Podcasts about Deference

Most HR professionals treat the annual retirement plan review like a status update. The advisor presents, the team nods, and everyone gets back to the work they actually understand. The plan keeps running. Probably. Andrew Farrell, Retirement Plan Advisor at North County Wealth, has spent 20 years working with businesses on plan design, compliance, and the advisor relationship. He's watched the same dynamic play out across organizations of every size: HR teams that know everything about their company but defer entirely on the plan. In this episode, he breaks down: Why HR is already a subject matter expert in the room, and how to use that expertise to get more out of every advisor meeting How to draw a clear line between what HR should own and what should get handed off the moment it leaves the building Why missed payroll contributions are the most common retirement plan compliance failure, and the simple calendar habit that catches them before they become a problem Timestamps [00:00:39] Where HR's ownership starts in the retirement plan decision chain, from matching rates to enrollment [00:02:00] Why getting employees enrolled early is HR's most impactful retirement plan move, and why starting late is the primary headwind in savings [00:03:32] When auto-enrollment creates more administrative burden than it's worth, and the specific scenario where high turnover changes the math [00:05:08] The "excess deference" dynamic: why HR professionals hand over authority in advisor meetings they should be keeping [00:06:17] Why your plan advisor needs your company knowledge as much as you need their 401(k) expertise, and what a conversation of equals actually looks like [00:07:00] Asking your advisor to teach you something, and why using their availability is part of what you're paying for [00:08:18] The front door rule: what HR should own in plan administration and what to hand off the moment it leaves the building [00:11:19] Why missed payroll contributions are the most common compliance failure, and how to build the redundancy and calendar checks that catch them [00:15:38] Why "no" is a valid answer when your advisor pitches new plan features, and the ongoing operational cost of adding any bell or whistle [00:18:40] What "fiduciary" actually means, how to know if you're a named one, and the four primary duties that come with it Brought to You by Paylocity Paylocity is the fastest growing unified platform for HR, Finance, and IT. Paylocity brings your people, processes, and data together in one place so HR leaders can spend less time managing systems and more time doing the work that actually moves their organizations forward. Learn more at paylocity.com Keywords: 401k, 403b, retirement plan, fiduciary responsibility, HR compliance, auto-enrollment, plan advisor, payroll contributions, benefit design, retirement savings, plan document, financial wellness, employee benefits, retirement readiness, plan sponsor, benefits administration, excess deference, contribution timing, investment liability, HR strategy

We cover Justice Gorsuch's Concurring Opinion for the Court today Episode 18 of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Gorsuch's concurring Opinion for the Court. We go from p. 8 letter C of the slip opinion through the entirety of p. 14, Roman Numeral II letter B to the cusp of B.1 starting on page 15 of Gorsuch's concurrence slip opinion. If you want to follow along, there's a link below. This is the 18th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is Summer 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. This episode includes a Chaplain's corner reading Psalm 5 in the King James Version and Streams in the Desert February 1st (Cowman Publications, Lost Feliz Station Lost Angeles 1925 original non-woke edition). The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

