Podcasts about district judge matthew kacsmaryk

This Day in Legal History: Vermont Abolishes SlaveryOn July 8, 1777, Vermont made history by becoming the first state to abolish slavery through the formal adoption of its new state constitution. This landmark event occurred during the American Revolutionary War, reflecting the evolving values of liberty and human rights among the colonists. Vermont's constitution, drafted in Windsor, boldly declared that all men are born equally free and independent, explicitly prohibiting slavery. This was a pioneering move, as the nation itself was still grappling with the institution of slavery, which would not be federally abolished until the 13th Amendment in 1865. The framers of Vermont's constitution were influenced by Enlightenment ideals and a commitment to individual freedom. Their decision set a precedent and provided a moral compass for other states and the future United States. Vermont's abolition of slavery marked an early and significant step toward the broader movement for abolition and civil rights in America. This moment in legal history underscores the state's progressive stance and its contribution to the fight for human dignity and equality.Boeing has agreed to plead guilty to criminal fraud conspiracy and pay a $243.6 million fine to settle a U.S. Justice Department investigation into two fatal 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia that killed 346 people. This plea deal, pending judicial approval, marks Boeing as a convicted felon. The settlement has faced criticism from victims' families who demand a trial and stricter penalties. The guilty plea endangers Boeing's eligibility for government contracts but spares the company from a potentially damaging trial. The agreement also mandates Boeing to invest $455 million over three years to enhance safety and compliance, and imposes an independent monitor to oversee these efforts. Additionally, Boeing's board will meet with the victims' families. The DOJ's charges stem from Boeing's false statements to the FAA about the MCAS software linked to the crashes. The deal does not protect Boeing from future investigations or shield its executives. The court will finalize the plea agreement by July 19.Boeing's criminal fraud conspiracy charge revolves around their false representations to the FAA regarding the MCAS software, designed to push the airplane's nose down under specific conditions. This misrepresentation significantly contributed to the crashes, highlighting a grave breach of regulatory trust and aircraft safety protocols.Boeing to plead guilty to fraud in US probe of fatal 737 MAX crashes | ReutersA lawsuit challenging a Biden administration rule that permits socially conscious investing by employee retirement plans will be a significant test for how courts review federal regulations after a recent Supreme Court decision. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the case brought by 25 Republican-led states against the U.S. Department of Labor's 2022 rule, which allows 401(k) and other plans to use environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors as tiebreakers in investment decisions. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk initially upheld the rule based on the Chevron deference doctrine, which the Supreme Court has since overturned, now requiring courts to independently assess agency rules. This change is expected to impact various government regulations.The core issue is whether the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act permits considering non-financial factors in investment decisions. Critics argue that such factors threaten workers' retirement savings. The 5th Circuit, known for its conservative stance, may nullify the rule even without Chevron deference. The outcome will set a precedent for future challenges to federal agency powers and regulations. The case highlights the ongoing debate over the scope of federal agency authority and the influence of judicial interpretation on regulatory policies.Republican challenge to ESG investing rule could showcase risk to US agency powers | ReutersTesla shareholders will appear in court to contest a record-breaking $7 billion legal fee request linked to CEO Elon Musk's $56 billion pay package. This fee, sought by investor Richard Tornetta and his legal team after winning a lawsuit that voided Musk's 2018 stock option pay package, has been called "outlandish" by many Tesla shareholders. Tornetta's attorneys argue they are entitled to 11% of the value returned to Tesla, approximately 266 million shares worth about $67 billion, asserting that this percentage is modest by Delaware legal standards. They seek payment in Tesla shares, equating to $370,000 per hour worked.Tesla and its shareholders argue that the fee is disproportionate and unprecedented, vastly exceeding the current highest shareholder litigation fee of $688 million from an Enron class action. Tesla contends that the fee should be as low as $13.6 million, especially since shareholders recently ratified Musk's pay package, nullifying the supposed benefit of Tornetta's legal victory. The case will be heard by Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick, with a decision expected to take weeks or months. This ruling could set a significant precedent for future shareholder litigation fees.Tesla investors to urge judge to reject record $7 bln legal fee in Musk pay case | ReutersClosing arguments in the corruption trial of Senator Bob Menendez are set to begin after more than seven weeks of testimony. Federal prosecutors allege that Menendez accepted bribes, including cash, gold bars, and payments for mortgages and cars, in exchange for aiding Egypt in securing U.S. military assistance and helping New Jersey businessmen with their legal and business interests. Evidence presented included gold bars and $480,000 in cash found at Menendez's home. Menendez, who has pleaded not guilty to 16 charges including bribery and fraud, is accused of using his wife, Nadine Menendez, as an intermediary for the bribes. Nadine Menendez, also pleading not guilty, will face trial separately in August. The case has significantly impacted Menendez's political career, leading to his resignation as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Despite running for re-election as an independent, his chances are slim.Key testimonies included statements from two New Jersey prosecutors and insurance broker Jose Uribe, who claimed to have bribed Menendez. Uribe testified that Menendez acknowledged helping him avoid state probes. Menendez's defense argued the cash and gold found were related to his wife's activities and their cultural background, citing Menendez's Cuban heritage as a reason for keeping cash at home. Menendez declined to testify. Closing arguments from prosecutors will start in the early afternoon and are expected to continue into Tuesday, followed by the defense's closing arguments.Senator Menendez's corruption trial heads to closing arguments | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. 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 this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

