's ultimate goal with this project is to "show people things that they're not going to get to see otherwise. "I think we all struggle with that need to make something uniquely ours as things get easier to produce," he notes. "But I think that drives us forward as artists. Part of creating is not mimicking. You want to go out there and actually create something that is yours." If you've enjoyed this podcast, please follow us @bhpodcastnetwork and be on the lookout for more inspiring conversations in our new format. Guest: Austin Bell Episode Timeline: 1:02: Austin's Shooting Hoops t-shirt & being a basketball fan. 3:32: The flat lay approach to shooting with drones … plus crash stories! 9:06: Shoot logistics and collecting data in a spread sheet. 15:40: Creative aspects to photographing basketball courts. 20:55: Photo editing for Austin's Shooting Hoops book. 24:16: A tour of Hong Kong through its basketball courts. 29:38: Using AI to help with the edit. 33:51: People's personal relationships with their neighborhood courts. 43:10: Revisiting courts and keeping track of their current state. 49:07: The need to create something unique as things get easier to produce. 54:40: Austin's approach to shooting hoops as a very nonchalant obsession. 59:26: What's next for Austin and his Shooting Hoops project? Guest Bio: Austin Bell is a peripatetic photographer, originally from North Carolina. His work centers around large-scale collections, frequently aerial, of landscapes and architecture that showcase novel perspectives. He seeks to present subjects and places in ways that delight and transport the viewer. In addition to capturing more than 6,600 basketball courts in 28 countries and 19 states—including the 2,549 Hong Kong courts featured in his 2024 book Shooting Hoops—Bell also photographs other types of aerial landscapes and birds. Past publications include a book of bird photography, Birding: The First Two Years, and a non-fiction book, Horse Show Boyfriend, a travelogue and explainer about the world of hunter-jumper horses. Stay Connected: Austin Bell Website: https://bellaustin.com Austin Bell Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/austinwonderland B&H Podcast Network Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/bhpodcastnetwork/ B&H Podcast Network Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@BHPodcastNetwork
Karen Conti, Partner at Conti & Dolan, LLC, joins Lisa Dent to share her thoughts and expertise on the embezzlement charges against the former chief financial officer of Loretto Hospital, a CBP agent trying to have his sexual assault and robbery case thrown out because it was handled by the same “tainted” grand jury that […]
Karen Conti, Chicago trial attorney, joins Bob Sirott to share an update on the Lindsay Clancy trial and the conviction of the Tupac Shakur murder defendant. She also shares details about why the FTC is suing Amazon and an update from the Supreme Court concerning the White House ballroom construction.
In this episode of The President's Daily Brief:- Top U.S. military leaders are warning against extended Iran deployments, arguing that the strain is beginning to spread across the force.- Russia and Iran join China and India at a major summit focused on challenging U.S. influence and strengthening ties among Washington's rivals.- Israel secures a record $3.5 billion defense deal to help Greece build a major shield against missile and aerial threats.- Nearly a week after Nepal's deadly flood, rescue crews are racing to reach hundreds of workers believed trapped inside mountain tunnels.To listen to the show ad-free, become a premium member of The President's Daily Brief by visiting https://PDBPremium.com.Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief.YouTube: youtube.com/@presidentsdailybriefMOD: For a free consultation and get 10% off your first order PLUS free shipping with promo code PDB at https://mod.comMUD/WTR: Start your new morning ritual & get up to 43% off your @MUDWTR with code PDB at https://mudwtr.com/PDB#mudwtrpodLean: Get 20% off plus free rush shipping when you go to https://TAKELEAN.com and use code PDB
This episode is sponsored by Revelation Gold Group - Andrew Dunn is the publisher of Longleaf Politics and a contributing columnist to The Charlotte Observer. He's also the author of the book The Change Agent: Pat McCrory's Rise, Reckoning and Legacy. He joined me to talk about the three better questions to ask in the wake of the release of a man who threatened to shoot up five Charlotte schools. Plus, socialists flex their power in the Queen City. Republicans should not ignore it.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast My preferred podcast platform: SpreakerCheck out my preferred gold & silver company: Revelation Gold GroupAll the links to Pete's Prep are free! Plus get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com
Pablo Arredondo, the Casetext cofounder who helped build some of the earliest and most influential applications of AI in legal practice, is joining Clio as senior vice president, judiciary, where he will lead the company's strategy for extending its technology into the courts. In this episode, recorded just ahead of the announcement, Arredondo tells host Bob Ambrogi why he is turning his attention to the judiciary — and why he believes the challenge starts with the sheer torrent of material flooding into the courts. "On Monday, somewhere on the order of three billion tokens are going to hit court dockets," he says. Arredondo cofounded Casetext in 2013 and helped develop CARA, the first brief analyzer, and CoCounsel, the product that brought generative AI into everyday legal workflows. After Thomson Reuters acquired Casetext for $650 million in 2023, he joined that company, leaving at the end of last year. In this conversation, he traces how his interest shifted toward the courts — from watching judges organically adopt Casetext's Parallel Search to a recent project at Cornell's Legal Information Institute using LLMs to annotate the U.S. Code of Conduct for Judges with centuries of judicial ethics thinking from rabbinic, Islamic and Roman Catholic traditions. Arredondo also explains why courts need "judiciary grade" technology rather than tools built for lawyers, how AI is driving a surge in pro se filings, whether AI could ever replace judges (his short answer: "absolutely not"), and where he plans to start when he officially begins the role Aug. 31. This is Arredondo's second appearance on LawNext this year, following a February conversation at his home in Tiburon, Calif., about his career and what would come next. Now we know. Thank You To Our Sponsors This episode of LawNext is generously made possible by our sponsors. We appreciate their support and hope you will check them out. Paradigm, home to the practice management platforms PracticePanther, Bill4Time, MerusCase and LollyLaw; the e-payments platform Headnote; and the legal accounting software TrustBooks. Briefpoint, eliminating routine discovery response and request drafting tasks so you can focus on drafting what matters (or just make it home for dinner). CosmoLex, helping law firms manage their entire practice in one platform, from intake to payment. Try it free. Ajax, the AI timekeeper lawyers want to use. If you enjoy listening to LawNext, please leave us a review wherever you listen to podcasts.
This one was Meta AI - it's a free model and it did a pretty good job. Obviously I am not going to read that and neither will anyone else, but outside of the lack of brevity here it's a decent write up. Well done, Mark. EPISODE TITLE OPTIONSUse one as main title, others as alternates for SEO:One Nation's Immigration Muddle, 18C on Trial, and Tampa 25 Years OnFarley the Throwback, AI Bubble Warnings and the Swans Self-DestructFrom Narrandera to Norway: Immigration, Data Centres and Banning AI in SchoolsThe Two Jacks on Pauline Hanson vs 18C, the UK's Boat Camps and America's Voting MessCocaine Capital, $600 Grams in Perth and a 49ers Billionaire in a Trailer Park StingBloods Culture to Boarding School: Tampa, Tribunals and What Went Wrong at the SwansEPISODE SUMMARYEpisode 170 is a wide-ranging end-of-winter news wrap from Sydney and Hong Kong.Jack the Insider and Hong Kong Jack start with One Nation's confused immigration numbers - David Farley suggesting an intake not far from Labor's, Pauline Hanson unclear on net overseas migration - and ask whether vagueness matters when neither government nor opposition has a clear story either. Farley, the Narrandera-based former Labor aspirant now with One Nation, is singled out as a throwback to old Country Party-style ministers like Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair and Peter Nixon - rural common sense and real-world experience.The conversation moves to energy and tech. The Albanese government's proposal that new data centres from mid-next year need their own water source and 100% renewable power triggers a debate about global electricity demand. Data centre consumption is projected to double from 460 TWh in 2024 to over 1000 TWh by 2030. The Jacks question small modular nuclear reactors in Australia and warn of an AI investment bubble, with 15% of the S&P 500 now AI-configured and Chinese open-source models undercutting expensive US startups.On law, they unpack Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Context is Pauline Hanson's 2022 tweet to Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi telling her to "piss off back to Pakistan" after Faruqi's comments on Queen Elizabeth, which led to a Federal Court finding and a reported $200,000 penalty. Hanson is seeking leave to appeal to the High Court. The Jacks also discuss the White Australia Party's attempt to circumvent hate-group laws linked to the National Socialist Network and ASIO's role, and debate whether repugnant speech should be illegal.Twenty-five years on from the MV Tampa, they revisit the Howard-era response, children overboard, the excision of Christmas Island and other northern territories from the migration zone, and the legacy of mandatory detention introduced under Keating. Hong Kong Jack draws on his ten years on the Refugee Review Tribunal, including a harrowing self-harm incident during a video hearing in Woomera.Internationally: the UK's new camps for unscheduled boat arrivals after the High Court blocked the Rwanda plan, and the problematic Daily Mail reporting of gyms, football pitches and halal-only food; the US Supreme Court allowing state-based moves to restrict mail-in ballots, the stalled SAVE Act requiring birth certificates to vote and its impact on married women, and why America needs an AEC-style independent electoral commission.The Jacks note Norway banning generative AI in primary schools and restricting it in upper years after a decline in reading and writing, and pay tribute to Dolly Parton and the Dollywood Foundation's 325 million books program as a springboard into phonics vs whole-language teaching. Jack the Insider credits his mother and the Whitlam-era disadvantaged schools program for championing phonics.Court and crime: a mistrial in Pennsylvania after a juror allegedly smoked marijuana in the jury room during a murder trial; and Australia's cocaine problem in the context of the Sydney Swans hotel-room scandal. The Jacks discuss the legal risk of supply of a trafficable quantity (15 years in Victoria), self-reporting data suggesting 4% to 11% usage, 1500 possession arrests in the Eastern Suburbs, $600 a gram in Perth creating a Nullarbor business model, and the shift to crystal meth where cocaine is scarce.Sport to close: Italy's Giorgia Meloni becoming the longest-serving PM of the Italian Republic, polling 25-26% for Brothers of Italy as a buffer against the harder right; the Swans culture piece by Andrew Webster - the end of the Bloods self-sacrifice era of Kirk and Kelly, late nights at the Beach Road and Clovelly Hotels, adult entertainment in the team hotel, four-week bans, presumption of innocence, and Nick Blakey demanding a trade to North Melbourne where his father played; NRL - Roosters and Panthers as premiership threats; AFL - Carlton vs Melbourne as a clash of new game plans; cricket - England vs Pakistan at Lord's, Pakistan in disarray, Babar Azam out of form, and whether Marnus Labuschagne should tour South Africa or if he is at the "thanks for your service" stage; and finally the NFL - the San Francisco 49ers CEO caught in a police sting in East Palestine, Ohio, $140 agreed on WhatsApp, no trailer or brothel at the lot, two days jail with credit for time served and $1000 in fines and costs.Next week: listener feedback on booze and upper-middle-class parenting.SHOW NOTES - TOPICS