This Day in Legal History: The Sedition Act of 1798On July 14, 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, the most notorious of the four laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act made it a federal crime to write, print, utter, or publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government of the United States, the Congress, or the President—with the intent to defame them or bring them into disrepute. In plain terms, it criminalized criticism of the government.The context was a Federalist administration, under President John Adams, gripped by fear of France and of domestic dissent, and eager to silence the opposition press aligned with Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. And that's exactly how it was used. Federal prosecutors went after Republican newspaper editors and even a sitting congressman, securing convictions for the crime of harsh political speech. Notably, the Act was written to expire in 1801—conveniently, the moment Adams's term would end—so that it could be wielded against his critics but would not outlive his own hold on power.The reaction was fierce and consequential. Jefferson and James Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions arguing the Act was unconstitutional, and the ensuing backlash helped sweep Jefferson into the presidency in 1800; once in office, he pardoned those convicted under it. The Sedition Act was never tested at the Supreme Court, but history rendered its verdict. More than a century and a half later, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court looked back and declared that the Act's assault on free expression had been repudiated “in the court of history,” using it as a touchstone for modern First Amendment law. The lesson of July 14, 1798 endures: laws that punish criticism of the government are almost always tools of the powerful against their critics—and a free press is most necessary precisely when the state would prefer it silent.Federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas seeking to compel four New York Times journalists to testify before a Manhattan grand jury, part of a leak investigation into the paper's reporting on security concerns surrounding President Trump's flight on the new Qatari-donated Air Force One. Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Here's the legal terrain. There is no absolute federal reporter's privilege—the Supreme Court held decades ago that the First Amendment doesn't categorically shield journalists from grand jury subpoenas—but the Justice Department has long operated under internal guidelines that made going after reporters a last resort. Those guardrails matter here, because in 2025 Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that had sharply limited subpoenas against journalists, restoring broader authority to pursue them. The Times says it will fight, and can ask a court to quash the subpoenas as overbroad, issued in bad faith, or violating the First Amendment. The significance is the pressure this puts on newsgathering: when the government can subpoena reporters to unmask their sources, sources stop talking, and the kind of national-security reporting at issue here gets harder to do. Press-freedom groups warn this administration has reached for subpoenas and search warrants against journalists—at the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal—more freely than its predecessors.Explainer: Can prosecutors compel New York Times journalists to testify in leak probe? | ReutersA federal judge has voided President Trump's roughly $1.78 billion settlement with the IRS, delivering a scathing rebuke and referring his lawyers for possible discipline. The backstory is unusual. Trump sued his own administration in January over the leak of his tax returns, and by late May had reached a deal with the IRS to create an “anti-weaponization” fund and to “forever bar” the government from any action related to his past tax returns—protection extending to his family and businesses. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found the whole thing was a setup. The core legal defect is the absence of what courts call adverseness. Federal courts can only decide genuine “cases or controversies”—real disputes between opposing parties. Here, Judge Williams wrote, “there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” because Trump was effectively suing himself, with his own Justice Department on the other side agreeing to lose. She found the case was brought for an improper purpose: to get a court's stamp of legitimacy on a settlement with no basis in law or fact. She sanctioned Trump's attorneys and referred one, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar, and suggested Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should face discipline too. The significance is a court refusing to be used as a rubber stamp—insisting that its legitimacy can't be borrowed to bless a collusive deal dressed up as litigation.US judge voids Trump's settlement with IRS | ReutersA federal appeals court has revived more than 500 private lawsuits against Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, alleging that acetaminophen use during pregnancy caused autism and ADHD in children—and here it's worth being clear about the science before the law. There is no firm scientific evidence that Tylenol causes autism or ADHD. The most rigorous recent research, including a large Swedish sibling-comparison study of millions of children, found no causal link once you control for genetic and environmental factors shared within families; mainstream medical bodies continue to regard acetaminophen as one of the safer pain and fever options in pregnancy, and untreated high fevers carry their own real risks. So this ruling is not a finding that Tylenol is dangerous. What the Second Circuit actually decided was narrower and procedural: that the trial judge had wrongly excluded the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Under the rules governing expert testimony, judges act as “gatekeepers,” admitting expert opinion only if it rests on reliable methodology. The district court had tossed the plaintiffs' experts as unreliable; the appeals court, per Judge Guido Calabresi, said their methods reflected approaches other scientists use and amounted to “acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree.” Crucially, the court stressed it was not deciding whether Tylenol actually causes these conditions. The significance is about who weighs contested science—the ruling lets juries, not just judges, hear the dispute, which is a real win for the plaintiffs procedurally even though the underlying causation case remains, on the current evidence, weak.US appeals court revives private lawsuits linking Tylenol to autism, ADHD | ReutersAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on a counterintuitive idea: that big corporate taxpayers may come to miss the boring, predictable world of administrative tax law now that the Supreme Court has overruled Chevron deference. My argument, in short, is that a weaker IRS and Treasury is not the unalloyed win a lot of multinationals assume it is.Here's the setup. For forty years, under Chevron, courts deferred to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. With Chevron gone, courts no longer have to defer to Treasury's reading of the tax code just because the statute is vague and the agency has expertise. A lot of corporate taxpayers cheered that—less agency power sounds like more freedom. But my point is that killing Chevron did nothing to remove the underlying ambiguity in the tax code; it just moved the job of resolving that ambiguity to a different desk. And there are only two other desks it can land on, and I don't love either one for a company that wants predictability.The first desk belongs to the courts. If Treasury can't issue as many binding, prospective rules, then more of these questions get resolved through litigation—case by case, on particular records, often years after the transactions are done. Courts are built to handle controversies, not to administer a global corporate tax system. The Coca-Cola transfer-pricing fight is the stress test I point to: a company may win a great refund that way, but you can't organize a multinational's affairs around the hope that every ambiguous question turns into a bespoke judicial adventure. The second desk belongs to Congress, which is the more democratically satisfying answer—Congress writes the code and is politically accountable. But in practice Congress moves slowly and episodically, usually only when tax changes ride along on some bigger budget deal. By the time Congress fixes an international tax problem, the business model that created it has been reorganized twice and pivoted to something involving AI.So the core of my argument is that corporate taxpayers need to distinguish between a useful litigation win and a stable legal environment—those two things don't always travel together. A bad but clear rule can be modeled and planned around; an ambiguous rule, as I put it, isn't really a rule, it's a threat in the shape of a Treasury notice. My prescription is that Congress should make clearer, more deliberate delegations where technical administration is unavoidable—transfer pricing, international tax, anti-abuse rules—and that Treasury should do a post-Chevron audit of its own regulations to flag where the code is asking too much of administration and too little of legislation. Because the real choice here isn't between IRS power and taxpayer freedom. It's between prospective administration and retroactive improvisation—and multinationals may get their wish, see the IRS diminished, and then find themselves stuck with rules everyone knows are broken but no one can fix.Big Corporate Taxpayers Need More Clarity in a Post-Chevron World | Bloomberg Tax 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