In this episode of our occasional series, Postscript, we focus on the Supreme Court's recently published decisions in two cases, about guns and abortion, but more about how the Executive and Judicial branches of government function in the United States. Constitutional Law scholar (and New Books in Political Science co-host) Susan Liebell takes us through Garland v. Cargill, which focused on the Trump Administration's implementation of a prohibition against bump stocks for rifles following the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2017. Liebell, a published expert on the Second Amendment and the long history of gun regulation in the United States, explains the thrust of the case, which is only tangentially connected to the Second Amendment, but calls into question the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm's (ATF) expertise, particularly in context of the majority opinion's decision that the ATF was not using its administrative power correctly. The majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, may signal the Supreme Court's inclinations towards Chevron deference, which is also before the Court this term in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Liebell, also an expert on abortion access, reproductive health regulation, and citizenship, explains the Court's unanimous decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, focused solely on the question of standing, and whether the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine actually qualified to bring the case since there was no clear injury that had been sustained in the suit they brought before the District Court in Amarillo, Texas. Thus, the drug Mifepristone, which was to be banned nationwide in the initial court ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, was not banned as a result of this lawsuit brought by the Food and Drug Administration. This case, not dissimilar from Garland v. Cargill, focuses on procedural questions more than it focuses on other issues. And the unanimous decision is about that legal procedure, not about the FDA, or the process to through which drugs are brought to market in the United States, or about the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's indictment of the process for prescribing mifepristone. Our conversation threads through these cases, and others (like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and District of Columbia v. Heller) that set the foundation for these cases to come forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the past few years, there's been an explosion of nationwide injunctions coming from single-judge divisions in the federal court system. These judges were handpicked by the people filing these lawsuits.You may have heard of one: U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. With Kacsmaryk's rulings, Texas has been able to dictate federal discrimination guidance for transgender employees and commandeer the Biden administration's immigration policies. He also tried to limit abortion access nationwide, issuing a ruling that would have removed the abortion drug mifepristone from shelves across the country.In Sidebar's seventh episode this season, we bring you the inside baseball of judge shopping. Federal rules govern how many judges are assigned to a court, and when a court has a division with only one judge at the helm, it becomes easier to know who will hear your case.Special guests:Brook Gotberg, law professor at Brigham Young UniversityLaura Coordes, law professor at Arizona State UniversitySteve Vladeck, law professor at the University of Texas at AustinJonas Anderson, law professor at the University of UtahThis episode was produced by Kirk McDaniel. Intro music by The Dead Pens. Editorial staff is Bill Dotinga, Sean Duffy and Jamie Ross.