COVEREDAustralian Politics: One Nation immigration policy split between David Farley and Pauline Hanson, net overseas migration confusion, Albanese wedge politics, Opposition property ban for temporary residents, Labor's delayed immigration announcement and refugee intake numbers.Energy and Technology: Data centres in Australia, water and renewable requirements, small-scale nuclear reactors in Russia and China, global power demand, AI bubble vs dotcom bubble, US vs Chinese AI models, S&P 500 exposure.Law and Free Speech: Section 18C - offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate, Pauline Hanson vs Mehreen Faruqi Federal Court decision, High Court leave to appeal process, White Australia Party and National Socialist Network, hate group laws, implied freedom of political communication.Immigration History: 25th anniversary of Tampa, MV Tampa and Captain, Merak and Christmas Island, children overboard, excision of Australian territories, mandatory detention, Woomera, Port Hedland, Villawood and Maribyrnong, Manus Island and Nauru costs.UK and US: UK mandatory processing centres, minibuses, no-document arrivals, security risks and Nick Radev case, Daily Mail coverage; US mail-in ballots, electoral rolls, SAVE Act, automatic voter registration in Oregon/Washington/California, gerrymandering and partisan control, Ross Perot and third-party candidates.Education and Culture: Norway AI ban, iPads in schools, national testing decline, phonics revival in Australia, Dr Seuss, John and Betty readers, Dolly Parton and literacy, scholarships for Year 7 retention.Courts and Drugs: Pennsylvania juror and devil's lettuce mistrial, field sobriety and judge's chambers process, Christian Brothers at St Pat's Ballarat, Sydney Swans scandal and allegations of indecent assault, white powder found, trafficable quantity laws, Australia as highest self-reported cocaine users, Double Bay and Waverley Local Court, cardiac risks.Sport: Swans culture, Isaac Heeney, Chad Warner, Nick Blakey trade to North Melbourne, Andrew Webster SMH column, AFL finals odds Sydney at $34, NRL Warriors Roosters Panthers, Carlton vs Melbourne injuries, England vs Pakistan second Test, Marnus Labuschagne technique and Steve Smith comparison, Ricky Ponting assessment, San Francisco 49ers CEO East Palestine sting.All timestamps below are adjusted by +25 seconds to account for theme music at the top of the episode.TIMESTAMPED HIGHLIGHTS (Adjusted +25s)00:00:25 - Open: End of winter in Sydney and the Highlands, mid-20s, bracing for a stinking hot summer. Hong Kong Jack on the Hungry Ghost Festival heat and humidity.00:01:54 - One Nation's immigration numbers: David Farley vs Pauline Hanson, does vagueness matter?00:03:36 - Old Country Party ministers: Doug Anthony, Ian Sinclair, Peter Nixon, Peter Walsh, John Kerin, Mick Young. Farley as a rural common-sense throwback and best new MP in ages.00:04:39 - How long will Farley stay with One Nation? History of independents.00:06:07 - Government and Opposition also unclear on migration, cabinet donnybrook, Albo's populist instincts and a potential wedge.00:14:50 - Data centres are coming to Australia: Albanese plan for own water source and renewables from July 1 next year.00:15:52 - Small modular nuclear: one in Russia, one in China, cost issues, worldwide energy growth before AI.00:16:47 - Electricity to double: 460 TWh in 2024 to 1000+ TWh by 2030, S&P 500 AI exposure, trillions invested.00:18:50 - Tech bubble vs AI bubble: companies with no revenue then vs Meta and Google with revenue now, but startup risk for Anthropic and others.00:21:41 - What is Section 18C? Offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate explained.00:22:23 - Pauline Hanson tweet to Mehreen Faruqi "piss off back to Pakistan", Queen Elizabeth context, Federal Court appeal, $200k fine, High Court leave.00:23:12 - White Australia Party, National Socialist Network, ASIO recommendation to Home Affairs Minister to shut down hate groups.00:25:38 - Will Hanson succeed? Prediction 18C rendered toothless on offend/insult/humiliate.00:28:08 - 25 years since Tampa: ABC docudrama, Norwegian tanker MV Tampa, 2001.00:29:26 - Children overboard, Peter Reith gilding the lily.00:30:43 - How Tampa changed the rules permanently: no unscheduled arrival lands in migration zone.00:32:12 - Refugee Tribunal reality: Woomera/Port Hedland video hearing, self-harm incident, need for thick skin.00:35:00 - UK's new camps after Rwanda failure, mandatory processing, fingerprints, 17 minibuses, not locked up like Villawood.00:38:27 - Security risk: Nick Radev - Nick the Russian/Bulgarian, wiped criminal history, prison tattoos, arriving with clean sheet.00:42:46 - SCOTUS and US mail-in ballots: state administrators, postal workers, accurate electoral rolls, attempt to slow mail voting.00:49:21 - Norway bans generative AI in primary schools, iPads since 1990s, decline in reading/writing, return to books.00:51:30 - Dolly Parton tribute: Dollywood Foundation 325 million books to US, Ireland, UK, Australia, NZ, functional illiteracy, pathway to imagination. 4,000 songs and 9 to 5 story with Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin.00:57:30 - Phonics vs whole language: Dolly's father, $500 scholarships to get through Year 7, Australian education decline, Whitlam disadvantaged schools program, Dr Seuss and Cat in the Hat 1957.01:01:22 - Devil's lettuce in the jury room: Pennsylvania murder trial of Saffron Gump and Gregory Prince, juror smoked in fifth-floor room, lawyers argue prescription, judge calls jurors one by one, mistrial, boarding school parallels.01:04:31 - Cocaine and the Swans: Australian article, two bags of white powder in hotel room, no one claims ownership, supply trafficable quantity 15 years jail, agency providing girls.01:07:29 - Australia's cocaine appetite: biggest users in world on self-reporting, 4% to 11%, tradies on the bags, financial and legal sectors, Double Bay 1500 possession arrests.01:12:53 - $600 a gram in Perth, Nullarbor drug run business model, when cocaine scarce users turn to crystal meth.01:14:58 - Italy: Giorgia Meloni longest-serving PM of Italian Republic, Brothers of Italy polling 25.4 to 26.4%, buffer against extreme right, far-right label rendered meaningless.01:17:38 - Swans culture: Brett Kirk and Paul Kelly Bloods era vs now, Andrew Webster column, Beach Road Hotel and Clovelly Hotel, self-sacrificing myth.01:20:22 - Hotel scandal: 4am return, 7am bus, adult entertainment, disrespect for teammates, four-week bans near certain, victims and presumption of innocence.01:25:26 - Nick Blakey demands immediate trade, North Melbourne link, dad John Blakey, Heeney Warner and Blakey as top liners someone will want.01:26:09 - NRL: Warriors, Roosters premiership winning form if past Panthers.01:26:38 - AFL tonight: Carlton vs Melbourne preview, injuries to Lever, Will Hayward, attractive footy and game plan changes.01:28:20 - Cricket England vs Pakistan at Lord's: Pakistan dismissed cheaply, in disarray, Joe Root captaincy phone call.01:29:46 - Does Marnus Labuschagne go to South Africa? Renshaw, Campbell Callaway, Oliver Peake options, Ricky Ponting says thanks for your service.01:32:30 - NFL not football: San Francisco 49ers CEO in East Palestine, Ohio trailer park sting, WhatsApp $140, no trailer there, two days jail with time served, $1000 fines, attempt to seal records denied, quick trip to Tiffany's.01:35:?? - Close: Spring next week, listener feedback on booze and parenting coming up.
durée : 00:02:01 - Le Premier ministre Sébastien Lecornu et le candidat Horizons à la présidentielle Édouard Philippe ont tous les deux dénoncé le coût des arrêts maladie. Mais c'est davantage la durée des arrêts qui coûte cher que leur quantité. - équipe : Armêl Balogog, La cellule Vrai ou faux Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France
Visit: RadioLawTalk.com for information & full episodes! Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/RLTFacebook Follow us on Twitter: bit.ly/RLTTwitter Follow us on Instagram: bit.ly/RLTInstagram Subscribe to our YouTube channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Owf1BEB-klmtD_92-uqzg Your Radio Law Talk hosts are exceptional attorneys and love what they do! They take breaks from their day jobs and make time for Radio Law Talk so that the rest of the country can enjoy the law like they do. Follow Radio Law Talk on Youtube, Facebook, Twitter & Instagram!
With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the final installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Neil Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.In this week's bonus episode: Susan, Dahlia, and Mark recently reconvened to record an update to this conversation, complete with analysis of how Gorsuch figured into the blockbuster, end-of-term decisions handed down in June. Want to listen to that update? If you're not a Pluskateer yet, join Slate Plus to unlock this conversation—and other weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the final installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch. Host Susan Matthews enlists Slate's jurisprudence team—Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern—to discuss Neil Gorsuch's key rulings to date, his unpredictability, and how this textualist will shape this court (and our country) for decades to come.In this week's bonus episode: Susan, Dahlia, and Mark recently reconvened to record an update to this conversation, complete with analysis of how Gorsuch figured into the blockbuster, end-of-term decisions handed down in June. Want to listen to that update? If you're not a Pluskateer yet, join Slate Plus to unlock this conversation—and other weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
It is midnight in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963, and the weekend of tragedy is bleeding into Saturday morning. Inside the limestone walls of the Dallas Police and Courts building, the air is thick with tobacco smoke, sweat, and cheap coffee as hundreds of international journalists clamor for a glimpse of the prime suspect. Fearing that prolonged silence behind closed doors will spark rumors of police brutality, police chiefs and prosecutors make the fateful decision to show Lee Harvey Oswald to the world. But as Captain Fritz attempts a brief showing in the cramped third-floor hallway, the corridor explodes into absolute bedlam, triggering a frantic press stampede down to the basement assembly room.Standing right in the center of this media storm is Jack Ruby, clad in a sharp gray suit and his signature snap-rim fedora, carrying a notepad and pencil. Bypassing every security checkpoint without credentials simply because local officers recognize him as the friendly operator of the Carousel Club, Ruby easily infiltrates the media theater known as the assembly room. But where exactly was he standing during the showing? While the Warren Commission accepted Ruby's clean narrative—supported by Detective Augustus Everhart—that he stood out of the way on a table in the back of the room, veteran police reporter John Rutledge swore under oath to a far more active presence. Rutledge testified that Ruby was down on the floor, weaving through the crowd between the second and third rows of desks, actively circulating and handing out Carousel Club business cards.When the double doors of the assembly room finally swing open, Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald stand face-to-face for the first time under the blinding, scorching television lights. We examine Ruby's chilling, immediate post-arrest impressions of the suspect to the FBI. Rather than seeing a historical or political figure, Ruby saw something visceral and disgusting, describing Oswald as a "little weasel" and a "creep," while uttering a strangely prophetic sentence: "He didn't look like he would have killed our president. Well, not all alone."But the most terrifying revelation of this midnight press showing lies in Jack's front pocket. As he stood mere feet away from the handcuffed suspect, Jack Ruby was carrying his loaded, nickel-plated .38 caliber Colt Cobra revolver. We dissect the heavy questions that still hang over this historic encounter: Was Ruby's eventual shooting of Oswald born of spontaneous, hysterical grief? Was he premeditated and if so, then why did he stand armed in that basement on Friday night and do nothing? We challenge the official, emotionally convenient narrative of a grieving citizen, exploring whether this Friday night infiltration was a calculated rehearsal—a dry run to test the building's security and see just how close a friendly local club owner could get to the most heavily guarded prisoner on Earth.