Parasht Behaalotcha. Deference between kohanim and Leviem by Rabbi Benjamin Lavian

James Lasdun analyzes the investigation into the double murders, focusing on the kennel video that trapped Alex Murdaugh in a massive lie regarding his whereabouts and exposed investigative deference from authorities. (11/16)1920 GREENVILLE SC

http://www.CoachingAndTeachingJudo.com - There is a serious cultural shift happening inside universities, fraternities, dojos, workplaces, and institutions across America.Young people are increasingly being taught that hierarchy is oppression, deference is weakness, and experience no longer carries authority. The result is a growing collapse of communication standards, professionalism, institutional respect, and intergenerational wisdom transfer.In this talk, Dr. Rhadi Ferguson — Olympian, professor, coach, and member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. — addresses the growing communication crisis he has witnessed inside Howard University, the dojo environment at Tampa Florida Judo, and fraternity culture.This is not an attack on young people.It is a call to restore:professionalismcommunication standardsmentorshiphumilityhierarchyinstitutional respectengagement protocolintergenerational wisdomBecause once institutions lose the ability to transfer wisdom from one generation to the next…They begin to decay from the inside out.Topics Covered:The collapse of deferenceCommunication standards in academiaWhy etiquette mattersRespect vs equalityProfessionalism in higher educationFraternity culture and hierarchyMartial arts discipline and humilityWhy lived experience still mattersThe difference between information and wisdomWhy institutions are struggling culturallyPlease visit:https://www.coffeewithrhadi.comFollow us onFacebook:https://www.facebook.com/Coffeewithrhadi/?ref=br_rsInstagram:https://www.instagram.com/coffeewithrhadi/YouTube:www.youtube.com/channel/UCCeRmAFATZ9y1Tq2Xv0t_SQ?view_as=subscriber?sub_confirmation=1PODCAST: Find your platform: https://pod.link/1327983677#academia#communication#leadership#howarduniversity#omegapsiphi#judo#professionalism#mentorship#respect#education#GenZ#GenerationAlpha#CollegeStudents#HigherEducation#FraternityLife#Masculinity#Etiquette#Discipline#InstitutionalLeadership#OlympianMindset#ProfessorLife#Coaching#Wisdom#Hierarchy#PublicSpeaking#TEDTalkStyle#SocialCommentary#CulturalAnalysis#BlackExcellence#HowardBison

Wednesday Night Teaching by Rose Colon

We cover Justice Gorsuch's Concurring Opinion for the Court today for Episode 17 of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Gorsuch's concurring Opinion for the Court. This is the 17th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is Spirng 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