This Day in Legal History: Cuba Suspended from Organization of American States (OAS)Today, January 22nd, marks a significant date in legal history. On this day in 1962, the Organization of American States (OAS), an international organization founded for the purposes of regional solidarity and cooperation among its member states in the Americas, made a momentous decision regarding Cuba. Following the communist revolution in Cuba led by Fidel Castro, the OAS voted to suspend Cuba from its membership. This action was a reflection of the Cold War tensions that were prevalent during that era, as many member countries of the OAS were aligned with the United States, which opposed communist ideologies.The suspension of Cuba from the OAS was more than a symbolic gesture; it represented a significant diplomatic and political isolation of Cuba in the Western Hemisphere. It was a part of broader efforts by the United States and its allies to limit the spread of communism, particularly in the Americas. The OAS, established in 1948, was seen as a crucial platform for political discourse and policy-making in the region, and Cuba's exclusion meant a significant limitation in its diplomatic reach and influence.However, the political landscape began to shift over the years, and in a historic move, the OAS voted to reinstate Cuba on June 3, 2009. This decision came at a time when international attitudes towards Cuba were thawing, and there was a growing recognition of the need to engage rather than isolate. The vote to reinstate Cuba was seen as a step towards normalizing relations and acknowledged the changing dynamics in international politics.Interestingly, the Cuban government, led by Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, rejected the offer of reinstatement almost immediately. The rejection by Cuba was indicative of the deep-seated mistrust and the residual effects of years of political and ideological conflict. Cuba's response was also a reflection of its desire to maintain its sovereignty and political ideology without perceived interference from other nations, particularly those in the Americas.The events of January 22, 1962, and the subsequent developments in 2009 highlight the complexities of international relations and the ongoing impact of historical events on contemporary politics. They underscore the evolving nature of diplomatic ties and the intricate balance between national sovereignty, ideological beliefs, and international cooperation.The U.S. Supreme Court is set to make a ruling that could limit federal agencies' regulatory powers, significantly influencing a challenge to President Biden's rule on socially conscious investing for employee retirement plans. This challenge, initiated by 26 Republican-led states, focuses on a Department of Labor rule that allows retirement plans to consider environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions. The states have requested the U.S. appeals court to delay its decision on this matter until the Supreme Court's ruling.The Supreme Court's decision revolves around the "Chevron deference," a legal precedent from 1984 that mandates judicial deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous U.S. laws. This doctrine is currently under scrutiny in a case related to overfishing monitoring. Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, overseeing the lawsuit against the ESG investing rule, previously found the Labor Department's interpretation reasonable, allowing plans to consider ESG factors as long as traditional financial considerations remain prioritized.However, the challenging states argue that federal law explicitly requires retirement plans to focus solely on the financial benefit of participants, negating the need for Chevron deference in this case. They suggest that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals should await the Supreme Court's decision on Chevron deference before proceeding.Critics of ESG investing, primarily Republicans, argue that it promotes liberal agendas, potentially harming the financial interests of plan participants or shareholders. The Biden administration, defending the ESG rule, argues for the preservation of Chevron deference, highlighting the necessity for agencies to interpret ambiguous legislation.The ESG rule, established in November 2023, reversed former President Trump's restrictions on considering ESG factors, impacting plans that invest over $12 trillion for more than 150 million people. The Supreme Court's decision on Chevron deference could have far-reaching implications, potentially making it more challenging for federal agencies to defend their rules in court and indicating a broader conservative effort to reduce the powers of the "administrative state." During the Supreme Court's recent arguments, a clear majority opinion on overturning Chevron deference was not evident, with some conservative justices expressing skepticism while others showed reluctance to reverse it.US Supreme Court ruling on agency powers may impact Biden ESG investing rule | ReutersThe Tenth Circuit is currently considering a challenge by Utah to President Joe Biden's re-establishment of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments. Central to this case is the issue of judicial review regarding presidential use of the Antiquities Act for creating large national monuments. Utah, alongside two counties, appealed after their lawsuit was dismissed by Judge David Nuffer of the US District Court for the District of Utah, who ruled that Biden's actions under the Antiquities Act aren't subject to judicial review.The state argues that the vast size of these monuments, collectively covering over 3 million acres, violates the Antiquities Act's requirement for including only the “smallest area compatible” to protect antiquities. This expansion by Biden, which reversed former President Donald Trump's reduction of the monuments in 2017, has been criticized for limiting activities like drilling, mining, and logging.The Biden administration, along with environmental groups and tribes, are advocating for the appeals court to uphold the district court's dismissal of Utah's lawsuit. The Supreme Court's attention to this issue has been hinted at in a 2021 dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted the potentially limitless power of the Antiquities Act.Environmental groups argue that the Supreme Court already settled this issue in 1920, affirming President Theodore Roosevelt's use of the Act to protect the Grand Canyon. They, along with 29 law professors, contend that the challenges to the monuments are baseless and note the historical significance of these areas, dense with cultural artifacts sacred to tribes.The law professors emphasized that the Antiquities Act, which has been used by 18 presidents to establish protected areas, doesn't allow for judicial review and is a crucial piece of public land legislation. They highlight its historical use in creating significant monuments, including Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument and others by recent presidents.The Tenth Circuit's decision on whether Antiquities Act proclamations are reviewable could lead to a remand to the district court for a deeper examination of Utah's claims against the Biden administration. The outcome of this case could impact the future scope and application of the Antiquities Act in the preservation of national monuments.Biden Monument Dispute in Utah to Center on Judicial ReviewThe Florida State Bar recently adopted ethical guidelines for attorneys using artificial intelligence (AI), marking it as one of the first governing bodies to provide such guidance. These guidelines, detailed in an 18-page opinion approved by the bar's board of governors, address various aspects of AI use in legal practice, from reviewing computer-generated work to fee structures and maintaining client confidentiality.The initiative to develop these guidelines stemmed from the bar President Scott Westheimer's focus on addressing the promise and peril of AI in law. An ethics committee identified potential pitfalls of AI to offer general guidance adaptable to the increasing number of AI tools in the legal industry. Brian David Burgoon, Chair of the Board Review Committee on Professional Ethics, emphasized the significance of AI in law, noting both excitement and caution due to its potential to provide a competitive edge to practitioners who use it responsibly.Despite AI being a new technology, the ethical concerns it raises are familiar. The guidance reminds lawyers of the importance of supervising and verifying the work produced by AI, akin to the traditional oversight of law clerks and paralegals. The potential efficiency and effectiveness of AI in legal practice could lead to cost savings for clients and firms. However, the guidelines stress the need for fair pricing, drawing parallels with past rulings on other expenses and overheads.A unique challenge with AI is the risk to client confidentiality, particularly with large language models that might retain and improperly divulge client information. The guidelines advise lawyers to be vigilant and continuously analyze each AI tool's use to ensure adherence to ethical principles.The rapidly evolving nature of AI technology and its growing presence in legal practice underscore the importance of having ethical guidelines. These guidelines aim to help lawyers navigate both the advantageous tools and the potential problems AI can bring to the legal field.AI Guidance From Florida Bar Builds on Familiar Ethics RulesThe $78 billion bipartisan business break and child tax credit bill passed the House Ways and Means Committee with a 40-3 vote, signaling a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress. Despite Republican resistance to more robust child tax credit provisions and a raised state-and-local tax (SALT) deduction cap, both parties recognized the bill as a compromise. The committee's Chair, Jason Smith (R-Mo.), praised the bipartisan vote, highlighting the potential for cross-party collaboration to deliver tax relief.As the bill moves to the House floor, members from both parties expressed a desire for a swift vote, possibly as soon as January 29 when the House returns. However, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has not indicated his support for the bill nor his plans for its presentation in the House. The bill might need to pass under suspension of the rules, which limits amendments and requires a two-thirds supermajority, but regular order could allow for further amendments from both parties.In the Senate, the situation is more complex. While Senate Democrats generally support the plan, Senate Republicans, including Senate Finance Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have remained critical or silent. Some Senate Republicans have concerns about the cost of the child tax credit and the proposed offsets. The bill needs at least 60 votes to pass in the Senate, suggesting possible further amendments to gain Republican support.The timing of the bill's passage is crucial, as the House returns on the same date tax filing begins, January 29. IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel noted the challenges of implementing tax changes so close to the filing season but expressed confidence, as did Richard Neal, in the IRS's ability to adapt. However, National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins warned that changes during the filing season could disrupt the process, potentially delaying refunds and increasing IRS call volumes. Collins advocates for a provision allowing the IRS to adjust credits post-filing to avoid the need for amended returns, addressing an existing backlog issue.What's Next for the Tax Bill? Three Questions After Panel Markup Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's Wednesday, November 8th, A.D. 2023. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Nepalese pastor's year-long prison sentence upheld Last month, the Supreme Court of Nepal upheld a one-year prison sentence for a pastor. Officials charged Pastor Keshab Raj Acharya under the country's anti-conversion law. His wife told Christian Today the government is using the case to set an example and deter Christians in the Hindu-majority country from sharing their faith. The anti-conversion law went into effect in 2018. Since then, Nepali Christians have faced increased persecution, including false accusations and violence. In Matthew 5:11-12, Jesus said, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in Heaven.” Russia withdraws from treaty Russia formally withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe yesterday. In response, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, known as NATO, also pulled out of the Cold War-era security pact. The treaty was meant to keep the Cold War powers from amassing troops near each other's borders. This comes less than a week after Russia also revoked its ratification of a nuclear treaty that banned nuclear weapons tests. This only increases the already high tensions between NATO and Russia since Russia invaded Ukraine last year. Speaker Johnson: We need to secure American border before Ukrainian border Speaking of Ukraine, the U.S. House of Representatives is considering linking aid to Ukraine with increased security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana is the new House Speaker. He told Fox News we have to secure our border first. JOHNSON: “We can do all of these things together. But when you couple Ukraine and the border that makes sense to people because they say, ‘If we're going to protect Ukraine's border, but we have to take care of our own border first.' And that's what we're saying. This is policy changes that are necessary. “There's a growing consensus in the Congress, certainly amongst Republicans, but also even some across the aisle who recognize we have to change what is happening. Over 6.3 million illegal crossings since Joe Biden took office.” The House also approved aid for Israel last week in a plan to reallocate over $14 billion away from the IRS. Christian wins public school religious liberty case A Christian woman who was a public school student in Chicago won a $150,000 settlement last month in a religious liberty case. Back in February, Mariyah Green sued the Chicago Board of Education for a Quiet Time program that was implemented at her school during the 2018-2019 school year. The program, known as Transcendental Meditation, was originally developed by a Hindu. Green said the school expected her to chant a mantra and honor Hindu deities as part of the program.  Despite what she believed to be an attack on her faith, Green told The Christian Post she hopes God continues to use her to "spread the Gospel and also to help people.” Texas vs. Planned Parenthood The state of Texas is taking Planned Parenthood to court in a $1.8 billion fraud case. Texas accuses the abortion giant of fraudulently obtaining state Medicaid funds. Texas terminated Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider back in 2021. The judge in the case is U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. He was appointed by President Donald Trump. Kacsmaryk is also the judge who ruled back in April against the FDA's approval of the Abortion Kill Pill.  Fifty-three percent of mothers who abort their unborn babies due so chemically. 37% of Americans think we did not evolve A new poll from Suffolk University/USA TODAY asked people across America what they believe about evolution. Twenty-nine percent of respondents said humans evolved into their present form without divine intervention; 24% said humans evolved but under God's direction; and 37% said humans did not evolve but were created in their present form by God. Belief in creation by God without evolution was strongest among Republicans, older people, and people with no more than a high school degree.  Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Franklin Graham preached in Rome, Italy And finally, nearly 20,000 people attended an outreach event in Rome, Italy this week led by Evangelist Franklin Graham with the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. It was the largest evangelical outreach event in Italy's history. Before the event, Graham said, “Rome is filled with centuries of history, culture and religion, but I'm not coming to talk about these things. I'm coming to Rome to share how we can all have a real and personal relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ.” GRAHAM: “Will you invite Christ to come into your life? If you've never done that, if you're here tonight and you're not sure that your sins are forgiven, you can make sure right now. You're not coming to Franklin Graham.  I cannot save you. You're coming to Jesus Christ. So come!” This week also marks the birthday of Franklin's father, Billy Graham. He was born on November 7, 1918 in Charlotte, North Carolina. The evangelist preached to some 215 million people across 185 countries and territories in his life. Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Wednesday, November 8th in the year of our Lord 2023. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