In this episode of Talk Law Radio, attorneys Todd Marquardt and Benjamin T. Kemmy lead a discussion covering personal financial planning strategies and the legal complexities of high-profile medical malpractice claims. Episode Summary The episode opens with Todd Marquardt presenting the "Financial Focus" segment on behalf of Financial Planning HQ. Marquardt addresses the common financial dilemma faced by parents: prioritizing saving for a child's college education versus preparing for retirement. He outlines current college cost projections, discusses alternative options such as community college and merit/athletic scholarships, and highlights modern trends where families emphasize return on investment (ROI) when choosing career paths. In the primary segment of the show, Marquardt is joined by San Antonio attorney Benjamin T. Kemmy, whose practice focuses on personal injury and medical malpractice. Together, they analyze the civil medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Lindsay Clancy—a former Massachusetts labor and delivery nurse facing murder charges for strangling her three children during a severe mental health crisis—against her treating psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, and medical facilities. The discussion breaks down the legal framework of medical negligence, the standard of care in psychiatric treatment, the challenges of proving causation, and the key differences between civil and criminal proceedings. Key Takeaways Values-Based Financial Planning (College vs. Retirement): Financial decisions regarding higher education should be aligned with family values and long-term security. Relying solely on retirement delay to fund college can lead to financial instability, whereas alternatives—such as local free community college programs or merit and athletic scholarships—can ease the burden. Modern college planning increasingly focuses on the return on investment (ROI) of a chosen degree relative to career earning potential. Core Elements of a Medical Malpractice Claim: To recover civil money damages, a plaintiff must establish four key legal elements: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages. Physicians owe patients a duty to provide care that meets the accepted national standard of a reasonable and prudent practitioner in similar circumstances. Breaches in psychiatric cases often center around failure to obtain proper patient history, improper medication management (uncoordinated polypharmacy), and failure to investigate severe symptoms such as intrusive thoughts or command hallucinations. The Challenge of Proving Causation in Psychiatric Cases: Demonstrating that medical negligence directly caused a tragic event (such as self-harm or harm to others) is often the most difficult burden for a plaintiff's legal team. Courts often scrutinize whether an act was an independent action of the patient or a foreseeable outcome of prescribed psychotropic medications and uncoordinated care. Civil Lawsuits vs. Criminal Trials: Burden of Proof: Criminal cases require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to strip someone of liberty. Civil lawsuits require a lower standard—preponderance of the evidence (proving allegations are more likely true than not) to award financial compensation. Roles of Judge and Jury: In civil trials, the judge decides issues of law and admissible evidence, while a jury of non-experts acts as the sole judge of the facts, evaluating conflicting expert testimony to determine liability. Communication in Healthcare: Lack of communication and poor record coordination among multiple healthcare providers represent one of the most frequent root causes of medical negligence. -Sponsored by Marquardt Law Firm and Financial Planning HQ -Go to marquardtlawfirm.com and financialplanninghq.net If you found this episode valuable, please Subscribe and hit the Notification Bell on YouTube. Sharing this podcast with other parents, grandparents, and caregivers helps raise vital awareness to protect the children in our communitiesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more
I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 178 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Caitlin Byczko, who is partner with Marnes & Thornburg in their IP team. Ken is discussing dupe culture with her. Here is the profile of Caitlin Byczko https://btlaw.com/en/people/caitlin-byczko But before we launch into this very interesting interview, I have some news for you: On August 10th, 2026, Navitas Semiconductor filed suit against Renesas Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Renesas of infringing four US patents on gallium nitride semiconductor technology through its SuperGaN product lines. The filing follows a countersuit Renesas brought on July 22nd, 2026, accusing Navitas and two of its employees of misappropriating trade secrets. It shows how patent disputes and trade secret claims between competitors are increasingly being fought on multiple fronts at once, and often as tit for tat. It also emerged on August 12th, 2026, that an EPO Board of Appeal had dismissed an appeal by Atlas Global Technologies and ruled that its WiFi patent, EP 3 353 901, case T 1230/25, could not be maintained in any form at all, even though the original opponents, TP-Link and Vantiva, had already withdrawn their oppositions. That knocked out the basis for several parallel infringement suits at the Unified Patent Court, which were then withdrawn. For suppliers and implementers, the takeaway is that fighting a patent held by a non-practising entity can still be worth it, even once the original opponent has thrown in the towel. On August 10th, 2026, the Unified Patent Court in The Hague fully revoked Maxell’s patent EP 2 061 230, covering technology for handing off content to a second device, and at the same time dismissed Maxell’s infringement claim against several Samsung entities, in cases UPC_CFI_251/2025 and UPC_CFI_769/2025. The judges found the patent to be nothing more than an obvious combination of routine adaptations, with no additional technical effect. And now – let's hear the interview with Ken and Caitlin! A dupe used to be a quiet, slow thing. You’d stand in the cereal aisle, notice the generic box next to the name brand, buy it, tell a friend. Word spread over months. That world is gone. On this episode of IP Fridays, Ken Suzan sat down with Caitlin Byczko, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Indianapolis, to talk about what’s replaced it: a TikTok-driven economy where a single video can sell out a dupe product within hours, sometimes before the original brand’s own team even knows it exists. Byczko litigates and prosecutes trademarks across retail, fashion, luxury goods, technology, and pharmaceuticals, and she’s watched dupe culture evolve from a marketing footnote into one of the more active battlegrounds in trademark law. Here’s what she told us, and why it matters even if your brand has never heard the word “dupe” used about it. Counterfeit and Dupe Are Not the Same Thing, Legally Byczko opened with what she called the most important distinction in this entire conversation: the difference between a counterfeit and a dupe. A counterfeit uses someone else’s actual trademark. Think of a fake Chanel bag stamped with the interlocking C’s, or a fake Louis Vuitton logo. That’s straightforward infringement, and above certain thresholds, a federal crime. A dupe is different. It mimics the look, feel, or performance of a product without using the name or the logo at all. Elf Cosmetics, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, and Quince have all built parts of their business on exactly this model. No one is pretending to be Chanel. They’re offering something that looks and performs similarly, at a fraction of the price, under their own name. Media and social media use “dupe” and “counterfeit” interchangeably. Legally, that’s sloppy, and it matters, because the two categories trigger completely different legal analyses. If There’s No Logo, What Are Brands Actually Suing Over? This is where trade dress comes in. Trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a product: packaging, color combinations, shape, label design. Byczko pointed out that most of us interact with trade-dress-protected products every day without realizing it. The test is likelihood of confusion. Courts look at how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, and whether there’s real evidence that people were confused. Byczko flagged one case as a genuine roadmap for this area: Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery, an ice cream trade dress dispute that came out of the Eastern District of New York. In her view, the strength of that case came down to how precisely the brand defined its trade dress for the packaging. That precision, she said, did a lot of the work toward the outcome. She’s also watching Lululemon v. Costco, which she expects to be significant partly because it doesn’t rely on trademark and trade dress alone. Byczko noted that brands are increasingly stacking causes of action together: trademark, patent, false advertising, all pointing at the same product. And she’s tracking Sol de Janeiro v. Macau Beauty, a case she finds notable because it pulls in influencer content and testimonials as evidence, not just packaging and trade dress claims. Macau Beauty, she noted, has already been sued multiple times across different jurisdictions. A note for readers outside the US: trade dress as a distinct doctrine doesn’t exist as such in Germany. The closest tools here are the three-dimensional trademark and, more practically, the wettbewerbsrechtlicher Nachahmungsschutz under Section 4 No. 3 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). That provision protects product shape, packaging, and get-up against imitation when the original has wettbewerbliche Eigenart, competitive distinctiveness, and the copy creates avoidable confusion about origin, unfairly exploits the original’s reputation, or was built on dishonestly obtained know-how. It’s a narrower, more fact-specific tool than US trade dress, but the underlying logic Byczko describes, define your product’s distinctive features early and precisely, applies just as much on this side of the Atlantic. Why the Evidence Problem Changed Everything Ken asked what’s actually driving the current wave of disputes, and Byczko’s answer was simple: evidence. Ten or twenty years ago, if you sent a cease-and-desist letter or went to trial, you had almost nothing concrete to show about how consumers actually perceived two products. Now you have TikTok comment sections, influencer testimonials, and entire genres of “dupe content” documenting exactly what shoppers think, in their own words, in real time. In the Sol de Janeiro case, Byczko noted that part of the complaint isn’t just about packaging and trade dress. It’s about what influencers said, what claims they made, and what that content reveals about actual consumer confusion or the absence of it. That’s evidence litigators simply didn’t have access to a decade ago, and it cuts both ways: it can prove confusion, or it can just as easily prove there wasn’t any. Why Dupes Took Off: Economics, Status, and a Generational Shift Byczko was careful to frame this part as her personal read, not a sociologist’s conclusion, but it’s a read shaped by watching these disputes up close. Part of it is straightforward economics. Gen Z is shopping under real affordability pressure, and dupes let them participate in trend cycles without the price tag. Byczko cited a projected $12.6 trillion in Gen Z spending power by 2030, a generation too significant for brands to write off. The other part is cultural. A generation ago, owning a visible logo was the status symbol. Now, for a lot of younger shoppers, being the savvy one, the person who finds the dupe first and tells their followers about it, carries its own status. It’s less “I have the real thing” and more “I outsmarted the markup.” Byczko also pointed to growing public skepticism toward paying five or ten times more for a product purely because of the name on the packaging, particularly in beauty and fashion. The PR Trap: When Enforcement Backfires One of the sharpest points in the conversation was about what happens after a brand decides to enforce. Suing over a dupe can read very differently in public than it does in a courtroom. Byczko put it directly: going after a dupe can easily look, to the public, like a big corporation coming down on a small competitor, or worse, on its own customers, the same people who made the original brand aspirational in the first place. She’s seen this dynamic play out repeatedly in high-profile cases. Her advice: treat enforcement as a communication strategy, not just a legal one. Sometimes the smarter move isn’t a lawsuit at all. It’s a quieter cease-and-desist letter, a takedown request, or doubling down on marketing that explains what actually makes the original worth the price. Charlotte Tilbury has leaned hard into this approach, building campaigns around the idea that the original simply can’t be remade. Olaplex ran a similar play with its “OlaDupe” campaign. Legal and marketing, Byczko said, have to work together on this, not in sequence. What Brands Should Actually Do Byczko laid out three practical layers, all before litigation ever enters the picture. First: register your trademarks, and where a product design is genuinely distinctive, pursue trade dress or design patent protection early, before a dupe exists and before you know whether the product will even take off. That timing problem is real. Brands rarely know in advance which product will become the one worth copying. Her advice was to look at long-standing anchor products, the ones that have quietly carried a brand identity for years, and ask whether they’re actually protected. Second: monitor. A large share of dupe disputes start on social media, not in a courtroom. That means someone needs to be watching hashtags and influencer content, not just from direct competitors, but from adjacent