In this episode, we explore the intricate process of judicial review in administrative law, breaking down the complex architecture courts employ to ensure agency actions are lawful. From standing and ripeness to standards of review and remedies, this guide provides a step-by-step framework to help law students master the critical concepts that underpin modern administrative law.Most people assume judicial review is a straightforward binary: agency action is either lawful or not. But behind the scenes, the process is a nuanced, multi-layered battlefield where courts scrutinize every agency move with precision—culminating in a seismic shift in administrative law that could redefine how government and courts interact for decades.In this episode, we unravel the complex architecture of judicial review, focusing on the crucial steps—from standing and ripeness to the transformative demise of Chevron deference. You'll discover how courts now exercise independent judgment instead of blindly deferring to agency expertise, and why the Major Questions Doctrine has become the ultimate gatekeeper for expansive federal power—especially in cutting-edge issues like artificial intelligence and climate policy.We break down the seven essential phases: how courts determine whether an agency's action is even reviewable, how they classify the type of agency action (formal, informal, or legislative), and which rigorous standard of review applies—be it arbitrary and capricious under State Farm or substantial evidence for formal proceedings. You'll learn how to spot violations like ignored evidence, procedural missteps, or overreach disguised as scientific authority, with masterful use of landmark cases including State Farm, Chevron, and the recent Loperbright decision overruling four decades of deference.Why does this matter? Because the legal landscape is shifting dramatically—courts are now calling the shots on matters once thought to be within agency expertise, especially when huge economic or political stakes are involved. The Major Questions Doctrine demands explicit congressional approval for policies of vast scope, threatening to paralyze agencies from tackling critical challenges like AI regulation or environmental crises unless clear authority exists.Finally, we explore the remedies—vacatur, remand, or partial relief—equipping you with the tools to craft exam-perfect responses focused not only on identifying flaws but on predicting court outcomes based on procedural and substantive errors. This detailed walkthrough provides a step-by-step blueprint for mastering judicial review, empowering you to analyze any agency action with confidence.This episode isn't just a guide—it's a high-stakes deep dive into the seismic legal shifts redefining administrative law today. Perfect for law students preparing for exams or legal professionals navigating a rapidly evolving landscape, it's essential listening for anyone who wants to understand the future of regulatory governance and constitutional accountability.Are you ready to understand the real power dynamics shaping the law? Hit play and master the architecture that separates skilled lawyers from those who get lost in the weeds.

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/latin-american-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/african-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/lgbtq-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts (Cornell UP, 2026), Dr. Maria A. Sanchez tackles a central tension in global governance: how international human rights courts balance their mandates with the imperative to respect national sovereignty. Despite having similar mandates, the world's three regional human rights courts—the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights—interpret their authority differently, leading to uneven regional enforcement of global human rights principles. Dr. Sanchez traces how the geopolitical dynamics of each court's founding moments have manifested in contemporary disparities across the courts' jurisprudences—focusing on disputes involving freedom of expression, personal integrity rights, and LGBTQ+ rights. Her findings expose a paradox: the courts that were founded in the most inhospitable environments for human rights have ended up asserting the most expansive authority over governments. Deeply researched and insightful, Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts speaks to when and how international institutions can leverage authority to intervene in domestic affairs. This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. You can find Miranda's interviews on New Books with Miranda Melcher, wherever you get your podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

OA1242 - Ever heard of the “major questions doctrine”? Most lawyers sure hadn't until a few years ago. So how did it get that important-sounding name? Where did it come from? What even is it? How can we call something a “doctrine” or a rule if we don't have a clear rule statement to cite to? (Hint: You can't). If you've been feeling like maybe this is all made up and the points don't matter, you can get your vindication here as we trace back the history of this ever-changing heavily-politicized increasingly-disputed amorphous blob. Jenessa read way too many cases and law review articles to tolerate this nonsense today. Timeline, each citing the one below it: 1. “Major questions doctrine” first appearance in any court case: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022) 2. “Major question doctrine” [not plural] in an EPA statement on deregulations: Repeal of the Clean Power Plan, 84 Fed. Reg. 32520, 32529 (proposed Jul. 8, 2019) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60). 3. “Major rules doctrine”: U.S. Telecom Association v. F.C.C., 855 F.3d 381, 422-423 (D.C. Cir 2017), Kavanaugh dissent. (Note: There are many decisions by this name, including one from the D.C. Circuit in 2016, all of which are more prevalent online. Only this exact citation, minus the “422-23” pincite, will get you to the right case. Unfortunately I cannot find it outside the paywall to provide a link). 4. “Economic and political significance” allegedly the first unnamed use of the concept: F.D.A. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. 529 U.S. 120 (2000) 5. “Major questions” first appears in any legal scholarship… well those words appear in that order, at least: Stephen Breyer, Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy, 38 Admin. L. Rev. 363 (1986). Meanwhile, in another timeline: Cass R. Sunstein, There are two “Major Questions” Doctrines, 73 Admin. L. Rev. 475, (2021). First ever use of “major questions rule/exception” in a positive light in legal scholarship. Would become more mainstream around 2013-2016: Abigail Moncrieff, Reincarnating the "Major Questions" Exception to Chevron Deference as a Doctrine of Non-Interference as a Doctrine of Non-Interference (Or Why Massachusetts v. EPA Got It Wrong), 60 Admin L. Rev. 593 (2008). Moncrieff, above, cites this as the original coining of “major questions”, not Breyer's 1986 paper: Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 VA. L. Rev. 187 (2006). Other definitions from legal scholarship: Allison Orr Larsen, Becoming a Doctrine, 76 Fla. L. Rev. 1 (2024). Austin Piatt & Damonta D. Morgan, The Three Major Questions Doctrines, Forward Wis. L. Rev. 19 (2024). Thomas B. Griffith & Haley N. Proctor, Deference, Delegation, and Divination: Justice Breyer and the Future of the Major Questions Doctrine, 132 Yale L.J. F. 693 (2022). Chad Squitieri, Who Determines Majorness?, 44 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 463 (2021). Kevin O. Leske, Major Questions about the “Major Questions” Doctrine, 5 Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law 479 (2016). Jonas J. Monast, Major Questions About the Major Questions Doctrine, 68 Admin. L. Rev. 445 (2016). Other relevant cases: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 U.S --- (2026) Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U.S. 477 (2023) King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015) Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302 (2014) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