The demise of the constitutional right to privacy, conservatives' attacks on birth control, and Jess and Imani's ol' pal U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. What do these things all have in common?The case Deanda v. Becerra—about whether teens can get birth control from federally funded health centers without their parents' consent. Kacsmaryk, a Trump judge, has ruled that teens can't despite Title X regulations saying they can.Jess and Imani get into why the case is such a big deal, what might happen if the case reaches the Supreme Court, and more.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

The demise of the constitutional right to privacy, conservatives' attacks on birth control, and Jess and Imani's ol' pal U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. What do these things all have in common?The case Deanda v. Becerra—about whether teens can get birth control from federally funded health centers without their parents' consent. Kacsmaryk, a Trump judge, has ruled that teens can't despite Title X regulations saying they can.Jess and Imani get into why the case is such a big deal, what might happen if the case reaches the Supreme Court, and more.Rewire News Group is a nonprofit media organization, which means Boom! Lawyered is only made possible with the support of listeners like you! If you can, please join our team by donating here.And sign up for The Fallout, a weekly newsletter written by Jess that's exclusively dedicated to covering every aspect of this unprecedented moment.

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court ruling. The stay ensures that, for now, the abortion pill mifepristone will remain widely available. Mifepristone was first approved as safe and effective for ending pregnancies more than 20 years ago. But earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal judge in Texas appointed by former President Donald Trump, suspended the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit challenged part of Kacsmaryk's ruling – leaving mifepristone legal, but making it harder to access. Friday's decision by the Supreme Court halted those 5th Circuit Court restrictions and reestablished the status quo. But the decision is temporary.  This is the first time the Supreme Court has taken action on abortion since overturning Roe v. Wade last year. But, because this was an emergency decision and not a full case, the Court did not provide reasoning, noting only that Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. For more on this, we spoke with Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the Crooked Media podcast Strict Scrutiny.