or even unrelated brands that could end up duping a product without anyone noticing until it’s already trending. Third, and the one Byczko clearly considers most underused: consumer education and brand storytelling. “This is the original” is a weak pitch on its own in a market flooded with cheap alternatives. What works better is explaining, specifically, what makes a product different: its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity. Give people a real reason to pay more, not just a claim to authenticity. Where This Goes Next Byczko doesn’t think dupe culture is a passing trend. Her expectation is closer to “there will eventually be a dupe of everything,” and she’s watching an interesting generational pattern where teenage shoppers are teaching their mothers about dupes, who are in turn teaching their own mothers. On the legal side, she expects more clarity as cases like Van Leeuwen work their way through the system, giving brands a clearer formula for how to define and defend trade dress. On the brand side, she expects less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in what’s genuinely hard to copy: real innovation, ingredient transparency, and storytelling that a dupe simply can’t replicate. One data point she raised stuck with us: search interest in the word “craftsmanship” is at its highest point in twenty years. After years of leaning into dupe culture, there are signs some consumers are swinging back toward wanting the original, the real ingredient, the real technique, the thing that can’t be copied to the same quality. For brands sitting on distinctive packaging, a signature shape, or a product identity they’ve never formally registered, that’s less a trend forecast than a to-do list. Here is the full transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Ralf. Our guest today on the IP Friday’s podcast is Caitlin Byczko. Caitlin is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg LLP and is based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Caitlin crafts and defends global brand strategies, protecting intellectual property assets with creative solutions and highly tactical advocacy. She excels in trademark prosecution and litigation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and federal district courts, safeguarding trademarks and digital properties for businesses of all sizes and at every stage of the business life cycle. From startups to Fortune 500 companies, Caitlin manages clients’ intellectual property needs across diverse industries. Her experience spans retail, fashion, luxury goods, sports, technology, agriculture, venture capital and pharmaceuticals. Beyond trademark law, Caitlin brings valuable insights from her law school experience with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, and her previous work serving in a technology company’s in-house legal department. Her tenacious nature and clever problem-solving skills shine through in complex matters, earning praise from clients and colleagues alike. Caitlin is co-author of “Dupe Culture Meets the Courtroom,” published in Global Cosmetic Industry on March 16, 2026. Welcome, Caitlin, to the IP Friday’s podcast. Caitlin Byczko: Hi, Ken. Thank you so much. I’m very honored to be here. Ken Suzan: Yeah, so Caitlin, today we’re talking about dupe culture, a topic that is rapidly becoming front for many brands around the world. What’s the actual difference between a dupe and a counterfeit? Caitlin Byczko: That is one of my favorite questions. This is the most important distinction to draw when we are talking legally about dupes because the difference, because media and social media often use the words interchangeably and legally they’re very different. A counterfeit is a product that uses someone else’s actual trademark. We often think of a fake Chanel bag with interlocking C’s or a fake Louis Vuitton. It’s relatively straightforward trademark infringement and generally above certain thresholds is a federal crime. A dupe, by contrast, is a product that mimics the look, feel, or performance product without actually using the name or logo. We often think of it in the beauty products, in the fashion space, some brands like Elf Cosmetics, which was in the article you just mentioned, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, Quince, who are all very well known in the dupe space. Ken Suzan: What has led to the rise of dupe culture? I’m reading about it virtually every day. Caitlin Byczko: I feel very strongly about this and I’m always talking about it in my legal and non-legal worlds. It’s a very interesting societal change that I think we’ve seen over the past year. I am a lawyer, I am not a marketer, I am not a sociologist, but in my opinion, social media and influencer culture specifically has really created the kind of rise in dupes that we see today. I don’t think we can talk about modern dupe culture without talking about TikTok specifically. Dupe content is its own genre, essentially on TikTok and on Instagram. There’s a whole vocabulary that people are dupe influencers, where their whole product, everything that they’re doing and selling, all of the content they’re making is dupe related. What’s really changed is the speed, I think, around when other products or when a dupe product comes out, how it can be marketed and how people can find out about it. The speed of commerce itself has increased wildly as a result, in part because of social media. A product used to take months to build a reputation as a good alternative. When we think about things, generic cereal is one thing that I have been talking about with my parents with respect to dupe culture. It was one of the things that there used to be, you would go to the store and there would be the cereal, the name brand cereal, and then there would be the generic version of the cereal, which was usually less expensive. That in a way was a dupe. It took a long time. Your friends knew about the dupe cereal and then you knew about the dupe cereal. Then it all got around. Now a single video can send a dupe product sold out within days, within hours sometimes. Oftentimes, a brand’s own team doesn’t even know about the dupe until it’s already been wildly out. Part of it becomes this legal issue when there are claims coming around the dupe. In the Sol de Janeiro case against Macau Beauty, part of the complaint isn’t just about the trade dress and the packaging, which I think we’ll talk about. It’s about the influencer content and the testimonials and what people are saying about the dupes. There’s so much evidence now and there’s so much content and there’s so much out there regarding dupes on social media, on TikTok, and in other places. Ken Suzan: Yeah, and it’s an ever-evolving story. Every day there’s new social media content, more evidence for a potential gain, right? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. Ken Suzan: So if dupes aren’t using a particular brand name, how are companies suing over them at all? Caitlin Byczko: So this is really where trade dress comes in, and trade dress, as most of us know, has been around for a long time. There are a lot of very well-known things that you probably see or use every day that you don’t know are protected by trade dress, but they are. And the trade dress protects the overall kind of look and feel of a product. So if you think about things like packaging, color combinations, shape, label design, when that becomes distinctive enough, right? When consumers see that and kind of immediately understand it has the secondary meaning related to the brand owner, then it can become a protectable trademark. And so the test for trademark infringement is likelihood of confusion. And courts will look at the factors of how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, whether there’s evidence that people were actually confused. I think one of the big cases in the trade dress space that came out since you and I discussed originally, Ken, is the Van Leeuwen versus Rebel Creamery ice cream case. And so for any of those interested, it’s a very interesting opinion. It just came out of the Eastern District of New York. I think that really helps people, brands specifically, kind of provide a roadmap with respect to how to define a trade dress. I think they did an excellent job there defining what the trade dress was for the packaging. And I think that that had a lot to do with the success. Ken Suzan: Yes. Ken Suzan: Why do you think younger consumers gravitate towards dupes so much more than past generations did? Caitlin Byczko: I think there are a few things that are kind of top of each other. The obvious one is economics. I think younger consumers, especially Gen Z, they’re shopping in an environment where there’s affordability pressure. And I think that dupes let them participate in certain trend cycles without the price tag. Gen Z is a significant demographic behind the growth of dupes. And they have a predicted spending power we saw recently, $12.6 trillion by 2030. Ken Suzan: Wow. That’s incredible. Caitlin Byczko: I think it is really also coupled with more of what I would say is a cultural shift. Again, I am a lawyer and this is just my opinion. But what feels aspirational is really changing, I think. And a generation ago, we saw in the fashion world, there was a really big, people really liked logos. Having a logo, owning a logo was the point. And now for a lot of younger shoppers or even more savvy shoppers, actually being a savvy shopper is the status symbol itself. So for a lot of creators, finding the dupe before anyone else or being the one who tells your followers about the dupe really has its own, and it’s less “I have this real thing” and more, “oh, I outsmarted the markup.” And I think it’s that kind of value. I think younger consumers are more publicly skeptical of the idea that something is worth five or ten times more just because of the name on the packaging. And I think that that becomes the case particularly in beauty and then clothing as well. And so I think it’s coupled with the question of craftsmanship and all of these different things. Like we can’t view anything in a vacuum, which is why I could talk for 500 years about this topic. Ken Suzan: Yeah, definitely. Now brands obviously want to protect themselves. That’s an important thing. But going after a dupe can backfire publicly, particularly on the internet. Can you comment on this possibility and what should brands do? Caitlin Byczko: Sure. I think the biggest thing is what you just said. So I think there’s the legal component. And when we’re assessing this for one of our brand clients, I think we cannot review one without the other. So I think you have to say, do we have this claim? Do we have a protectable trade dress or a look and feel claim? And what is the potential backlash in the public? I think it is also a joint PR concern, because what we see is suing over a dupe can very easily read to the public as, oh, this big brand or big corporation is coming down on a small competitor or on its own customers that made the original brand aspirational. I think that we see this in a lot of the big cases that are out right now. So brands, I think, can start to think about enforcement as a communication strategy first, because sometimes the smarter play isn’t necessarily filing a lawsuit. It’s kind of a quieter cease and desist, a takedown request, or separately, it might be really doubling down on the craftsmanship or on a marketing side of what makes the product worth the price. I think Charlotte Tilbury is a great example of this, who’s really leaned into this kind of “can’t be duped” or “you can’t remake the original” with respect to some of their really core products. And so I think people really need to, or brands really need to, assess: one, how can we define what it is that’s being duped? And again, that’s where I think that Van Leeuwen case, I think, will be really interesting over the next few years, with respect to kind of providing this roadmap to help people say, here is a way that we can try to really define what the trade dress is and then be able to protect it and be able to enforce it. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, are there cases right now, I know we just talked about the Van Leeuwen case, but are there cases right now that you think will actually set the tone for how this area of law develops? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. And I think some of the cases probably are even in the works, they’re not even filed yet, which is probably very exciting to us as trademark nerds. I do think the Lululemon versus Costco case will be a big one. It’s not just trademarks and trade dress, as many of them are not. I think a lot of times we see in these cases brands are very smartly using kind of all of the different types of causes of action that they bring: trademark, patent, false advertising, a lot of different things. And so I think that that one is definitely certainly one to watch kind of in the fashion space. And then the Sol de Janeiro versus Macau Beauty. Macau Beauty has been sued multiple times, I think, in various jurisdictions. And so I think part of that one is very interesting to me because I think it’s this, it loops not only trademark protection, but also it brings in false advertising, it brings in influencers, it brings in all of these different things. And so I think, like we had talked about previously, nothing is really viewed in a vacuum. And I think for all of these cases, one really important thing, maybe that we didn’t necessarily have access to 10 years ago, or certainly 20 years ago, is this like just ripe amount of evidence of potential confusion or potential non-confusion. When we go on social media and look at all of these things, and then read the comments and all of this different data that’s out there, it’s fascinating, because if you’re in trial, or if you’re going to trial, you’re sending a cease and desist letter, like there is evidence of what the consumers think right here in front of you, right? And the weight of that evidence obviously depends on what it is. But it’s fascinating the way that you can very quickly identify, you know, is there confusion? Is there not confusion, in a way that you likely could never have even thought to consider 10 to 20 years ago? Ken Suzan: Now beyond litigation, what should brands actually be doing to protect themselves in a dupe-driven market? Caitlin Byczko: I think one of the best things that we can do, right, is starting to register the trademarks. I think that’s an obvious one. And really start to consider where the product is genuinely distinctive. And so if it is genuinely distinctive, pursuing a trade dress or a design patent early, before a dupe exists, before anything happens. And I know that can be difficult, because oftentimes brands don’t know for sure what’s going to take off and what’s not. It can also be a surprise. But I think it’s really pushing brands that when you are innovating and when you are doing something that is truly unique and truly distinctive, or when you’re looking back on your brand assets and saying, this thing has been an anchor brand asset for 10 years, you know, have we sought trade dress protection? Is there a way that we can do that? The second layer really is monitoring, in my mind, because a lot of dupe disputes do start on social media. And I think it is important to have people within a company, if you have a product that you’re really keeping an eye on, or that you’re concerned about being duped or causing confusion, having someone who is keeping eyes on hashtags and influencer content and all of these various things. You know, we’re not watching just your direct competitors, we’re watching other completely different brands, or kind of made-up brands even, who could be duping the product. And then I think the third thing that I see as very important is this kind of consumer education and brand storytelling, which is when we kind of get outside of the purely legal side of it. And, you know, legal and marketing and brand and social kind of all need to work together, right? I think if the only pitch to consumers is “this is the original,” it kind of becomes a weak argument in a market where there are cheap alternatives everywhere. But I think the brands that really explain what actually makes their product different, in its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity, it really gives people a real reason to say, I want to pay more for this brand because of XYZ, you know, the technology or whatever that is. Charlotte Tilbury is one that I had mentioned. I know Olaplex kind of had a big campaign around “OlaDupe” is what they called it. So I think really unique and interesting marketing also assists with that. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, where do you see dupe culture heading? Is this a trend that plateaus or does it fundamentally change how brands operate? Caitlin Byczko: I think dupe culture itself is here to stay. I mean, I think we are only getting into a world where there is truly going to be a dupe of everything. And it’s not good or bad necessarily. I think it is just where we are in life. And I think, you know, things serve different purposes. And it all depends a lot on how the younger consumers shop. And it’s also changing how older consumers shop. You know, I’ve read a lot about teenage girls teaching their moms about dupes, who are then teaching their grandmothers about dupes, right? So on the legal side, I think we will get clarity eventually. I think right around, you know, all like all of these things, which seem so complex, and we’ll never know the answer. You know, five [years] from now, we will probably have certainly more clarity, because a lot of these cases will move forward. You know, the Van Leeuwen one, which I’ve now talked about multiple times, but I just obviously think it’s very fascinating. I think that that’s one where you have a roadmap, right? And it may be contested, or, you know, everything is very fact-specific in the trademark world. But I think it will open the door to allow people one more aggressive brand enforcement. But it will give people a roadmap proactively to kind of say, if we follow this formula for our trade dress, or, you know, defining our trade dress, then, you know, we have something we can potentially protect. And then I think on the brand side, we’ll likely see less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in things that are actually, you know, difficult to dupe: innovation, ingredient transparency, marketing, genuinely interesting brand storytelling is something that we’ve seen. I read this past week that searches for craftsmanship, just like generally the word craftsmanship, and kind of products with craftsmanship, is at an all-time high, than it’s been in like the past 20 years. And so it’s interesting, right, that we have gone from this kind of luxury item or high craftsmanship to this dupe culture that we are in now. But there is some potential shift where people are saying, you know, now, I’ve seen all of this and I have all of these options, but now actually what I do care about is the original, right, the innovation or the ingredient transparency or all of those things that can’t necessarily be copied to the same quality. So it’s why it will just provide us with endless topic of discussion, because I think it will only just keep changing forever. Ken Suzan: That’s right. Caitlin, I want to thank you for spending time with us on the IP Friday’s podcast. This has been very insightful, and I’m sure we’ll be talking about this issue in the months and years to come. Caitlin Byczko: Thank you so much, Ken. I really appreciate it. Ken Suzan: Thank you.
Nia and Aughie start the new season with a salty discussion of what can legally appear on your license plate. This episode is in response to a case working its way through the Virginia legal system (and then possibly the Supreme Court), Whateley v. Lackey.
Copying a successful product can look like smart business. The market already exists, customers understand the category, and a competitor has done much of the work of proving demand. But when a patented product is involved, “we changed a few things” can become an expensive sentence.In this episode, we break down what patent infringement actually means for startup founders, product teams, and small business owners. The biggest misconception is that infringement requires an exact copy. It does not. But simply making something similar does not automatically mean infringement either.The key issue is the patent claims.Patent claims define the legal boundaries of the patented invention. A competing product may look almost identical but avoid infringement if it does not satisfy an important claim limitation. On the other hand, a product that looks different can still create risk if its internal structure, process, or method falls within the claims.We also explain why independent development is not automatically a defense to direct patent infringement. A company can invent a product on its own and still end up practicing an enforceable patent claim. Intent matters in some areas of patent law, but direct infringement is not simply a copying contest.Another topic is the danger of relying on cosmetic changes. New colors, different dimensions, button placement, or fresh packaging may help marketing, but they do not necessarily create a legal design-around. A meaningful design-around usually requires understanding the claims and changing the product so a relevant claim limitation is no longer present.Then there is the doctrine of equivalents. This doctrine can sometimes create infringement risk even when the accused product does not literally match every word of the claim. That does not mean “same result equals infringement.” The analysis remains tied to individual claim elements.We also discuss what happens when a patent owner believes infringement is occurring. The first step may be a demand letter or cease-and-desist notice. That letter is an allegation, not a final judgment. A business receiving one should evaluate the asserted patent, the relevant claims, the accused product, possible noninfringement arguments, validity issues, redesign opportunities, licensing options, and overall business exposure.The financial consequences can be significant. Patent owners may seek monetary damages and, in appropriate cases, injunctive relief. Courts can also increase damages for especially egregious conduct, and attorney fees may be awarded in exceptional cases. The business cost can also include redesigns, delayed launches, stranded inventory, disrupted customer relationships, and distracted leadership.One of the most useful lessons for founders is that getting your own patent does not automatically mean you are free to sell your product. Patentability and freedom to operate are different questions. You may own a patent on an improvement while another company owns a broader earlier patent that still covers part of what you are doing.That is why patent strategy should happen before launch, not after. Review relevant patents while the product can still be changed. Compare important claims to the proposed design. Explore legitimate design-arounds. Document key engineering decisions. And bring qualified patent counsel into high-value product decisions before tooling, inventory, marketing, and distribution make changes painfully expensive.The goal is not to make founders afraid of patents. It is to make them better prepared.If you are building a product in a competitive market, this episode will help you understand where patent risk really comes from, which common assumptions can get businesses into trouble, and how early IP planning can turn a potential legal problem into a smarter product strategy.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com
This Day in Legal History: The Murder of Emmett TillOn August 28, 1955, fourteen-year-old Emmett Till was abducted, tortured, and murdered in the Mississippi Delta by two white men, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, after Till—a Black teenager visiting from Chicago—was accused of offending a white woman in a grocery store. His killers beat him, shot him, weighted his body, and threw it in the Tallahatchie River. He was a child, and his murder, and what came after, helped ignite the modern civil rights movement.The legal story is one of justice utterly failing, and then, slowly, refusing to disappear. Bryant and Milam were tried the next month in a segregated Mississippi courtroom. The trial lasted five days; the all-white, all-male jury deliberated for barely an hour before acquitting both men, with one juror later saying it wouldn't have taken that long if they hadn't stopped for a soda. Protected by double jeopardy, the two men then sold their confession to a magazine for a few thousand dollars, describing in detail how they'd killed the boy they had just been acquitted of murdering. It was one of the starkest demonstrations imaginable that the machinery of Southern justice was not built to deliver justice to Black victims.The significance of August 28, 1955 reaches across the decades. Emmett's mother, Mamie Till-Mobley, made the searing decision to hold an open-casket funeral and let the world photograph her son. That act of witness galvanized a generation. And there is a haunting piece of calendar symmetry worth honoring: exactly eight years later, on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the Lincoln Memorial and delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech to the March on Washington. The law eventually, partially, caught up—the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and, only in 2022, a federal anti-lynching law that bears Emmett Till's name. It's a reminder that some of the most important developments in American law began not in a courtroom win, but in a courtroom failure so profound that the country could not look away.The brothers Andrew and Tristan Tate were back in a Miami federal courtroom this week, shackled, asking a judge to release them on bond while they fight extradition to the United Kingdom. The two, who have built a massive and controversial online following, have been held in a federal detention center since their July arrest on U.K. rape and sex-trafficking charges. Their lawyers made a pointed argument: if Romania, where the brothers face a separate sex-crimes case, is willing to let them remain free pending those proceedings, then a U.S. court should free them too—especially since, they argue, two of the most recognizable men on the internet can't exactly disappear. Prosecutors pushed back hard, and here the law is decidedly against the Tates. In ordinary criminal cases, release pending trial is the norm. But international extradition is different: there is a strong, long-standing presumption against bail, rooted in the idea that the United States has a treaty obligation to actually produce the person for the requesting country, and that letting an extradition target go free risks a diplomatic and legal failure if they flee. Courts generally require “special circumstances” to grant bail in an extradition case—a demanding standard—and prosecutors noted the brothers have money and have bragged about holding multiple passports. Legal experts quoted in the coverage thought it unlikely they'd win release. The significance is a useful window into a corner of the law most people never see: that fighting extradition is not like fighting ordinary charges, and the presumption of liberty that normally protects defendants is largely flipped when a foreign government is waiting to prosecute.Tate brothers press for release from US jail during extradition fight | ReutersPBS NewsHour · NPRA federal appeals court has cleared a significant hurdle for Bayer's $7.25 billion settlement of tens of thousands of Roundup cancer claims. The Eighth Circuit dismissed a challenge by a group of objecting plaintiffs who were trying to derail the deal—and the fight was about forum, which sounds dry but matters enormously in mass litigation. Bayer structured this as a class-action settlement in Missouri