The Matts answer questions from listeners, including whether or not the age of deference is dead; is Trump going flat; is Farage just like Thatcher; why doesn't NATO repel Russia; what does a deepfake of Piers Morgan say about the future; and is Tracey Emin right about museum and gallery funding? Enjoy!Produced by Matt WithersOFFER: Get The New World for just £1 for the first month. Head to https://www.thenewworld.co.uk/2matts/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We cover Justice Thomas' Concurring Opinion for the Court today for Part 5 (Episode 16) of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Justice Thomas' concurring Opinion for the Court. We have one more part in this Deep Dive after this one to do the concurrence by Gorsuch. This is the 16th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is winter 2026. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with the Gorsuch's Republican concurrence in Loper Bright next time. Today's episode includes readings from Psalm 104 (RSV) and 25 January in Streams in the Desert (Cowman Publications Lost Feliz Station Lost Angeles, California 1925 non-woke original edition). The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Gregory Copley recounts King Charles correcting President Trump on protocol, with the President accepting the royal guidance—a notable moment of deference during the state interactions between the two leaders.1900COTSWOLDS

Harvard law professor Richard Re discusses the evolution of the Supreme Court from the Warren court to the present day, highlighting the historical context of the court's decisions, the role of swing justices, and the current dynamics of originalism and textualism in judicial interpretation.The Agenda:—What is the conservative Warren court?—Reversal in power dynamics—The swing justice era—The Roberts court has the lowest rate of overturning precedents—Common good constitutionalism reflects a generational pivot in legal thought—Textualism is now seen as the generally accepted mode of interpretation—Deference's varied meaningsShow Notes:—Richard Re: To a Conservative Warren Court—Oral argument live blog for Tuesday, January 13—Justices Alito and Thomas dissent in the Parents Protecting Our Children case—Did Justice Kagan debilitate the administrative state?—Not Enough Respect for the Judiciary—Or Too Much?—Supreme Court Increasingly Favors the Rich, Economists Say—Does the Supreme Court Favor the Rich?—Has the Supreme Court Helped Save Democracy? Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including access to all of our articles, members-only newsletters, and bonus podcast episodes—click here. If you'd like to remove all ads from your podcast experience, consider becoming a premium Dispatch member by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We finish Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court today for Part 4d of this deep dive as we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 23 Roman Numeral III, letter B number 2 in the Slip Opinion through to the end of the Opinion of the Court on the bottom of page 35. We have one more episode in this Deep Dive after this one to do the concurrences by Thomas and Gorsuch. This is the 15th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is winter 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with the Republican concurrences in Loper Bright next time. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

For Part 4c of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 13 Roman Numeral II.C in the Slip Opinion through Roman Numeral III, letter B number 1, stopping at number 2 on the bottom of page 23. We have one more episode after this one. This is the 14th Chevron Deference Deep Dive episode we've done on TRP podcast since winter 2024. And here it is fall 2025. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court at the top of his page 23 bottom, Roman Numeral III.B no.2 next time. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-separation-of-powers podcast. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

We trace the tension between strict preservation and bold outreach among Ohio Friends from 1874 to 1917. Asa Branson's authority, Hannah Stratton's journeys, and the Fowlers' service reveal how discipline, humility, and risk shaped a quieter but wider ministry.• Asa Branson's plainspoken authority and resistance to sociability and standard time• Deference to elders creating distance from youth and leadership roles tied to plain dress• Reports of renewed ministry and young Friends entrusted with gifts• Hannah Stratton's humility, release to travel, and contested reception in Britain• John and Esther Fowler's service for children in Ohio and Cairo• influence of an unprogrammed meeting in Japan on local Friends• The move from preservation toward outreach without abandoning core testimoniesA complete list of our podcasts, organized into topics, is available on our website. To learn more about Ohio Yearly Meeting (Conservative) of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), please visit ohioyearlymeeting.org. Those interested in exploring the distinctives of Conservative Friends waiting worship should consider checking out our many Zoom Online Worship opportunities during the week here. All are welcome! We also have several Zoom study groups. Check out the Online Study and Discussion Groups on our website. Advices read in these podcasts can be found on page 29 in our Book Of Discipline. We welcome feedback on this and any of our other podcast episodes. Contact us through our website.