It's Monday, April 24th, A.D. 2023. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus. By Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com) Libya detained and deported two Christian teachers Two American school teachers, accused of being “missionaries inviting Muslim Libyans to convert to Christianity,” were detained and deported to Tunisia last week by the Libyan Internal Security Agency in Tripoli, reports International Christian Concern. In Romans 10:14, the Apostle Paul asks, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” In addition, two Libyan Christians, associated with the American Christian teachers, were arrested and condemned for apostasy. They admitted that they urged people to renounce Islam and convert to Christianity. Such arrests have been common in Libya for years, with Gaddafi-era laws still in place prohibiting Christian proselytizing and the distribution or publication of Christian literature. Conversion from Islam for a Libyan can carry the death penalty in regions of the country governed by Sharia Law. Any attempt by the foreign Christian population in the country to lead Libyans out of Islam is widely considered a threat to “national security and societal structures.” According to Open Doors, Libya is the fifth most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Supreme Court temporarily keeps Abortion Kill Pill legal Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to temporarily preserve access to the Abortion Kill Pill as a lawsuit against the drug works its way through the federal court system, reports LifeSiteNews.com. The pro-abortion ruling, which was not explained, was decided in a 7-2 vote, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito as the dissenting voices. The case reached the nation's highest court after U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas issued an order suspending the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's approval of the Abortion Kill Pill, mifepristone, finding the agency did not adequately investigate its long-term effects. The same day, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice ruled in Spokane, Washington that it should remain on the market in 15 states and the District of Columbia. The Biden administration challenged the April 7th ban on the Abortion Kill Pill. Despite widespread accessibility, evidence shows that the Abortion Kill Pill carries specific risks for the mothers who take it (on top of being lethal to their preborn children), especially when the standards for taking them continue to be relaxed. Google CEO earned $226 million The pay package awarded to Google CEO Sundar Pichai soared to $226 million in 2022, boosted by a triennial stock grant, making him one of the world's highest-paid corporate leaders, reports Yahoo Finance. The stock award portion of his pay amounted to $218 million, according to a Friday filing from Alphabet, the Google parent company. He received a total of $6.3 million in compensation in 2021. In January, Google started cutting 12,000 jobs, or 6% of its global workforce, following months of other measures to reduce spending and set new priorities. The median total compensation for Alphabet employees was $279,802 in 2022. Senator Tim Scott announced presidential exploratory committee On April 12th, Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, the only Black Republican Senator, announced Wednesday that he has launched an exploratory committee for a potential 2024 presidential bid. He made the announcement in a video, saying he would "never back down in defense of the conservative values that make America exceptional.” Citing the first shots of the Civil War on April 12, 1861, Scott asserted that America is being torn apart today like it was back then. SCOTT: “Joe Biden and the radical Left have chosen a culture of grievance over greatness. They're promoting victimhood instead of personal responsibility. And they're indoctrinating our children to believe we live in an evil country. And all too often, when they get called out for their failures, they weaponized race to divide us, to hold on to their power. “When I fought back against their liberal agenda, they called me a ‘prop,' a ‘token,' because I disrupt their narrative. I threatened their control. They know the truth of my life disproves their lies. “See, I was raised by a single mother in poverty. The spoons in our apartment were plastic, not silver. But we had faith, we put in the work, and we had an unwavering belief that we, too, could live the American dream. I know America is a land of opportunity, not a land of oppression. I know it because I've lived it.” Christians to witness at largest Satanic Convention And finally, SatanCon 2023 is fast approaching.    Christian intercessors from across America say they feel led by God to travel to Boston to witness to the thousands of Satanists who will be in attendance for what has been billed as the "largest satanic gathering in history," reports The Christian Post. The gathering, scheduled to take place in downtown Boston on April 28-30, is being touted as "Hexennacht in Boston," a German phrase that means "Witches Night in Boston." The regional leaders in Boston for Intercessors For America  — Scottish sisters Suzie and Lynn MacAskill — say hundreds of believers from several denominations will come together in unity, to pray for revival to break out amongst the attendees in Jesus' name. The Satanists should heed the same call issued by John the Baptist in Matthew 3:2. “Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” SatanCon 2023 is the Satanic temple's 10-year anniversary, according to its website, and will feature discussion panels, satanic rituals, entertainment, a satanic wedding chapel and a demonic marketplace. The website pegs the event as "a weekend of blasphemy and remembrance in Boston."  Close And that's The Worldview in 5 Minutes on this Monday, April 24th  in the year of our Lord 2023. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court ruling. The stay ensures that, for now, the abortion pill mifepristone will remain widely available. Mifepristone was first approved as safe and effective for ending pregnancies more than 20 years ago. But earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a federal judge in Texas appointed by former President Donald Trump, suspended the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit challenged part of Kacsmaryk's ruling – leaving mifepristone legal, but making it harder to access. Friday's decision by the Supreme Court halted those 5th Circuit Court restrictions and reestablished the status quo. But the decision is temporary.  This is the first time the Supreme Court has taken action on abortion since overturning Roe v. Wade last year. But, because this was an emergency decision and not a full case, the Court did not provide reasoning, noting only that Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. For more on this, we spoke with Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School and co-host of the Crooked Media podcast Strict Scrutiny.

The Supreme Court blocked in full a decision by Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk made on April 7 that invalidated the Food and Drug Administration's longtime approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented from the decision. While the Supreme Court has upheld access to mifepristone temporarily, the issue of abortion is still a losing one for Republicans, politics experts say. Joy Reid and her guests discuss this breaking news and more on The ReidOut on MSNBC.

Earlier this month, a Texas judge issued a contentious decision about a drug named Mifepristone, widely used as an abortion pill and a medication to aid treatment of people who suffer miscarriages. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointee with documented anti-abortion views, ruled to suspend use of the drug across the entire country, saying that the Food and Drug Administration didn't properly vet the drug when it was cleared for market over twenty years ago.  The FDA has spent quite a bit of time in the national limelight the past few years, largely due to the pandemic. But despite its occupation of headlines, the FDA's history–and at times contentious relationship with the government that created it–aren't always as widely covered. This week, Brooke sits down with Daniel Carpenter, the Allie S. Freed Professor of Government at Harvard University and author of the book, “Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA,” to talk about the agency's origins and complicated task in the face of our modern political arena. 