state court, an unusual move: it's using a single state-court proceeding to try to resolve claims nationwide. The objectors argued that a state court has no business fast-tracking a nationwide resolution, and that the whole thing belongs in front of the federal judge already overseeing the consolidated federal Roundup litigation. A federal judge ruled in June that the case could stay in Missouri state court, and now the Eighth Circuit has agreed, dismissing the appeal. Why does the forum matter so much? Because a settlement that binds a nationwide class of people—including people who haven't actively participated—raises real due-process questions about whether a single state court can bind absent claimants across the country, and because plaintiffs and defendants often have strong strategic preferences about which court, and which rules, govern a mega-settlement. This connects to the Bayer story we covered earlier this summer, when the Supreme Court handed the company a big win on failure-to-warn claims; this settlement is the other half of Bayer's campaign to finally contain a decade of Roundup litigation. A hearing to approve the deal is set for September 14, with roughly 65,000 claims hanging in the balance. The significance is that Bayer is close to buying its way out of a liability that has dogged it for years—and the courts just removed one of the last procedural obstacles.US court dismisses appeal over objections to $7.25 billion Roundup deal | ReutersRTÉ · Maryland Daily RecordAnd finally—though this is anything but a footnote—the biggest story of the week, and arguably the summer: Meta has agreed to pay up to $18 billion and fundamentally change how its apps work for teenagers, settling the landmark case accusing it of designing Facebook and Instagram to addict children. This is the resolution of the very trial we watched begin just ten days ago—the 29-state case in Oakland, with the whistleblower testimony from Arturo Bejar. Rather than let it run to a verdict, Meta settled, and the numbers are staggering: more than $17.6 billion to 48 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the territories, plus another $459 million to resolve privacy claims tied to the old Cambridge Analytica scandal. But the money may be the less important part. For the next decade, Meta has agreed to concrete design changes: teens will be capped at two hours a day on the apps, and blocked from using them between midnight and 6 a.m. without a parent's consent. And in a clever pressure mechanism, part of the payout is contingent on whether YouTube and TikTok adopt similar protections—effectively using this settlement to try to move the whole industry. Everything we've tracked all summer led here: the New Mexico verdict, the Tennessee trial, the bellwether cases, the Ninth Circuit clearing these suits past Section 230. This is the reckoning arriving. It still needs approval from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the trial, but if it holds, it's one of the largest consumer-protection settlements in American history—and, more consequentially, the first time a court-supervised deal will reach inside these platforms and re-engineer them for the safety of kids. The era of treating social media's effect on children as an unregulated externality may have just ended, not with a verdict, but with $18 billion and a clock that shuts the app off at midnight.Meta reaches $18 billion of settlements over children's social media addiction | ReutersCNN · Al Jazeera 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
Sports law expert Jake Thompson breaks down all the new eligibility nonsense as former pro players battle the SEC and NCAA in the courts! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Sports law expert Jake Thompson breaks down all the new eligibility nonsense as former pro players battle the SEC and NCAA in the courts! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
President Trump has embarked on a pro-AI data center kick, causing a world of hurt for his own party. The gigantic, energy-guzzling factories are literally and figuratively steamrolling small rural communities—the very same voters Republicans need to clinch the midterms. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are doing an about face on the issue, but will it be too little, too late? Alex speaks to Suzanne Bellsnyder, author of the Texas Rural Reporter substack, about what it's like when your home becomes ground zero for data center development. Then, she puts it all into context with Galaxy Brain's Charlie Warzel, who writes about AI and technology at The Atlantic.Pre-order Alex's new book, The Steal: Four Right-Wing Hard-Liners, One Republican Presidency, and The Raid On America's Courts and subscribe to her Substack here.Hate listening to ads? Become a Friends of the Pod subscriber for ad-free episodes of Pod Save America, Pod Save the World, Lovett or Leave It, Runaway Country, Offline with Jon Favreau, and more—plus exclusive content, including bonus episodes of Pod Save America. Subscribe now at crooked.com/friends, on Apple Podcasts, or through the Pod Save America YouTube channel.You can request a transcript by emailing transcripts@crooked.com. Include the podcast name, episode title, and air date. Please allow 48 hours for delivery.
Independent investigative journalism, broadcasting, trouble-making and muckraking with Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com
Legal action against the FIFA president. AP correspondent Mike Hempen reports.
We've launched Minimum Competence CLE, and our first course is now available completely free. Researching Federal Tax Issues After Loper Bright looks at how the Supreme Court's decision ending Chevron deference changes the way lawyers should research and evaluate Treasury regulations, IRS guidance, and other federal tax authorities.Take the course and earn CLE credit at cle.minimumcomp.com.This Day in Legal History: The Kellogg-Briand PactOn August 27, 1928, representatives of fifteen nations gathered in Paris and signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact—an international agreement in which the signatories solemnly renounced war as an instrument of national policy. Named for U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, it was born of the still-fresh horror of World War I and the earnest hope that the great powers could simply agree to stop settling disputes by force. Eventually 64 nations signed on.It is, on its face, one of the most idealistic documents in the history of international law—and one of the most famous cautionary tales about law's limits. The pact had a fatal flaw: it contained no enforcement mechanism, no sanctions, no army, nothing but the promise itself and the hope that world opinion would keep nations honest. Within a few years, that hope was in tatters—Japan invaded Manchuria, Italy invaded Ethiopia, Germany rearmed, and the whole edifice collapsed into the Second World War. As a device for preventing war, Kellogg-Briand failed almost completely.And yet the significance of August 27, 1928 is more complicated than “noble failure.” The pact planted a legal idea that outlived its own impotence: that aggressive war is not just tragic but unlawful. After World War II, that principle became the backbone of the Nuremberg trials, where Nazi leaders were prosecuted for “crimes against peace”—waging aggressive war—a charge that traced its lineage directly to Kellogg-Briand. So the pact is a genuinely instructive anniversary for lawyers: it's a reminder that a law without an enforcement mechanism is mostly an aspiration, but also that even an unenforced principle can lodge itself in the legal conscience and reappear, with teeth, decades later. It's worth keeping that dual lesson in mind on a day when we've got stories about whether court orders and legal protections will actually be honored.A federal judge in Washington holds a hearing this afternoon on a question that sounds trivial but isn't: whether adding President Trump's name to the Kennedy Center's signage defies a court order. We set this up yesterday. Back in May, Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the Kennedy Center to remove Trump's name from the building, siding with Democratic Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, who sued over the renaming of the memorial to President John F. Kennedy. Then, on August 13, the center's board—now stacked with Trump appointees—voted to alter the signage to read “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump,” and to christen the grounds “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.” The administration says this complies with the injunction because the building is still, technically, named for Kennedy—the Trump language is just a donor acknowledgment. Beatty says it's open defiance. Today Judge Cooper hears them out. And this is genuinely the crux of the rule of law: an injunction isn't a word game. Courts have long held that you can't evade a court order by finding a technical workaround that accomplishes the very thing the order forbade. If Cooper concludes the board's maneuver is a bad-faith attempt to do indirectly what he directly prohibited, the consequences can escalate toward contempt. The significance, as I noted yesterday, is that this small fight over a plaque is really a test of whether the executive branch treats a court order as a binding command or a puzzle to be solved. And on today's Kellogg-Briand anniversary, it's a pointed reminder that a legal order matters only if it's actually enforced. US judge weighs challenge to restore Trump's name to Kennedy Center | ReutersThe Hill · PBS NewsHourNow to a fight with far bigger stakes for the economy: the effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Cook's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has sent a letter to the White House declaring there is “no legally cognizable cause” to fire her, arguing she “has never committed mortgage fraud or any intentional wrongdoing.” The White House has been trying to oust Cook for over a year, most recently by building a formal process to remove her over allegations that she listed two different properties as her primary residence in mortgage documents—and this comes after the Supreme Court already ruled against an earlier, more summary attempt to fire her. Here's why this is one of the most important legal stories of the year. Federal Reserve governors are not ordinary executive officials who serve at the president's pleasure; under the Federal Reserve Act, they can only be removed “for cause.” That phrase is doing enormous work. It traces back to the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey's Executor, which upheld Congress's power to insulate the heads of independent agencies from at-will presidential removal—the legal foundation of the Fed's independence. The current Supreme Court has been chipping away at Humphrey's Executor for other agencies, but it has pointedly signaled that the Fed is special and its independence protected. So the battle is being fought on the meaning of “cause”: Cook's team says a disputed mortgage-paperwork allegation, with no finding of intentional wrongdoing and no crime, doesn't come close to the kind of malfeasance that “cause” requires. The significance could hardly be larger. If a president can remove a Fed governor he disagrees with by gathering allegations and declaring “cause,” then the Fed's independence—the firewall that's supposed to keep monetary policy insulated from short-term political pressure—becomes a fiction. Markets, and the rule of law, are watching this one closely. Lawyer for Fed's Cook, targeted by Trump, says there is no grounds for dismissal | ReutersCNBC · AxiosAnd finally, Elon Musk's X has lost its First Amendment challenge to a New York law requiring social-media companies to disclose how they handle hate speech. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in Manhattan dismissed the suit—and did so “with prejudice,” meaning X can't refile. The law at issue is New York's “Stop Hiding Hate Act,” signed by Governor Hochul in late 2024, which requires large social-media platforms to disclose their policies for handling hate speech, extremism, harassment, foreign interference, and disinformation, and to report on their efforts. X argued this compelled it to speak—forcing it to make statements about “highly sensitive and controversial” content under threat of lawsuits and fines, in violation of the First Amendment. The judge disagreed, and the legal reasoning is worth understanding. There's a well-established doctrine that governments can require businesses to disclose “purely factual and uncontroversial information” about their own practices, as long as the requirement is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest—the standard from a case called Zauderer. Judge Cronan found that making X describe its own content-moderation policies is exactly that kind of factual disclosure, tied to New York's interest in helping users make informed choices about the platforms they use. The significance is that this lands on one side of a genuinely unsettled national fight. Courts have split over social-media transparency laws—a similar California law was partly struck down on First Amendment grounds—so this New York ruling, upholding a disclosure mandate, deepens a divide that may ultimately need the Supreme Court to resolve. And there's an irony worth noting: X, the platform that markets itself as the champion of free speech, just lost a free-speech case—by arguing that being made to describe its own rules violated its rights. Judge dismisses lawsuit by Elon Musk's X challenging New York hate speech law | ReutersUS News · Daily Maverick 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 Courts of Heaven | Pastor Vern Martin | Grace Church PA by Grace Church