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdanFollow Pat on LinkedIn athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/ Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Aon: Affirm Deppa: Affirm Rosen: PuntIL app:https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/ Aon:https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ch.24-2017.24-2017_11_03_2025.mp3IN SCT:https://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?&id=3043&view=detail&yr=&when=&page=1&court=sup&search=&direction=%20ASC&future=False&sort=&judge=&county=&admin=False&pageSize=20  

Lot and Abraham were both called "righteous"—yet their lives couldn't have looked more different. One lived by faith, the other by sight. In this message, Pastor Zach Terry unpacks the difference between a believer passionately pursuing God and a backslidden believer whose life is wasted. From Lot's choices, we see the warning signs: - Decisions made without prayer - A life in constant need of deliverance - Deference to the carnal rather than the spiritual A backslider is the most miserable of all—too much of God to be happy in the world, and too much of the world to be happy in the church. But there's hope. God still delivers His people and calls us back to Himself.

Lot and Abraham were both called "righteous"—yet their lives couldn't have looked more different. One lived by faith, the other by sight. In this message, Pastor Zach Terry unpacks the difference between a believer passionately pursuing God and a backslidden believer whose life is wasted. From Lot's choices, we see the warning signs: - Decisions made without prayer - A life in constant need of deliverance - Deference to the carnal rather than the spiritual A backslider is the most miserable of all—too much of God to be happy in the world, and too much of the world to be happy in the church. But there's hope. God still delivers His people and calls us back to Himself.

Lot and Abraham were both called "righteous"—yet their lives couldn't have looked more different. One lived by faith, the other by sight. In this message, Pastor Zach Terry unpacks the difference between a believer passionately pursuing God and a backslidden believer whose life is wasted. From Lot's choices, we see the warning signs: - Decisions made without prayer - A life in constant need of deliverance - Deference to the carnal rather than the spiritual A backslider is the most miserable of all—too much of God to be happy in the world, and too much of the world to be happy in the church. But there's hope. God still delivers His people and calls us back to Himself.

At ALEC's 52nd Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, Kentucky Sen. Steve Rawlings didn't just arrive as a first-time Policy Champion, he arrived as a fighter. An attorney by training and a lawmaker by conviction, Rawlings has been pushing back against unchecked bureaucratic power and laying the groundwork for reforms that protect liberty and strengthen state sovereignty. Special Guest: Steve Rawlings.

For Part 4b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 7 Roman Numeral II.A and B to the top of page 13 through to Roman Numeral II.C in the Slip Opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court at the top of his page 13, Roman Numeral II.C next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

      About this episode:  Sometime in 1861, the young Georgia poet Sidney Lanier, a recent Confederate Army enlistee, attended a mock medieval tournament in Kinston, NC. Watching mounted Confederate officers dressed as knights competing for the honor of a local belle, he was moved…even enraptured. To him, the scene was a metaphor for the war itself. The South was a gallant knight battling against dark Northern materialistic forces. Defending hallowed chivalry. As Lanier put it, the Confederacy's war had “the sanctity of a religious cause” arrayed in “military trapping.” These men, this image of knights in shining armor, this lifestyle are what most remember of the antebellum South. Indeed, what many still want to remember. But they represented only a very thin slice of Southern society. About only one half of 1% of a total population of some nine million. And unlike royalty of old, those planters… those knights were part of  an aristocracy sired by property, not birth. Most of them self-made men from ordinary backgrounds whose influence was measured in the number of slaves they owned and the acreage of their plantations. Enjoying leisure and wealth, those few had the time and energy to pursue politics and, in positions of economic and political power, they enjoyed deference from the masses that made up the majority of the Southern white population. Deference which meant that majority followed the leadership and adopted the views of something they would never attain over the course of their entire existence. For this episode, we tell the story of a 19th century world filled with magnolia and cotton…populated with planters, yeomen farmers, “crackers” and the enslaved.  Taken together, the completed picture of a world…a culture that in five years would truly be “gone with the wind.” This is the story of the Antebellum South on the eve of civil war.   ----more---- Some Characters Mentioned In This Episode: John C. Calhoun Eli Whitney Edgar Allan Poe Stephen Foster James Dunwoody Brownson De Bow William L. Yancey   Subscribe to the Threads from the National Tapestry YouTube Channel here   Thank you to our sponsor, The Badge Maker - proudly carrying affordable Civil War Corps Badges and other hand-made historical reproductions for reenactors, living history interpreters, and lovers of history. Check out The Badge Maker and place your orders here   Thank you to our sponsor Bob Graesser, Raleigh Civil War Round Table's editor of The Knapsack newsletter and the Round Table's webmaster at http://www.raleighcwrt.org   Thank you to our sponsor John Bailey.   Producer: Dan Irving