Earlier this month, a Texas judge issued a contentious decision about a drug named Mifepristone, widely used as an abortion pill and a medication to aid treatment of people who suffer miscarriages. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointee with documented anti-abortion views, ruled to suspend use of the drug across the entire country, saying that the Food and Drug Administration didn't properly vet the drug when it was cleared for market over twenty years ago.  The FDA has spent quite a bit of time in the national limelight the past few years, largely due to the pandemic. But despite its occupation of headlines, the FDA's history–and at times contentious relationship with the government that created it–aren't always as widely covered. This week, Brooke sits down with Daniel Carpenter, the Allie S. Freed Professor of Government at Harvard University and author of the book, “Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA,” to talk about the agency's origins and complicated task in the face of our modern political arena. 

 The Supreme Court said Friday it was temporarily keeping in place federal rules for use of an abortion drug, while it takes time to more fully consider the issues raised in a court challenge. In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the court put a five-day pause on the fast-moving case so the justices can decide whether lower court rulings restricting the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the drug, mifepristone, should be allowed to take effect in the short term. The justices are being asked at this point only to determine what parts of an April 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, as modified by an appellate ruling Wednesday, can be in force while the case continues. The order expires late Wednesday, suggesting the court will decide that issue by then. The court finds itself immersed in a new fight involving abortion less than a year after conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright. President Joe Biden's administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, the maker of the pill, asked the justices to intervene. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Friday evening that the administration continues “to stand by FDA's evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and we will continue to support the FDA's independent, expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs.” READ MORE: https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/supreme-court-abortion-pill-rules/507-d6394128-e064-42ff-86fd-48800fc6d3c1 Watch Wake Up Charlotte each weekday morning from 4:30 to 7 a.m. on WCNC Charlotte, and as always, join the conversation on social media using #WakeUpCLT! 

 The Supreme Court said Friday it was temporarily keeping in place federal rules for use of an abortion drug, while it takes time to more fully consider the issues raised in a court challenge.In an order signed by Justice Samuel Alito, the court put a five-day pause on the fast-moving case so the justices can decide whether lower court rulings restricting the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the drug, mifepristone, should be allowed to take effect in the short term.The justices are being asked at this point only to determine what parts of an April 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, as modified by an appellate ruling Wednesday, can be in force while the case continues. The order expires late Wednesday, suggesting the court will decide that issue by then.The court finds itself immersed in a new fight involving abortion less than a year after conservative justices reversed Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.President Joe Biden's administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, the maker of the pill, asked the justices to intervene.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement Friday evening that the administration continues “to stand by FDA's evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and we will continue to support the FDA's independent, expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs.”READ MORE: https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/supreme-court-abortion-pill-rules/507-d6394128-e064-42ff-86fd-48800fc6d3c1Watch Wake Up Charlotte each weekday morning from 4:30 to 7 a.m. on WCNC Charlotte, and as always, join the conversation on social media using #WakeUpCLT! 

In a nation of complicated legal machinations, the mifepristone situation is especially complicated. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk last week suspended a number of laws regulating the popular and widely-used abortion drug mifepristone. Kacsmaryk's ruling affected both the Food and Drug Administration's original 2000 approval of mifepristone as well as subsequent updates to laws regulating the drug from 2016 and 2019. Multiple appeals to Kacsmaryk's ruling followed, and late this week the Supreme Court issued an administrative stay on the lower court's ruling in the aftermath of a formal request from the Justice Department to block the new restrictions to the drug. Limiting access to mifepristone would have far-reaching implications of the ability of the FDA to approve other drugs, and to further complicate the situation, a ruling out of Washington was issued that could potentially limit Kacsmaryk's decision. As the story develops in real time, Jessica updates you on the current state of the law surrounding mifepristone, as well as how we got here and where the law is going.

In the run-up to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade, several Republican-led state legislatures passed bills that effectively banned abortions at pre-viability gestational ages, undermining the right to abortion once protected by Roe v. Wade. At the time, many abortion advocates, including CUNY Graduate Center alumna Brenna McCaffrey,Ph.D. '22, (Anthropology), said that abortion medication pills sent via the U.S. mail constituted a viable option for women living in states that restricted abortion access. Last week, however, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by antiabortion groups and doctors against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which aimed to invalidate the FDA's approval of mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medical abortions. The Department of Justice has appealed Kacsmaryk's decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. McCaffrey joins The Thought Project to discuss the prospects for medical abortions in light of present politics. She is currently writing a book on the history and cultural impact of abortion pills on global reproductive politic. See: Women on the Web to access abortion medication.

On Friday, mifepristone, the most commonly used method of abortion in the United States, was thrown into legal ambiguity after conflicting court rulings from two federal judges. In Texas, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk suspended federal approval of the drug, which first cleared the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000. Less than an hour later, U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice, an Obama appointee in eastern Washington, released a nearly opposite order, related to a separate lawsuit, directing the FDA not to make any changes in the availability of the drug in 17 states where Democrats are suing to protect its use. You can read today's podcast here, today's “Under the Radar” story here, and today's “Have a nice day” story here. Today's clickables: Quick hits (2:15), Today's story (4:20), Right's take (8:50), Left's take (12:55), Isaac's take (16:55), Listener question (20:54), Under the Radar (21:08), Numbers (21:48), Have a nice day (22:29) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/support