My Soul Longs for the Courts of the LordTo the choirmaster: according to The Gittith.[a] A Psalm of the Sons of Korah.84 How lovely is your dwelling place, O Lord of hosts!2 My soul longs, yes, faints for the courts of the Lord;my heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God.3 Even the sparrow finds a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young,at your altars, O Lord of hosts, my King and my God.4 Blessed are those who dwell in your house, ever singing your praise! Selah5 Blessed are those whose strength is in you, in whose heart are the highways to Zion.[b]6 As they go through the Valley of Baca they make it a place of springs; the early rain also covers it with pools.7 They go from strength to strength; each one appears before God in Zion.8 O Lord God of hosts, hear my prayer; give ear, O God of Jacob! Selah9 Behold our shield, O God; look on the face of your anointed!10 For a day in your courts is better than a thousand elsewhere.I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness.11 For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord bestows favor and honor.No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly.12 O Lord of hosts, blessed is the one who trusts in you!Glorious Things of You Are SpokenA Psalm of the Sons of Korah. A Song.87 On the holy mount stands the city he founded;2 the Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.3 Glorious things of you are spoken, O city of God. Selah4 Among those who know me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush[a]— “This one was born there,” they say.5 And of Zion it shall be said, “This one and that one were born in her”; for the Most High himself will establish her.6 The Lord records as he registers the peoples, “This one was born there.” Selah7 Singers and dancers alike say, “All my springs are in you.”+++For more information about this group, please visit their website at reformationboise.com. Every weekday at 3:30 am and 7:30 am you can listen to The Gospel for Life on KSPD 94.5 FM and 790 AM Boise's Solid Talk in the Treasure Valley, Idaho, USA.If you have a question, comment, or even a topic suggestion for the Pastors, you can email them. If you enjoy The Gospel for Life, please give us a rating and leave a review wherever you listen to podcasts. That helps us a lot!Phone: (208) 991-3526E-mail: thegospelforlifeidaho@gmail.comPodcast website: https://www.790kspd.com/gospel-for-life/to donate on line https://www.reformationboise.com/donate
Sarah Longwell and Andrew Weissmann discuss a pair of Supreme Court moves benefiting Trump, including John Roberts allowing construction on the White House ballroom to continue and a ruling affecting Trump's plans for mail-in voting. They also examine Greg Abbott's refusal to extradite an ICE officer accused of shooting a man and lying about it, a provocative case involving a traveler who wiped his phone rather than let border agents search it, and the unanswered questions surrounding Natalie Harp's lack of a security clearance despite her extraordinary access to Trump.Ready to reach your goals? Visit https://forhers.com/illegalnews to get personalized, affordable care that gets you.Sleep cooler this summer with Boll & Branch. Get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at https://BollandBranch.com/illegalnews with code illegalnews. Exclusions apply.Use code ILLEGALNEWS at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Gift with your first purchase! #JonesRoadBeauty #adSave 20% Off Honeylove by going to https://honeylove.com/ILLEGALNEWS! #honeylovepod
We've launched Minimum Competence CLE, and our first course is now available completely free. Researching Federal Tax Issues After Loper Brightlooks at how the Supreme Court's decision ending Chevron deference changes the way lawyers should research and evaluate Treasury regulations, IRS guidance, and other federal tax authorities.Take the course and earn CLE credit at cle.minimumcomp.com.This Day in Legal History: The Declaration of the Rights of ManOn August 26, 1789, France's National Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, one of the foundational documents of modern constitutional government. The Marquis de Lafayette played a major role in drafting it, with input from his friend Thomas Jefferson, who was then serving as the American minister in Paris. In just seventeen articles, the Declaration tried to turn Enlightenment ideas about natural rights and legitimate government into law.A lot of it will sound familiar to American ears, in part because the American and French revolutions were very much in conversation with each other. Article I declares that “men are born and remain free and equal in rights”—today's opening quote. The Declaration identifies liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression as natural rights. It says the law must apply equally, punishment must be authorized by law, defendants are presumed innocent, and the free communication of ideas is “one of the most precious of the rights of man.” It also makes separation of powers part of the definition of constitutional government: a society where rights are not secured and powers are not separated “has no constitution at all.”The Declaration mattered well beyond France. Its ideas influenced constitutions throughout Europe and Latin America and eventually found echoes in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. There was also an enormous gap between the Declaration's promises and what followed. Within a few years, the French Revolution had descended into the Terror, and the supposedly universal rights announced in 1789 were plainly not being extended to everyone.That makes August 26 an especially fitting date for another reason. In the United States, it is Women's Equality Day, commemorating the 1920 certification of the Nineteenth Amendment. The coincidence is a useful reminder that declaring people “equal in rights” is considerably easier than actually making them so—and that many of the people supposedly covered by universal declarations of equality had to spend generations fighting to make those words apply to them.A federal judge previously issued an injunction barring the administration from renaming the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts after President Trump. Then, earlier this month, the Kennedy Center's board—now dominated by Trump appointees—voted 20 to 3 to change the building's signage to read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump,” and to name the surrounding grounds “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.” The administration's argument, in a new filing, is essentially semantic: it says this doesn't violate the injunction because the building is still named the John F. Kennedy Center, and the added inscription is merely a donor acknowledgment—the kind, it says, that's “ubiquitous in similar facilities.” Democratic Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, who's part of the suit, says the board “openly defied” the court's ruling and has asked the judge to block the signage. Here's the legal question, and it's a real one: when does creative compliance with a court order become defiance of it? Courts don't just police the literal words of an injunction—they police attempts to accomplish the forbidden thing through a technical workaround. If the injunction's purpose was to stop the center from being turned into a monument to the sitting president, a judge may well look past the “we didn't technically rename it” framing to the practical reality. The judge, Christopher Cooper, has set a fast briefing schedule with deadlines today. The significance is that this small, almost absurd dispute over building signage is really a test of something fundamental: whether the executive branch will comply with a court order in substance, or look for the narrowest possible reading to get what it wanted anyway. Trump administration says new Kennedy Center renaming does not violate court order | ReutersBloomberg Law · TimeDeloitte has agreed to pay $21.5 million to settle Justice Department allegations that its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs amounted to illegal discrimination—a landmark in the administration's campaign against corporate DEI. And note the legal vehicle, because it's clever and aggressive: the DOJ brought this under the False Claims Act, the federal government's primary anti-fraud statute. The theory is that Deloitte, as a federal contractor, certified compliance with anti-discrimination requirements while allegedly running DEI programs that themselves discriminated—making its certifications false. The specific allegations: Deloitte's business units received monthly summaries tracking progress against “demographic goals”; roughly 150 senior partners and managing directors had part of their compensation tied to hitting those targets, some risking tens of thousands of dollars; and race and sex were allegedly factored into promotion decisions and access to certain training and mentoring programs. Of the $21.5 million, about $10 million is designated as restitution. Crucially, Deloitte denies the allegations and the settlement includes no admission of liability. The significance is that this reframes DEI from a corporate HR initiative into potential fraud against the United States. We've tracked the administration's use of Title VI against universities—Harvard, Columbia, William & Mary—and this is the corporate front of the same campaign, deploying the False Claims Act against a major government contractor. That's a powerful deterrent, because the False Claims Act carries treble damages and invites whistleblower suits. Whatever you think of DEI programs on the merits, the legal move here is significant: it puts every federal contractor on notice that diversity targets tied to pay and promotion could be recast as discriminatory, and therefore as a false certification the government can prosecute. Deloitte to pay $21.5 million to settle US government probe over DEI | ReutersJustice Department · Fox BusinessAnd finally, a federal appeals court has ruled that the administration cannot attach ideological conditions to federal grants for homelessness and transportation—another entry in the running saga over the limits of the executive's power over the money. The Ninth Circuit, in a decision backing Santa Clara County and other local governments, affirmed a lower court and found that the administration abused its authority by imposing new strings on grants like the Continuum of Care program, which has funded homelessness services since 1987. Those grants have long been built around a “housing-first” philosophy—the approach of getting people into permanent housing without preconditions like sobriety or employment—and the administration sought to attach conditions cutting against that model and advancing its own policy priorities. The court found the cities would suffer irreparable harm if the funds were withheld. Here's the legal principle, and longtime listeners will recognize it: back in July, we covered the anniversary of South Dakota v. Dole, the case that lets the federal government attach strings to the money it gives states—but only within limits. The conditions have to be clearly stated, related to the purpose of the funding, and not coercive. When an administration tries to bolt novel, ideological conditions onto grants Congress created for a specific purpose, courts have repeatedly said that exceeds those limits. This fits a pattern we've followed all summer—from the OMB grant clawbacks to the EPA's frozen climate funds—of courts telling the executive that money Congress appropriated for a purpose can't be turned into a lever for unrelated policy goals. The significance is that the spending power, real as it is, keeps running into the same wall: you can fund homelessness programs, or not, but you can't quietly rewrite what they're for. Trump cannot impose conditions on transportation, homelessness grants, US appeals court rules | ReutersPalo Alto Online · Mountain View Voice 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
This episode is presented by Create A Video – Apparently, former North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory's office recorded a call with the NBA Commissioner during the HB2 fight a decade ago. It turns out the Commish said very different things in private than he did in public over the "bathroom bill" fight. Plus, what counts as "stealing an election?" I discuss with Andrew Dunn - the publisher of Longleaf Politics and a contributing columnist to The Charlotte Observer. He's also the author of the book The Change Agent: Pat McCrory's Rise, Reckoning and Legacy. Also, a Mecklenburg judge let a guy out of jail after he was charged with threatening to shoot up five Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-kaliner-show--6946691/support.Subscribe to the podcast My preferred podcast platform: SpreakerAll the links to Pete's Prep are free!Get exclusive content here!Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code!Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com
Writers: Emily Cambias, Martin Ericsson, Freja Gyldenstrøm, Chris Jones, Merrit K, Anna-Karin Linder, Roosa Melkko, Juhana Pettersson, Kevin Schluter, and Rachel J. WilkinsonContent: The crew tackles Anarchs and Autarkis in Courts of the Damned, Part 2—with reactions ranging from genuine appreciation and sharp criticism to dramatic takes, political arguments, and, yes, somebody actually falling asleep on mic.We dig into what works, what doesn't, and what the material says about existing outside the Ivory Tower, while touching on the Autarkis who reject the whole damned structure.And in proper Anarch fashion, the original cover art has been altered.Damn the Man. Oppose our corporate masters.Support the showhttps://linktr.ee/25YearsOfVtM