For Part 4a of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 1 to the top of page 7 in the Slip Opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court at the top of his page 7 next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

For Part 3f of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from her p. 24 (Roman Numeral III) through to the end of that Democrat dissent in the Slip Opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.15 of that dissent next time. Footnotes: For the "novice/2 expert problem" I reference Alvin Goldman's "Social Epistemology" entry in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006 version, available here: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/epistemology-social/ Be sure to cite your sources early and often. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

This week, I discuss with my colleague, Kelly N. Garson, a Senior Associate here at B&C and Regulatory Consultant for The Acta Group (Acta®), B&C's consulting affiliate, the implications of the demise of Chevron deference, especially as it relates to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) litigation. We discuss what Chevron deference is, other types of deference that are still very much a part of judicial review, and how Chevron's elimination could impact the implementation of the 2016 amendments to TSCA given the many issues in dispute now pending before many federal circuit courts. Resources: Lynn L. Bergeson, Kelly N. Garson, “Loper Bright and TSCA: Will the demise of Chevron matter?,” Chemical Watch, July 22, 2024. Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-1166 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 20, 2024). ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2025 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

Looking back and looking ahead, we must reckon with a major shift in America's judicial landscape: the elimination of the so-called Chevron Deference. Last year, at about this same time, physician and attorney Dr. John K. Hall was the special guest here on Monitor Mondays, and he began his segment explaining the legal concept.Now, more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision overturning 40 years of judicial precedent and upending statutory construction and enforcement, we must ask, has anything really changed?Dr. Hall will return to examine the changes – or maybe lack of changes – and what we might still expect regarding legal challenges to executive actions.The venerable broadcast will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Adam Brenman, senior regulatory affairs analyst for Zelis, will report on the news happening at the intersection of healthcare and congressional action.

For Part 3e of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from her p. 15 (Roman Numeral II) to her p. 24 at the top (Roman Numeral III) of that Slip Opinion. We go from p. 15 through to the top of her p. 24 stopping at Roman Numeral III of the Slip Opinion (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.15 of that dissent next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

Trump's Deference to Putin and His Unwillingness to Press For a Ceasefire and Sanction Russia If It Refuses Stuns European Leaders | As the UK, France and Canada Condemn Israel's Gaza Offensive and the Starving of Children, Trump Does Not Come To Netanyahu's Defense | A South African Perspective on Trump's Welcoming of Its White "Refugees" backgroundbriefing.org/donate twitter.com/ianmastersmedia bsky.app/profile/ianmastersmedia.bsky.social facebook.com/ianmastersmedia

For Part 3d of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Kagan's dissent continued from her p. 12 to p. 15 (Roman Numeral II) of that Slip Opinion. We go from p. 12 to most of the way through p. 15 stopping at Roman Numeral II of the Slip Opinion (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of Kagan's dissent. We will pick up the rest of p.15 of that dissent next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," former federal prosecutor John O'Connor joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to break down the showdown over the deportation of El Salvador native Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, explain whether illegal aliens have due process rights, and analyze how activist judges' enabling of "court shopping" hurts the judicial system.  If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” former federal prosecutor John O’Connor joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to break down the showdown over the deportation of El Salvador native Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, explain whether illegal aliens have due process rights, and analyze how activist judges’ enabling of “court shopping” hurts the judicial system. […]