Today we're talking about a few stories related to abortion. First, NPR published a story about a Texas mom who couldn't abort her baby (who was diagnosed with a fatal disorder) due to Texas' abortion law, hoping to provoke sympathy for women who have to bring their pregnancies to term. Now the mother has claimed she cannot afford a funeral for the baby, who passed shortly after her birth. NPR appears to argue that it would have been better for the baby to have been dismembered than to be born and need a funeral. We explain why this ignores the absolute trauma of abortion, as well as the beautiful moment this baby got to see the face of her mother before she died. Then, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a ruling which could stop the prescribing and distribution of mifepristone, one of two drugs used to perform abortions via pill, due to the FDA's flawed approval process. The opinion now waits for appeals from the Biden administration, but we discuss why this is a great win and could mean huge difficulties for getting abortions nationwide (as about half of abortions in the country are performed via pill). We also take a look at some of the drug's shady connections and why we should all be questioning its origins. We also offer some encouragement to be bold and stop looking for the approval of man when we face criticism for our faith. --- Timecodes: (00:40) Intro (03:05) Encouragement (12:50) NPR article on mom who couldn't get an abortion (28:06) Judge halts abortion pill (38:30) Leftist responses (50:35) Scary origins of abortion pill --- Today's Sponsors: Cozy Earth — go to CozyEarth.com/ALLIE and use promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout to save 35% off your order! ExpressVPN — have more anonymity online. Go to ExpressVPN.com/ALLIE and get three extra months FREE. My Patriot Supply — prepare yourself for anything with long-term emergency food storage. Get $200 of survival gear when you buy a Three-Month Emergency Food Kit when you go to MyPatriotSupply.com. Bambee — You run your business. Let Bambee run your HR. Go to bambee.com and type in "RELATABLE" at checkout. --- Links: NPR: "A Good Friday funeral in Texas. Baby Halo's parents had few choices in post-Roe Texas" https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/06/1168399423/a-good-friday-funeral-in-texas-baby-halos-parents-had-few-choices-in-post-roe-te National Review: "Judge Suspends FDA Approval of Abortion Pill Mifepristone" https://www.nationalreview.com/news/judge-suspends-fda-approval-of-abortion-pill-mifepristone/ U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's ruling: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.137.0_11.pdf --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 784 | Did the Resurrection Really Happen? | Guest: Jeremiah Johnston https://apple.co/3mhbun9 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Chinese military is simulating attacks on “key targets” in Taiwan following Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen's trip to the United States last week. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk moved to suspend the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Daniel Perry, who shot and killed Garrett Foster who was carrying an AK-47 at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020, was found guilty of murder but not guilty of aggravated assault by a jury in Texas. Alexander Soros, son of billionaire leftist megadonor George Soros and current chair of the Open Society Foundation, has visited the White House 14 times since October 2021. But I'm sure that's just an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Riley Gaines, a top collegiate swimmer, was assaulted and held hostage after speaking at San Francisco State University, not a single person was arrested, and now, SFSU is praising those who attacked Gaines. Republican Tennessee State Representative Jody Barrett released a statement “explaining” why he did not vote to expel Glorida Johnson while he did vote to kick Justin Johnson and Justin Pearson out of the House. It seems, incomplete, at best.Get your 4Patriots Survival Food kit today and use code Tapp at check out to save 10% on your first-time order.2nd Skull Beanstox

The Chinese military is simulating attacks on “key targets” in Taiwan following Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen's trip to the United States last week. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk moved to suspend the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Daniel Perry, who shot and killed Garrett Foster who was carrying an AK-47 at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020, was found guilty of murder but not guilty of aggravated assault by a jury in Texas. Alexander Soros, son of billionaire leftist megadonor George Soros and current chair of the Open Society Foundation, has visited the White House 14 times since October 2021. But I'm sure that's just an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Riley Gaines, a top collegiate swimmer, was assaulted and held hostage after speaking at San Francisco State University, not a single person was arrested, and now, SFSU is praising those who attacked Gaines. Republican Tennessee State Representative Jody Barrett released a statement “explaining” why he did not vote to expel Glorida Johnson while he did vote to kick Justin Johnson and Justin Pearson out of the House. It seems, incomplete, at best. Get your 4Patriots Survival Food kit today and use code Tapp at check out to save 10% on your first-time order. 2nd Skull Beanstox

Many at the forefront of the abortion access movement(s) predicted the overturn of Roe v. Wade would be the tip of the iceberg on legislation curbing bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom -- and they were right. In March 2023, Texas U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk appeared sympathetic to arguments from the anti-abortion coalition the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in a case that is attempting to overturn the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone - one of two pills used for a medical abortion, which accounts for over half of U.S. abortions. In this bonus episode, you'll hear from Plan C Pills co-founder Elisa Wells, Imani Wilson Shabazz, and Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, CEO of Power to Decide about how safe the abortion pills are and how to access abortion pills regardless of what happens with the current lawsuit. Finally, you'll go on a journey with a young woman in Alabama who receives her first abortion pill from Dr. Diane Horvath on her last trip to Alabama to perform abortions before the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Special thanks to Dr. Diane Horvath from Partners in Abortion Care, Elisa Wells and Imani Wilson Shabazz from Plan C Pills, Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, CEO of Power to Decide, and all those who shared their stories with us. Go to plancpills.org to learn how to access abortion pills. If you live in a restrictive state, go to AidAccess.org. Need help funding your abortion? Check out the National Network of Abortion Funds and the Abortion Freedom Fund. Need advice or have questions about a miscarriage or abortion? Go to M+A Hotline. Have legal questions? Go Repro Legal Helpline. Access trusted abortion care information at AbortionFinder.org and reproductive health information at Bedsider.org. This podcast is brought to you by Population Media Center. Executive Producers are Lisa Caruso and Alex Demyanenko, with Co-Producer Kathleen Bedoya and Associate Producer Dominica Ruelas. Charity Tooze produced this bonus episode. The script was written by Lynn Hughes and edited by Bruno Falcon, with production services provided by Pidge Productions. Charity Tooze leads impact strategy. Tatiana St. Phard reads the narration. The original music is composed by Valeri Ortiz.