A family court judge can reach into your family, single you out by name, and rearrange your life by dinnertime: where your child sleeps tonight, whether you're allowed to see them, whether you're even permitted to raise a concern about your spouse. Karen Winner told me that in the opening minutes of our conversation, and it's the line I keep coming back to. Winner is a journalist turned attorney and the author of Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Children by Divorce Lawyers and Judges, a book that started as a government investigation and became one of the few serious accountings of how family court actually operates in this country. Winner's path into this work began at the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, where she investigated financial abuse of women by their own divorce attorneys under commissioner Mark Green. Three women brought her their stories, including Monica Getz, the ex-wife of saxophonist Stan Getz, and Peggy Hammond, ex-wife of blues musician John Hammond Jr. Winner went on to interview roughly a hundred people inside the system, insiders included. One judge pulled her aside in an empty courtroom to whisper how the wealthy get exploited by their own lawyers. The resulting report led to New York's Statement of Client's Rights, one of the first consumer protections written specifically for divorce clients, and still law today. What struck me most was Winner's explanation of judicial discretion. Family court judges, she said, "operate without any checks and balances." They decide behind closed doors, rarely have to explain their reasoning, and face almost no outside scrutiny because the whole apparatus runs at the state level. Custody evaluations compound the problem. Courts routinely appoint psychologists to assess parents, but "there's nobody reviewing the reviewers." Their reports are often sealed from the public and, astonishingly, from the parents whose children's futures depend on them. "It's not fair," Winner said. "It's not democratic. It's Kafka." A small, favored pool of evaluators gets reused case after case, regardless of credentials, because judges default to whoever they already know. That is the same undue influence dynamic I study in destructive cults: a closed information environment where the people affected by a decision have no way to question the process that produced it. When Bandy Lee joined me on this podcast, she described family courts as functioning like "a mini cult," advancing a false narrative that protects the wrong parent while the public stays in the dark. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Has your faith ever felt like it was holding on by a thread?In this final stretch of Book 3 of the Psalms, we unpack what it means to wrestle with unanswered questions, national devastation, and personal heartbreak. Walk with us through the raw, unfiltered prayers of lament and praise in Psalms 81–89. They're a gentle reminder that worship isn't just for the good days. God invites us to bring our honest grief, fear, and "how long, Lord?" directly to Him, especially when our life no longer matches the promises of God.In our Psalms 81–89 Bible study, we cover:[4:57] Psalm 81: How the warning to listen and obey God mirrors Paul's message in Romans about the danger of ignoring what God has made plain.[14:11] Psalm 84: Why the descendants of Korah, whose family history is marked by tragedy and rebellion, would rather stand at the door of God's house than live anywhere else.[23:11] Psalm 87: How the prophecy in Psalm 87 that Israel's fiercest enemies will be welcomed as citizens of Zion sets the stage for Paul's teachings in Ephesians.[29:15] Psalm 88: Why the only psalm that ends in total darkness with no resolution teaches us about expressing raw, unresolved pain to God.[37:14] Psalm 89: How Psalm 89 boldly confronts the apparent collapse of the Davidic covenant while still holding space for praise in the dark.Psalms Show NotesPsalms RoadmapPsalms Prayer ListPsalms Playlist - Listen on Apple MusicPsalms Playlist - Listen on SpotifyPhil Wickham - Psalm 8 (Hallé) [Official Music Video]ACTS Prayer GuideGroup Discussion Questions for Psalms 81-89[15:22] The descendants of Korah were content just serving as doorkeepers, literally holding the door, because being near God was all that mattered to them. What is one small, everyday way you could humbly serve God and celebrate His nearness?[16:54] Psalm 84 mentions passing through the "Valley of Baca" (the valley of weeping) and how God can turn those painful places into springs of spiritual growth. Looking back on a hard season in your life, can you see any ways God used that "valley" to bring growth or comfort later on?[38:14] Book 3 of the Psalms ends on a cliffhanger without a happy resolution, reminding us that sometimes we have to worship even when God's promises and our current reality don't match. Have you ever longed for answers you might only get when you reach heaven? What gives you comfort in those moments?Contact Bible Book Club!Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used with permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.comSocial: Instagram or FacebookWebsite: Bible Book ClubReview Us: Apple Podcast or SpotifyJoin the Fun: DONATE or Buy merchThis episode is part of our ongoing Bible Book Club series, starting with Genesis and journeying all the way through the Bible. Thanks for listening!
Janet Morana sits down with Mary J. Browning, JD, legal advisor for Operation Outcry at The Justice Foundation, to discuss the legal and political battle over abortion in Missouri and what voters need to know about the 2026 ballot initiative. Mary shares her own abortion story, her work with Operation Outcry, and how women who have experienced abortion are using their testimonies and legal declarations to make their voices heard. Janet and Mary also explain the importance of the upcoming Missouri vote and why they believe speaking out can influence both the courts and the culture. Learn more about Operation Outcry and Silent No More, and discover how those affected by abortion can share their stories and get involved.
Andy Hale, civil rights attorney and lawyer for Chester Weger, who was convicted of the Starved Rock murders of 1960, joins Karen Conti to discuss the current state of the case and his filing of a posthumous pardon petition with Governor JB Pritzker. Andy details the three murders, how long it took for the victims’ […]
Dr. Bill Kimberlin, clinical psychologist and author, and John Borowski, filmmaker and author, join Karen Conti to highlight the upcoming ‘Serial Killer: The Original Exhibition’ in Chicago, opening September 5th. Dr. Kimberlin comments on the exhibit’s focus on victimology and John shares what may surprise visitors.
Fred Nickl, attorney and partner at Williams & Nickl, LLC, joins Karen Conti to discuss the recent case involving more than 50 bodies that were discovered and mishandled at a funeral home in Chicago. Fred talks about how this issue went unnoticed, possible criminal charges coming in the case, whether routine inspections are needed at […]
Jonathan Masur, law professor at the University of Chicago Law School, joins Karen Conti to discuss the Chicago Cubs’ and Washington Nationals’ formal objections to the WNBA’s attempt to trademark ‘The W’ and the chances of the WNBA protecting their version of ‘The W’. Jonathan also talks about intellectual property, what is required to qualify […]
With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the second installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch.When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In Episode 2, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card. A housekeeping note: This season was produced before the end of the most recent Supreme Court term. Next week, host Susan Matthews joins Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the blockbuster decisions handed down in June—and Gorsuch's role in them.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
With Amicus on a brief summer break, we're bringing you the second installment of Slow Burn's latest season, Becoming Justice Gorsuch.When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, the Supreme Court appeared to be headed for a 5-4 liberal majority. Instead, a staggering blockade by Senate Republicans and a shocking electoral upset helped steal a seat and clear the way for today's conservative supermajority. In Episode 2, we examine Neil Gorsuch's politically fraught path to power and his time on the bench so far, including the unpredictability that has made him the high court's wild card. A housekeeping note: This season was produced before the end of the most recent Supreme Court term. Next week, host Susan Matthews joins Amicus co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the blockbuster decisions handed down in June—and Gorsuch's role in them.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Mike is fed up with the number of older players getting reinstated in college football/basketball by judges across the country.
Samantha Max, reporter covering public safety for WNYC/Gothamist, breaks down the latest in the Luigi Mangione case, including his guilty plea in federal court on Friday, his push to dismiss the state murder charges on double jeopardy grounds, and the postponement of his state trial. Photo: Luigi Mangione appears in Manhattan Supreme Court on June 17, 2026 in New York City. Mangione is charged with murder in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan in December 2024. (Steven Hirsch - Pool/Getty Images) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Donald Trump is once again reaching out to Kim Jong Un, praising their personal relationship, calling for a reduction in U.S.-South Korea military exercises and claiming the North Korean leader has responded “very positively.” This week, NK News Lead Correspondent Shreyas Reddy joins the podcast to unpack what Trump actually said, how closely it resembles his 2018 diplomacy playbook and why the U.S. president may be turning toward North Korea again. He also discusses Washington and Seoul's decision to cut the Ulchi Freedom Shield exercise from 11 days to five after Trump's directive, as well as what the abrupt change could mean for alliance cohesion. Later, Shreyas explains why Kim would enter any renewed diplomacy from a much stronger position than he did in 2018 and looks at why U.S. strikes on Iran have further reinforced North Korea's rejection of denuclearization. The episode concludes with the possible ways Pyongyang could respond to Trump's overtures and the risk that renewed leader-to-leader diplomacy could leave South Korea on the sidelines. About the podcast: The North Korea News Podcast is a weekly podcast hosted by Alannah Hill exclusively for NK News, covering all things DPRK — from news to extended interviews with leading experts and analysts in the field, along with insight from our very own journalists.
Concerns about social media have prompted a group of attorneys general to sue Meta. Could their case change the way social media is used?Meta's lawyers are in federal court to defend against accusations from four state attorneys general that the company's social media platforms are designed to hook children.Meta denies the allegations.We hear what happened on the first day of court. This episode was produced by Elena Burnett, Jeffrey Pierre and Karen Zamora, with audio engineering by Robert Rodriguez. Our director is Alejandra Marquez Janse.Our interim executive producer is Courtney Dorning, who also edited this episode along with Ravenna Koenig, Kara Platoni, Diane Webber, Janaya Williams and Mallory Yu.Note: The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a charity founded by Zuckerberg and his wife, is a financial supporter of NPR.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show's perks include bonus episodes and sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy
The DC circuit court of appeals ruled that Donald Trump must stop constructing his vanity ballroom on the White House grounds, ruling that his conduct was unconstitutional. They ruled that way because only Congress can spend money to construct a government building. And it wasn't only the court of appeals that ruled against Trump - the court of appeals was affirming the trial court judge's ruling that Donald Trump's conduct is unconstitutional and it must stop.But now, another one of Trump's former criminal defense attorneys - Solicitor General John Sauer - is asking the Supreme Court to allow Donald Trump's unconstitutional conduct to continue. Glenn explains why John Sauer's argument is a bunch of nonsense. Find Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Josiah Osgood — Multi-Part, Part One: Professor Josiah Osgood, author of Uncommon Wrath: How Caesar and Cato's Deadly Rivalry Destroyed the Roman Republic, begins in 64 BCE, when Cato and Caesar briefly cooperated in the murder courts to penalize those rewarded during Sulla's brutal purges. Their rivalry ignited permanently during the Catiline conspiracy in 63 BCE. While Caesar proposed life imprisonment for the conspirators, Cato's debut Senate speech demanded their execution and successfully implicated Caesar in the plot. This established their core conflict: Cato's Stoic rectitude and fear of strongmen against Caesar's pursuit of dignitas and popular reform. The period also saw the rise of the triumvirate, an alliance between Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, which Cato tirelessly opposed as a threat to republican freedom. (1)
Our friends over at the Slate podcast Slow Burn are good at taking events that we think are settled history, then unlocking a new understanding of those stories through interviews, archives, and fresh analysis. They've reexamined Supreme Court history several times in recent years, including a new season about Neil Gorsuch we're featuring on Amicus for the next three weeks.Becoming Justice Gorsuch explores the early years of Donald Trump's first high-court appointee and his precedent-shattering path to power. It's a must-listen if you want to understand this 6-3 Roberts court, how it came to be, and where it's headed. In Episode 1, you'll hear how Gorsuch's worldview was shaped by his iconoclastic mother, his reaction to life on a liberal college campus, and young conservative movements of the 1980s. You'll also hear a familiar voice, with Slow Burn host Susan Matthews interviewing Amicus co-host Mark Joseph Stern.Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