Rosa v. Bondi, No. 24-1240 (1st Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)DHS burden to prove alienage by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence; Woodby standardWilkinson v. Att'y Gen. U.S., No. 21-3166 (3d Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship; substantial evidence standard of review; psychological harm without experts Rahman v. Bondi, No. 23-3608 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2025)types of hardship review; Wilkinson; INA § 212(i) waiver; INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(v) waiver; unlawful presence waiver; no adverse credibility review; satisfaction of the Attorney General Dineshkumar Patel v. Bondi, No. 24-3614 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)fear of loan sharks; extortion; nexus; acquiesce; India Gulomjonov v. Bondi, No. 21-2844 (7th Cir. Mar. 14, 2025)material change exception to one year asylum filing deadline; Loper Bright; satisfaction of the attorney general; heightened deference; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii); reasonable time; Catholic converts; Uzbekistan  Singh v. Bondi, No. 23-9589 (10th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)unable or unwilling to protect; reporting to police; State Department reports; Mann party asylum claim; Sikh; IndiaSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books: https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesFeatured in San Diego VoyagerAll praise to the pod's wonderful editors!Luana Lima SerraYasmin LimaDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Even with all the conversations and tools available to us around the subject of hospitality, it is easy to engage in the pursuit of it in a way that ends up not resonating and lacks meaning. We can go through the motions, inspired as we are by the example of others, and not see the magic we assumed would follow our efforts. So, what does running a coffee shop with meaningful hospitality look like?  Today we are going to deep dive into this subject and breakdown for you in detail the areas, levels, and methods for engaging in and cultivating meaningful hospitality both across the bar and behind it.  We cover:  How meaningful hospitality as a lifestyle and conviction. Why aligning business values with operations is crucial Recognizing and rewarding positive actions  How building trust takes time and consistent effort Every interaction should validate the customer's significance. Why protection and accountability is important in meaningful hospitality Where patience and understanding human needs is fit in effective hospitality Understanding individual needs is crucial for effective service Why systems should support the values of the business Consistent application of standards is essential for fairness Mutuality and co-creation enhance the hospitality experience Why emotional metrics are as important as numerical ones Continuous learning is vital for hospitality providers Letting go of outdated practices is necessary for growth This was originally a talk developed for a webinar put on by our coffee friend, Sarah Naylor of Day Break Coffee cart.  See the link below to learn more about what she does!  Link: www.daybreakcoffeecart.com   Related episodes:  430 : Embracing “Unreasonable Hospitality” w/ Will Guidara | Thank You NYC + The Welcome Conference 424: Developing Menu and Hospitality Guides 421: Encore Episode: Simple, Powerful, Hospitality w/ Philip Paul Turner 343 : Founder Friday! “Curated Edition” | Hospitality + Meeting People Where They Are Spiders and Customer Service 271 : Why the Cash Register Controls Everything The Broken Chair The Difference of Deference to your Staff Systems as Care   INTERESTED IN 1:1 CONSULTING AND COACHING? If you are a cafe owner and want to work one on one with me to bring your shop to its next level and help bring you joy and freedom in the process then email  chris@keystothshop.com of book a free call now:  https://calendly.com/chrisdeferio/30min  Want a beautiful coffee shop? All your hard surface, stone, Tile and brick needs!  www.arto.com Visit @artobrick The world loves plant based beverages and baristas love the Barista Series! www.pacificfoodservice.com  

We are off this week for EHG Prime but present you with this EHG Club unlock of EEHG 296: Showing Proper Deference To Star Maidens. We're in the doldrums of mid-May. None of the week's TV premieres lit us with a fire of passion. What better time for Dave to make us all watch Star Maidens, a mid-70s British sci-fi show about a CRAZY planet where women are in charge and men are their bitter servants. What could go wrong? For Ask EHG, we solicited your DUMBEST questions, and you came through with queries about, among others, how our pets would get in trouble if they went to school and which of the three of us would win in an EHG Thunderdome. We bring you some all-new Not Quite Top 11 Lists in lieu of the week's Winner and Loser. Then we close up with Anthobuzz's Extra Credit submission on updating a Rodman's World Tour poker segment for the decade of our choice. Get in the Hypnomat and join us! TOPICS Lead Topic:

For 40 years, federal judges deferred to the expertise of government agencies to interpret ambiguous language in laws. But after a recent Supreme Court decision, that power now lies in the hands of the judiciary.

Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Molly Reynolds, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Bridget Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and Nick Bednar, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School, about the Supreme Court's recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the decades-long Chevron doctrine that required courts to defer to reasonable interpretations of their statutes.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

OA1050 Legal podcaster Charles Star (ALAB, Mic Dicta) joins to share his administrative law expertise as we consider the end of the Chevron doctrine and what comes next. Why is everyone so worked up about the overturning of a ruling reached by a conservative SCOTUS at the behest of Ronald Reagan, Neil Gorsuch's mom, and one of the worst polluters in world history? Why are immigration lawyers (including Matt) quietly celebrating the end of deference to administrative agencies? And how might a lesser-noticed decision from the last day of the Supreme Court's term fuel a new era of challenges to administrative regulations? Chevron v  Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (6/28/24) Corner Post v. Board of Governors (7/1/24) If you'd like to support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A lawsuit filed by members of the fishing industry led the Supreme Court to overturn the Chevron deference. The decision will now limit long-standing government overreach in various industries. Get the facts first on Morning Wire.Birch Gold: Text "WIRE" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation information kit.