In the patchwork quilt that is America post- Roe, chemical abortion is becoming the new battleground in the states. We discuss the new laws emerging on either side of the abortion pill issue, the looming decision of a Texas federal judge on whether to suspend the FDA's approval of mifepristone, and how a group of hobby pilots are fly abortion patients out of states with bans. Plus, we discuss the new study showing hormonal birth control elevates the risk of breast cancer.  Topics Discussed:Elevated Access & the hobby pilots flying women out of state for abortionsWyoming becomes first state to ban abortion pillsCA bill seeks to protect doctors who mail abortion pills to other statesThe looming decision of a Texas federal judge on whether to suspend the FDA's approval of mifepristoneNew study shows hormonal birth control elevates the risk of breast cancerIntroducing a new segment Links Mentioned:Small Planes and Secrecy: Pilots Fly People to Kansas and Other States For Abortions - KMUW NewsWyoming Becomes First State To Ban Abortion Pills - Detroit CatholicCA Bill Would Protect Doctors Who Mail Abortion Pills To Other States - AxiosBill SB-345 Health care servicesThe Abortion Mecca - Life Dynamics BlogAbortion Pill Ruling Looms Over FDA's Drug Approval Process - AxiosAll Hormonal Contraceptives ‘Carry Small Increased Risk Of Breast Cancer' - The GuardianStudy Finds Same Small Rise In Breast Cancer Risk In Many Forms Of Hormonal Birth Control - Stat NewsCombined and Progestagen-Only Hormonal Contraceptives and Breast Cancer Risk: A UK Nested Case–Control Study and Meta-Analysis - PLOS MedicinePro-Life America Podcast Episode 41: Birth Control – What They're Not Telling YouLime 5 - By Mark CrutcherRate & Review Our Podcast Have a topic you want to see discussed on the show? [Submit it here.]To learn more about what Life Dynamics does, visit: https://lifedynamics.com/about-us/Support Our Work

Today on Post Reports, we take you to an abortion hearing in Amarillo, Tex., that the judge didn't want you to know was coming. Read more:In a four-hour hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk heard arguments in a lawsuit that could restrict access nationwide to the abortion medication mifepristone. The lawsuit alleges that the medication is unsafe, despite being approved and highly regulated by the FDA for decades. However, many antiabortion activists are hopeful that Kacsmaryk will rule against the FDA, because of his strong religious beliefs and previous support of antiabortion organizations. National political reporter Caroline Kitchener was inside the courtroom for the hearing and explains what she heard and what the implications of the ruling could be.

In Texas on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk seemed to be open to overturning the FDA's approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs involved in medication abortion. Plus, the tech industry implodes and advances all at once. Guests: Axios' Oriana González and Scott Rosenberg. Credits: Axios Today is produced by Niala Boodhoo, Alexandra Botti, Naomi Shavin, Lydia McMullen-Laird, Fonda Mwangi and Ben O'Brien. Music is composed by Evan Viola. You can reach us at podcasts@axios.com. You can text questions, comments and story ideas to Niala as a text or voice memo to 202-918-4893. Go Deeper: Abortion pill ruling could create a tempest for FDA's drug approval process OpenAI releases major new chatbot engine Meta to cut 10,000 more jobs, eliminate 5,000 openings Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a former religious liberty lawyer, found that a federal program that gives teens access to birth control denies a parent “a fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children.”

Russia fired missiles into Poland killing two people and sparking fears of what kind of response the incident could elicit from NATO. Biden says that the economy is "strong as hell" but Amazon and FedEx plan on dismissing workers ahead of the holiday season, which is typically a busy time for companies involved in the sale and transportation of consumer goods. Oregon voters have approved Measure 111 making Oregon the first state in the nation to add the "right to affordable health care" to its state constitution. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has ruled against the Biden administration's extension of the Affordable Care Act's discrimination provisions to include gay and trans-identified people.My Patriot Supply: https://bit.ly/3Q7J7kBPatriot Depot: https://patriotdepot.com?aff=44Hero Soap: https://hero-soap-company.myshopify.com?sca_ref=255101.zYrcEywRs5

Russia fired missiles into Poland killing two people and sparking fears of what kind of response the incident could elicit from NATO. Biden says that the economy is "strong as hell" but Amazon and FedEx plan on dismissing workers ahead of the holiday season, which is typically a busy time for companies involved in the sale and transportation of consumer goods. Oregon voters have approved Measure 111 making Oregon the first state in the nation to add the "right to affordable health care" to its state constitution. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has ruled against the Biden administration's extension of the Affordable Care Act's discrimination provisions to include gay and trans-identified people. My Patriot Supply: https://bit.ly/3Q7J7kB Patriot Depot: https://patriotdepot.com?aff=44 Hero Soap: https://hero-soap-company.myshopify.com?sca_ref=255101.zYrcEywRs5

-- On the Show:-- Producer Pat Ford fills in for David-- Republicans are calling for the arrest of Joe Biden for any reason they can come up with as a way to get revenge for Donald Trump's indictment-- Donald Trump is crushing Ron DeSantis in the latest poll from Reuters/Ipsos, 58% to 21%-- Republicans in the Tennessee state legislature oust two Democratic representatives, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, for breaking the rules of decorum during a protest against gun violence-- Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez calls for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over his latest corruption scandal-- Job creation is finally slowing down, with 236,000 jobs added last month as the Federal Reserve continues to fight inflation-- Right-wing U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issues a nationwide injunction pausing the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone-- North Dakota lawmakers approve expanding free lunches for themselves, but not for K-12 students in the state-- There's no evidence to suggest the phrase "get woke go broke" is actually true-- Donald Trump is considering hiring right-wing lunatic Laura Loomer to his 2024 campaign staff-- On the Bonus Show: Biden says he plans to run in 2024, Bret Baier ignored at Fox News, more Republicans want to bomb Mexico to stop fentanyl, and much more...